4.2 Article

Biomarkers for Assessing Mucosal Barrier Dysfunction Induced by Chemotherapy: Identifying a Rapid and Simple Biomarker

期刊

CLINICAL LABORATORY
卷 61, 期 3-4, 页码 371-378

出版社

CLIN LAB PUBL
DOI: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2014.140712

关键词

citrulline; biomarkers; intestinal mucosa; chemotherapy; lactulose; mannitol

资金

  1. Jiangsu Province's Outstanding Medical Academic Leader program [LJ200610]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81270945, 81200327]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Chemotherapy-induced mucosal barrier dysfunction is of clinical interest. However, the assessment of mucosal barrier dysfunction still poses challenges. In this study, we compared several biomarkers with the dual sugar gut permeability test for assessing mucosal barrier dysfunction during chemotherapy. Methods: Forty-two patients with gastric or colorectal cancer underwent chemotherapy, including FAM or FOLFOX4 regimens. Patients were asked to grade and record their symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity daily. The urinary lactulose-mannitol ratio was measured to assess the intestinal permeability. Plasma levels of citrulline, diamine oxidase (DAO), D-lactic acid, and endotoxin were also measured. Intestinal permeability was observed in the subgroup of patients with diarrhea or constipation. Results: The urinary lactulose-mannitol ratio and plasma citrulline levels increased on the third and sixth post-chemotherapy days, respectively. There were no significant differences in the plasma levels of D-lactic acid, endotoxin or DAO activity compared to their levels before chemotherapy. The urinary lactulose-mannitol ratio in diarrhea patients was significantly higher than in constipation patients. Conclusions: These results indicate that the urinary lactulose-mannitol ratio and plasma citrulline level are appropriate biomarkers for assessing mucosal barrier dysfunction in patients receiving chemotherapy. Mucosal barrier dysfunction in diarrhea patients was greater than in constipation patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据