摘要
目的通过Meta分析评价人附睾蛋白4（HFA）、HFA／糖类抗原125（CA125）并联检测对人卵巢癌的诊断价值。方法通过检索Pubmed、Embase和中国知网期刊数据库（CNKI）等，获得有关以血清HE4、HE4／CA125并联检测诊断卵巢癌的文献。由2位研究者按照纳入与排除标准独立选择文献、提取资料和评价质量后，采用Meta-Discl．4进行Meta分析，绘制综合受试者操作特性（SROC）曲线，并计算曲线下面积（AUC）。采用z检验对HFA、HFA／CA125并联检测的AUC进行比较；运用Stata11．0软件，选用Egger法进行发表偏倚检测。结果共纳入14篇文献，对照组可分为健康对照组和良性疾病组。健康对照组HE4、HFA／CA125并联检测诊断卵巢癌的AUC分别为0．9502±0．0137、0．9588±0．0113，差异无统计学意义（Z=0．484，P〉0．05）。良性疾病组存在异质性，cut-off值是引起异质性的原因。HE4、HFA／CA125并联检测诊断卵巢癌的AUC分别为0．9153±0．0095、0．9323±0．0082，差异无统计学意义（Z=1．350，P〉0．05）。设置cut-off值为150pmol／L的亚组，HE4、HE4／CA125并联检测诊断卵巢癌的AUC分别为0．9032±0．0174、0．9267±0．0176，差异无统计学意义（Z=0．950，P〉0．05）。结论血清HE4、HFA／CA125并联检测对于卵巢癌的临床诊断均具有较高的曲线下面积，HFA检测具有较高的特异度，而HE4／CA125并联检测则具有较高的敏感度，但两者对卵巢癌的诊断价值差异无统计学意义。（手华捡验医学杂志，2013，36：72—76）
Objective To evaluate the diagnostic value of Human Epididymal Protein 4 （HE4） and HE4/Cancer Antigen 125 （CA125 ） parallel detection for ovarian cancer by meta-analysis. Methods The databases, such as Pubmed, Embase and China National Knowledge Infrastructure （CNKI） , were employed to search for the studies related to diagnostic value of HFA and HFA/CA125 parallel detection for ovarian cancer. The screening, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria by two reviewers independently. The software Meta-disc 1.4 was used to perform meta-analysis and draw the forest plots and the Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic （SROC） curves. The AUCs of HFA, HFA/CA125 parallel detection were detected by Z test. The Egger＇s regression test was applied to evaluate the publication bias by Statal 1.0. Results A total of 14 studies with benign control and/or healthy control were included. In the studies with healthy control. The AUCs of HE4, HE4/CA125 parallel detection were 0. 9502 ± 0. 0137 and 0. 9588 ± 0. 0113 respectively, but there was no significant difference between them （Z = 0. 484 ,P 〉 0.05 ） ;In the studies with benign control. The value of cutoff was the most important cause of heterogeneity. The AUCs of HE4, HFA/CA125 parallel detection were 0. 9153 ± 0. 0095 and 0. 9323 ±0. 0082 respectively, but with no significant difference （ Z = 1. 350, P 〉 0. 05 ）. In the subgroup with cut-off value divided by 150 pmol/L, the AUCs of HE4, HE4/CA125 parallel detection were 0. 9032±0. 0174 and 0. 9267 ± 0. 0176 respectively, but there was no significant difference between them （Z =0. 950,P 〉0. 05）. Conclusions Both HE4 and HE4/CA125 parallel detection had meaningful values for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. The detection of HE4 had a higher specificity, while the HE4/CA125 parallel detection had a higher sensitivity. But there was no statistical difference between them in diagnosisvalue of ovarian cancer. （Chin J Lab Med,2013,36： 72-76）
出处
《中华检验医学杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2013年第1期72-76,共5页
Chinese Journal of Laboratory Medicine
