切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版)

中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版) ›› 2019, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (03) : 268 -274. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2019.03.006

所属专题： 文献；

论著

血小板与淋巴细胞比值对卵巢癌患者国际妇产科联盟临床分期的预测价值
唐英1, 李均1, 胡辉权1,†(), 徐凡1, 陈明星2   
  1. 1. 南充市中心医院妇科，四川　637000
    2. 川北医学院，四川南充　637000
  • 收稿日期:2019-01-08 修回日期:2019-05-04 出版日期:2019-06-01
  • 通信作者: 胡辉权

Predictive value of plate-to-lymphocyte ratio for International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology staging of ovarian cancer patients

Ying Tang1, Jun Li1, Huiquan Hu1,†(), Fan Xu1, Mingxing Chen2   

  1. 1. Department of Gynecology, Nanchong Central Hospital, Nanchong 637000, Sichuan Province, China
    2. North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong 637000, Sichuan Province, China
  • Received:2019-01-08 Revised:2019-05-04 Published:2019-06-01
  • Corresponding author: Huiquan Hu
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Hu Huiquan, Email:
  • Supported by:
    Science & Technology Pillar Program by Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province(2015JY0056); Project of Bureau of Science & Technology and Intellectual Property Nanchong City(17YFZJ0005, 18YFZJ0012)
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

唐英, 李均, 胡辉权, 徐凡, 陈明星. 血小板与淋巴细胞比值对卵巢癌患者国际妇产科联盟临床分期的预测价值[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2019, 15(03): 268-274.

Ying Tang, Jun Li, Huiquan Hu, Fan Xu, Mingxing Chen. Predictive value of plate-to-lymphocyte ratio for International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology staging of ovarian cancer patients[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2019, 15(03): 268-274.

目的

探讨血小板与淋巴细胞比值(PLR)对卵巢癌患者国际妇产科联盟(FIGO)临床分期的预测价值。

方法

选择2005年1月至2017年1月，于南充市中心医院就诊的225例初治卵巢癌患者为研究对象。采取回顾性分析方法，根据FIGO分期，将其分为早期卵巢癌组(n＝85，FIGO分期为Ⅰ～Ⅱ期)和晚期卵巢癌组(n＝140，FIGO分期为Ⅲ～Ⅳ期)。采用Wilcoxon秩和检验，对2组患者的年龄、人体质量指数(BMI)、白细胞计数、血红蛋白(Hb)水平、PLR和中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值(NLR)进行统计学分析。采用χ2检验，对2组患者的组织病理学类型、合并恶性腹水患者所占比例、血清CA125水平>35 U/mL所占比例等进行统计学分析。绘制受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线，对PLR预测卵巢癌患者FIGO分期进行分析，并计算ROC曲线下面积(ROC-AUC)。采用多因素非条件logistic回归分析，判断PLR预测卵巢癌患者FIGO临床分期的准确性。本研究遵循的程序符合2013年修订的《世界医学协会赫尔辛基宣言》要求。

结果

①2组患者的年龄、BMI、Hb水平和白细胞计数比较，差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)；而其组织病理学类型、是否合并恶性腹水、血清CA125水平>35 U/mL、PLR和NLR比较，则差异均有统计学意义(χ2＝16.897、76.187、11.817、－5.252、－3.790, P均<0.05)。②组织病理学类型(OR＝2.460，95%CI＝1.246～4.856，P＝0.009)，是否合并恶性腹水(OR＝6.649，95%CI＝3.437～12.862，P<0.001)和PLR(OR＝1.005，95%CI＝1.001～1.009，P＝0.027)，均为预测卵巢癌患者FIGO分期的独立危险因素。③PLR对预测卵巢癌患者FIGO分期的ROC-AUC为0.709(95%CI：0.645～0.767，P<0.001)。根据约登指数最大原则，PLR预测卵巢癌患者FIGO临床分期的最佳临界值为157.14。其中，本研究225例初治卵巢癌患者中，PLR>157.14者为134例，PLR≤157.14者为91例。此时，PLR对预测卵巢癌患者FIGO分期的敏感度为72.9%，特异度为63.5%。

结论

PLR值可预测卵巢癌FIGO分期。当PLR>157.14时，卵巢癌患者FIGO临床分期为晚期的可能性较大。

关键词: 卵巢肿瘤, 肿瘤分期, 炎症, 血小板与淋巴细胞比值, ROC曲线, 妇女
Objective

To explore the predictive value of platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) for International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (FIGO) staging of ovarian cancer patients.

