Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Analysis of myositis autoantibodies in Chinese patients with cancer‐associated myositis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Analysis of myositis autoantibodies in Chinese patients with cancer‐associated myositis
Do you wish to request the book?
Analysis of myositis autoantibodies in Chinese patients with cancer‐associated myositis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Analysis of myositis autoantibodies in Chinese patients with cancer‐associated myositis
2020
Overview
Background Cancer‐associated myositis (CAM) has poor prognosis and causes higher mortality. In general, myositis‐specific autoantibodies (MSAs) and myositis‐associated autoantibodies (MAAs) have been shown to be useful biomarkers for its diagnosis. Methods In the present study, focus was given in assessing the presence, prevalence, and diagnostic values of myositis autoantibodies in Chinese patients diagnosed with CAM. The sera collected from 49 CAM patients, 108 dermatomyositis/polymyositis (DM/PM) patients without cancer, 105 disease controls, and 60 healthy controls were detected for the presence of 16 autoantigens (Jo‐1, OJ, EJ, PL‐7, PL‐12, MDA5, TIF1γ, Mi‐2α, Mi‐2β, SAE1, NXP2, SRP, Ku, PM‐Scl75, PM‐Scl100, and Ro‐52) using a commercial Euroline assay. Results The frequency of anti‐TIF1γ was significantly higher in CAM patients than in DM/PM patients without cancer (46.9% vs 14.8%, P < .001). Importantly, the sensitivity and specificity for this MSA were 46.9% and 85.2%, respectively. These helped to differentiate CAM patients from DM/PM patients without cancer. However, there was no difference in other MSAs and MAAs between CAM and DM/PM patients without cancer. Conclusion The present study indicates that anti‐TIF1γ levels can serve as important biomarkers for CAM diagnosis and help in distinguishing between CAM and DM/PM patients without cancer.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc,John Wiley and Sons Inc
Subject
We currently cannot retrieve any items related to this title. Kindly check back at a later time.