Methods

From January 2005 to January 2017, a total of 225 patients with primary ovarian cancer who were treated at Nanchong Central Hospital were selected into this study. According to different FIGO stagings, they were divided into early ovarian cancer group (n=85, FIGO stage Ⅰ-Ⅱ) and advanced ovarian cancer group (n=140, FIGO stage Ⅲ-Ⅳ). Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to statistically compare age, body mass index (BMI), white blood cell count, hemoglobin (Hb) level, PLR and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) between two groups. Chi-square test was used to statistically compare histopathological types, proportion of patients with ascites and proportion of serum CA125 level >35 U/mL. Then receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve of PLR for predicting the FIGO staging of ovarian caner patients was drawn, and the area under ROC curve (ROC-AUC) was calculated. The optimal critical value of PLR for predicting the clincial staging of ovarian caner patients was obtained when the Youden index reaching the maximum value. And its sensitivity and specificity were calculated. This study met the requirements of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki revised in 2013. Informed consent was obtairned from each participates.

Results

①There were significant differences in histopathological types, malignant ascites or not, serum CA125 level > 35 U/mL, PLR and NLR between two groups (χ2=16.897, 76.187, 11.817, -5.252, -3.790; P all<0.05), while there were no significant differences in age, BMI, Hb level and WBC count between two groups (P>0.05). ②Histopathological type (OR=2.460, 95%CI=1.246-4.856, P=0.009), malignant ascites (OR=6.649, 95%CI=3.437-12.862, P<0.001) and PLR (OR=1.005, 95%CI=1.001-1.009, P=0.027) were independent risk factors for ovarian cancer patients with different FIGO staging. ③ROC curve analysis showed that PLR for predicting FIGO staging of ovarian cancer patients was 0.709 (95%CI: 0.645-0.767, P<0.001). According to the principle of maximum Youden index, the optimal critical value for PLR to predict FIGO staging of ovarian cancer patients was 157.14, of which 134 patients with PLR > 157.14 and 91 patients with PLR≤157.14. At this time, the sensitivity was 72.9%, and the specificity was 63.5%.

Conclusions

PLR value can predict FIGO staging of ovarian cancer. When PLR>157.14, the FIGO staging of ovarian cancer patients is more likely to be advanced.

Key words: Ovarian neoplasms, Neoplasm staging, Inflammasomes, Plate to lymphocyte ratio, ROC curve, Women
表1 225例卵巢癌患者的一般临床资料
项目 结果 项目 结果
年龄[岁，M(P25～P75)] 50(18～89) 恶性腹水[例数(%)] ?
BMI[kg/m2，M(P25～P75)] 22.6(15.6～30.9) ? 是 134(59.6)
FIGO分期[例数(%)] ? ? 否 91(40.4)
? Ⅰ期 44(19.6) 白细胞计数[×109/L，M(P25～P75)] 7.2(3.3～16.5)
? Ⅱ期 41(18.2) 中性粒细胞计数[×109/L，M(P25～P75)] 4.5(1.7～13.1)
? Ⅲ期 122(54.2) 淋巴细胞计数[×109/L，M(P25～P75)] 1.3(0.3～2.8)
? Ⅳ期 18(8.0) Hb [g/L，M(P25～P75)] 116(50～161)
组织病理学类型[例数(%)] ? 血小板计数[×109/L，M(P25～P75)] 245(77～589)
? 浆液性 151(67.1) PLR [M(P25～P75)] 178(3～746)
? 非浆液性 74(32.9) NLR [M(P25～P75)] 3.4(1.1～17.1)
血清CA125[U/mL，M(P25～P75)] 160.6(1.4～5 672.6) ? ?
表2 2组卵巢癌患者的临床特征比较
组别 例数 组织病理学类型[例数(%)] 恶性腹水[例数(%)] 血清CA125 [例数(%)]
浆液性 非浆液性 是 否 >35 U/mL ≤35 U/mL
早期卵巢癌组 85 43(19.1) 42(18.7) 25(11.1) 60(26.7) 58(25.8) 27(12.0)
晚期卵巢癌组 140 108(48.0) 32(14.2) 109(48.4) 31(13.8) 122(54.2) 18(8.0)
检验值 ? χ2＝16.897 χ2＝76.187 χ2＝11.817
P值 ? <0.001 <0.001 0.001
组别 例数 中性粒细胞计数[×109/L，M(P25～P75)] 年龄[岁，M(P25～P75)] BMI [kg/m2，M(P25～P75)] 白细胞计数[×109/L，M(P25～P75)]
早期卵巢癌 85 4.1(203.0～11.0) 50(18～89) 22.6(15.6～30.9) 7.2(3.6～16.5)
晚期卵巢癌 140 4.8(1.7～13.1) 50(1～80) 23.4(16.5～31.2) 7.5(3.3～16.2)
检验值 ? Z＝—1.966 Z＝—0.879 Z＝—1.799 Z＝—1.633
P值 ? 0.049 0.380 0.075 0.102
组别 例数 Hb [g/L，M(P25～P75)] PLR[M(P25～P75)] NLR[M(P25～P75)] 淋巴细胞计数[×109/L，M(P25～P75)]
早期卵巢癌 85 114.0(50.0～143.0) 145.0(10.4～550.0) 2.6(1.1～12.1) 1.4(0.6～2.5)
晚期卵巢癌 140 116.5(61.0～161.0) 215.9(2.9～746.3) 4.2(1.2～17.1) 1.2(0.3～2.8)
检验值 ? Z＝—0.076 Z＝—5.252 Z＝—3.790 Z＝—4.004
P值 ? 0.939 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
表3 卵巢癌患者FIGO分期影响因素的多因素非条件logistic回归分析变量含义及赋值情况
自变量/因变量 变量名 赋值
FIGO分期 y FIGO 2014年手术-病理分期
组织病理学类型 x1 x1＝0表示除浆液性卵巢癌外的其他组织病理学类型，x1＝1表示浆液性卵巢癌
是否合并恶性腹水 x2 x2＝0表示未合并恶性腹水，x2＝1表示合并恶性腹水
血清CA125水平 x3 x3＝0表示血清CA125水平<35 U/mL，x3＝1表示血清CA125水平≥35 U/mL
PLR x4 x4表示实际PLR
NLR x5 x5表示实际NLR
表4 卵巢癌患者FIGO分期影响因素的多因素非条件logistic回归分析结果
影响因素 B SE Wald值 P值 OR值 OR值95%CI
常数项 －2.753 0.519 28.137 <0.001 0.064 —
组织病理学类型 0.900 0.347 6.728 0.009 2.460 1.246～4.856
是否合并恶性腹水 1.894 0.337 31.667 <0.001 6.649 3.437～12.862
血清CA125水平 0.781 0.404 3.731 0.053 2.183 0.989～4.819
NLR 0.023 0.084 0.074 0.786 1.023 0.868～1.206
PLR 0.005 0.002 4.900 0.027 1.005 1.001～1.009
图1 PLR预测卵巢癌患者FIGO分期的ROC曲线
[1]
Ahmed N, Abubaker K, Findlay JK. Ovarian cancer stem cells: molecular concepts and relevance as therapeutic targets[J]. Mol Aspects Med, 2014, 39: 110-125.
[2]
Teng Z Han R, Huang X, et al.Increase of incidence and mortality of ovarian cancer during 2003-2012 in Jiangsu Province, China[J]. Front Public Health, 2016, 4: 146.
[3]
Torre LA, Trabert B, DeSantis CE, et al. Ovarian cancer statistics, 2018[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2018, 68(4): 284-296.
[4]
Morgan RJ Jr, Armstrong DK, Alvarez RD, et al. Ovarian cancer, version 1. 2016, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology[J]. J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 2016, 14(9): 1134-1163.
[5]
Daly MB, Pilarski R2, Berry M, et al.NCCN guidelines insights: genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian, version 2. 2017[J]. J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 2017, 15(1): 9-20.
[6]
Wright AA, Bohlke K, Armstrong DK, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer: Society of Gynecologic Oncology and American Society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2016, 143(1): 3-15.
[7]
Timmermans M, van der Aa MA, Lalisang RI, et al. Interval between debulking surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with overall survival inpatients with advanced ovarian cancer[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2018, 150(3): 446-450
[8]
Elinav E, Nowarski R, Thaiss CA, et al. Inflammation induced cancer: crosstalk between tumours, immune cells and microorganisms[J]. Nat Rev Cancer, 2013, 13(11): 759-771.
[9]
Ceran MU, Tasdemir U, Colak E, et al. Can complete blood count inflammatory parameters in epithelial ovarian cancer contribute to prognosis? A survival analysis[J]. J Ovarian Res, 2019, 12(1): 16.
[10]
Zhang WW, Liu KJ, Hu GL, et al. Preoperative platelet/lymphocyte ratio is a superior prognostic factor compared to other systemic inflammatory response markers in ovarian cancer patients[J]. Tumour Biol, 2015, 36(11): 8831-8837.
[11]
Ma XM, Sun X, Yang GW, et al. The platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio as a predictor of patient outcomes in ovarian cancer: a Meta-analysis[J]. Climacteric, 2017, 20(5): 448-455.
[12]
Zhu Y, Zhou S, Liu Y, et al. Prognostic value of systemic inflammatory markers in ovarian cancer: a PRISMA-compliant Meta-analysis and systematic review[J]. BMC Cancer, 2018, 18(1): 443.
[13]
Balkwill F, Mantovani A. Inflammation and cancer: back to Virchow? [J]. Lancet, 2001, 357(9255): 539-545.
[14]
李秋丽，张月香. 血小板增多症在卵巢癌中的研究进展[J]. 现代妇产科进展，2014, 23(10): 840-841.
[15]
Rao AK, Rao DA. Platelets signal and tumors take off[J]. Blood, 2012, 120(24): 4667-4668.
[16]
Stone RL, Nick AM, McNeish IA, et al. Paraneoplastic thrombocytosis in ovarian cancer[J]. N Engl J Med, 2012, 366(7): 610-618.
[17]
唐英，徐凡，罗祥力，等. 血小板/淋巴细胞计数比对卵巢癌临床预测价值的研究进展[J]. 西部医学，2017, 29(5): 725-728.
[18]
Fu BH, Fu ZZ, Meng W, et al. Platelet VEGF and serum TGF-β1 levels predict chemotherapy response in non-small cell lung cancer patients[J]. Tumour Biol, 2015, 36(8): 6477-6483.
[19]
Dunn GP, Old LJ, Schreiber RD. The immunobiology of cancer immunosurveillance and immunoediting[J]. Immunity, 2004, 21(2): 137-148.
[20]
Rosenberg SA. Progress in human tumour immunology and immunotherapy[J]. Nature, 2001, 411(6835): 380-384.
[21]
Shen GH, Ghazizadeh M, Kawanami O, et al. Prognostic significance of vascular endothelial growth factor expression in human ovarian carcinoma[J]. Br J Cancer, 2000, 83(2): 196-203.
[22]
Huang Y, Chen X, Dikov MM, et al. Distinct roles of VEGFR-1 and VEGFR-2 in the aberrant hematopoiesis associated with elevated levels of VEGF[J]. Blood, 2007, 110(2): 624-631.
[23]
刘艳，朱美琪，钱志红. 卵巢良恶性肿瘤患者血浆sIL-2R，IL-6及T细胞亚群变化研究[J]. 苏州医学院学报，2000, 20(1): 25-27.
[24]
Chen L, Zhang F, Sheng XG, et al. Decreased pretreatment lymphocyte/monocyte ratio is associated with poor prognosis in stage Ⅰb1-Ⅱa cervical cancer patients who undergo radical surgery[J]. Onco Targets Ther, 2015, 8: 1355-1362.
[25]
Ceran MU, Tasdemir U, Colak E, et al. Can complete blood count inflammatory parameters in epithelial ovarian cancer contribute to prognosis? A survival analysis[J]. J Ovarian Res, 2019, 12(1): 16.
[26]
Facciabene A, Motz GT, Coukos G. T-regulatory cells: key players in tumor immune escape and angiogenesis[J]. Cancer Res, 2012, 72(9): 2162-2171.
[27]
Wang H, Franco F, Ho PC, et al. Metabolic regulation of Tregs in cancer: opportunities for immunotherapy[J]. Trends Cancer, 2017, 3(8): 583-592.
[28]
Yigit R, Massuger LF, Figdor CG, et al. Ovarian cancer creates a suppressive mic roenvironment to escape immune elimination[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2010, 117(2): 366-372.
[29]
Kuhn W, Pache L, Schmalfeldt B, et al. Urokinase (uPA) and PAI-1 predict survival in advanced ovarian cancer patients (FIGO Ⅲ) after radical surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 1994, 55(3): 401-409.
[30]
Konecny G, Crohns C, Pegram M, et al. Correlation of drug response with the ATP tumorchemosensitivity assay in primary FIGO stage Ⅲ ovarian cancer.[J]. Gynecologic Oncol, 2000, 77(2): 258-263.
[31]
Wimberger P, Wehling M, Lehmann N, et al. Influence of residual tumor on outcome in ovarian cancer patients with FIGO stage Ⅳ disease[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2010, 17(6): 1642-1648.
[32]
Werness BA, Ramus SJ, DiCioccio RA, et al. Histopathology, FIGO stage, and BRCA mutation status of ovarian cancers from the Gilda Radner Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry.[J]. Int J Gynecol Pathol, 2004, 23(1): 29-34.
[33]
Medeiros LR, Rosa DD, Bozzetti MC, et al. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for FIGO stage Ⅰ ovarian cancer[M]. New York: The Cochrane Library, 2005.
[34]
Kristensen GB, Vergote I, Stuart G, et al. First-line treatment of ovarian cancer FIGO stages Ⅱb-Ⅳ with paclitaxel/epirubicin/carboplatin versus paclitaxel/carboplatin[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2010, 13(s2): 172-177.
[35]
Lambert HE, Berry RJ. High dose cisplatin compared with high dose cyclophosphamide in the management of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (FIGO stages Ⅲ and Ⅳ): report from the North Thames Cooperative Group [J]. Br Med J, 1985, 290(6472): 889-893.
[36]
王鑫，张虹. 术前NLR和PLR对上皮性卵巢癌患者预后的评估价值[J]. 现代妇产科进展，2016, 25(6)：433-436.
[37]
唐英，李均，徐凡，等. 单核细胞与淋巴细胞比值及其与上皮性卵巢癌患者预后的关系 [J/CD] . 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版)，2017，13(5): 532-538.
[38]
王刚，陈扬平. 晚期卵巢癌腹腔镜下肿瘤细胞减灭术的临床相关问题 [J/CD] . 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2016, 12(4): 373-378.
[39]
Polterauer S, Vergote I, Concin N, et al. Prognostic value of residual tumor size in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer FIGO stages ⅡA-Ⅳ: analysis of the OVCAD data.[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2012, 22(3): 380-385.
[40]
Grabowski J P, Harter P, Buhrmann C, et al. Re-operation outcome in patients referred to a gynecologic oncology center with presumed ovarian cancer FIGO Ⅰ-ⅢA after sub-standard initial surgery[J]. Surg Oncol, 2012, 21(1): 31-35.
[1] 韩圣瑾, 周正武, 翁云龙, 黄鑫. 碳酸氢钠林格液联合连续性肾脏替代疗法对创伤合并急性肾损伤患者炎症水平及肾功能的影响[J]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(05): 376-381.
[2] 林昌盛, 战军, 肖雪. 上皮性卵巢癌患者诊疗中基因检测及分子靶向药物治疗[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 505-510.
[3] 罗丹, 孔为民, 陈姝宁, 赵小玲, 谢云凯. 子宫内膜异位症患者在位及异位内膜上皮细胞-间充质转化相关生物标志物的变化[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 530-539.
[4] 李文琳, 羊玲, 邢凯慧, 陈彩华, 钟丽花, 张娅琴, 张薇. 脐动脉血血气分析联合振幅整合脑电图对新生儿窒息脑损伤的早期诊断价值分析[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 550-558.
[5] 王蓓蓓, 董启秀, 郗红燕, 于庆云, 张丽君, 式光. 早孕期孕妇药物流产失败的影响因素分析与构建相关预测模型及其对药物流产成功的预测价值[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 588-594.
[6] 陈絮, 詹玉茹, 王纯华. 孕妇ABO血型联合甲状腺功能检测对预测妊娠期糖尿病的临床价值[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 604-610.
[7] 陈大敏, 曹晓刚, 曹能琦. 肥胖对胃癌患者手术治疗效果的影响研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 651-653.
[8] 贾成朋, 王代宏, 陈华, 孙备. 可切除性胰腺癌预后术前预测模型的建立及应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 566-570.
[9] 伍学成, 李远伟, 袁武雄, 王建松, 石泳中, 卢强, 李卓, 陈佳, 刘哲, 滕伊漓, 高智勇. 炎症介质谱联合降钙素原在尿源性脓毒血症中的诊断价值[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 476-480.
[10] 王可, 范彬, 李多富, 刘奎. 两种疝囊残端处理方法在经腹腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术中的疗效比较[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 692-696.
[11] 邹勇, 顾应江, 丁昊, 杨呈浩, 陈岷辉, 蔡昱. 基于Nrf2/HO-1及NF-κB信号通路探讨葛根素对大鼠脑出血后早期炎症反应及氧化应激反应的影响[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(05): 271-277.
[12] 钟广俊, 刘春华, 朱万森, 徐晓雷, 王兆军. MRI联合不同扫描序列在胃癌术前分期诊断及化疗效果和预后的评估[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 378-382.
[13] 屈霄, 王靓, 陆萍, 何斌, 孙敏. 外周血炎症因子及肠道菌群特征与活动性溃疡性结肠炎患者病情的相关性分析[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 466-470.
[14] 朱风尚, 舍玲, 丁永年, 杨长青. 警惕炎症性肠病与少见肠道疾病的鉴别诊断[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(05): 273-276.
[15] 刘感哲, 艾芬. MiRNA-210通过抑制HIF-1α的表达改善大鼠血管性认知功能障碍[J]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 489-494.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号