本文選題：腎細(xì)胞癌 + 血清�。� 參考：《新疆醫(yī)科大學(xué)》2017年博士論文

【摘要】：目的:通過回顧性分析我中心近10年收治的1005例腎細(xì)胞癌患者臨床資料,了解新疆地區(qū)腎細(xì)胞癌患者臨床特點(diǎn)、病理類型、種族特征等流行病學(xué)特點(diǎn)。檢測(cè)腎細(xì)胞癌患者血清中miR-106a與miR-21的表達(dá)水平,分析其與健康人群中的表達(dá)差異,評(píng)價(jià)其能否用于腎細(xì)胞癌的早期診斷;同時(shí)檢測(cè)miR-106a、mi R-21在手術(shù)前、后的表達(dá)水平變化,并研究其與臨床病理特征間的相互關(guān)系及臨床應(yīng)用價(jià)值。方法:回顧性分析2006年1月至2015年12月就診于我院且行手術(shù)治療的1005例新發(fā)腎細(xì)胞癌患者的臨床和病理學(xué)特點(diǎn),分別對(duì)性別構(gòu)成、發(fā)病年齡、城鄉(xiāng)分布、民族構(gòu)成、危險(xiǎn)因素、治療方式、病理特征進(jìn)行分析。并以2013年2月至2015年2月期間在我中心收集的30例新診斷為腎細(xì)胞癌患者的術(shù)前血清樣本作為實(shí)驗(yàn)組,另外收集30例健康體檢者的血清樣本作為對(duì)照組,采用實(shí)時(shí)熒光定量PCR技術(shù)檢測(cè)各組血清樣本中miR-106a、miR-21表達(dá)水平,分析其在腎細(xì)胞癌及健康人群中的表達(dá)是否存在差異。對(duì)上述30例實(shí)驗(yàn)組患者再對(duì)應(yīng)的收集其術(shù)后1個(gè)月、6個(gè)月血清樣本作為本研究的術(shù)后組,分別檢測(cè)各血清樣本中術(shù)后1個(gè)月、6個(gè)月miR-106a、mi R-21表達(dá)水平,分析其表達(dá)水平與術(shù)前組間的差異以及與病理特征的相關(guān)性。結(jié)果:1055例腎細(xì)胞癌患者中男性患者占672例(66.9%),女性患者333例(33.1%),男女比例為2.02:1.00;發(fā)病年齡12歲~88歲,平均年齡54.2歲,高發(fā)年齡為40歲~60歲;城市地區(qū)患者人數(shù)為806例,農(nóng)村地區(qū)患者人數(shù)為199例,城市地區(qū)發(fā)病率為農(nóng)村地區(qū)的4.1倍;2006年就診41例(4.1%),2007年就診55例(5.5%),2008年就診81例(8.1%),2009年就診107例(10.6%),2010年就診115例(11.4%),2011年就診125例(12.4%),2012年就診94例(9.4%),2013年就診111例(11.0%),2014年就診137例(13.6%),2015年就診139例(13.8%),按患者就診年份排序,可見就診人數(shù)逐年升高;民族構(gòu)成中漢族605例(60.1%),少數(shù)民族400例(39.8%),漢族構(gòu)成比例較少數(shù)民族高。不同人口特征腎細(xì)胞癌患者的病理類型進(jìn)行比較,結(jié)果顯示隨著年齡的增長(zhǎng),腎細(xì)胞癌患者中透明細(xì)胞癌的比例呈上升趨勢(shì)(p0.05);漢族患者中透明細(xì)胞癌所占比例顯著高于少數(shù)民族患者(p0.05);男性和女性腎細(xì)胞癌患者病理類型的差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(p0.05)。城市和鄉(xiāng)鎮(zhèn)腎細(xì)胞癌患者病理類型的差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(p0.05)。城市和鄉(xiāng)鎮(zhèn)腎細(xì)胞癌患者的臨床分期和病理分級(jí)進(jìn)行比較,結(jié)果顯示相對(duì)于城市患者,鄉(xiāng)鎮(zhèn)患者的臨床分期較晚,病理分級(jí)較高,其差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(p0.05)。腎細(xì)胞癌患者根據(jù)是否吸煙、是否有高血壓和是否有糖尿病等情況分組,比較不同組患者的臨床分期和病理分級(jí),結(jié)果顯示其差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(p0.05),即吸煙、高血壓和糖尿病等特征對(duì)腎細(xì)胞癌患者的臨床分期和病理分級(jí)無影響。手術(shù)方式隨年變化趨勢(shì)可見開放手術(shù)比例逐年下降,而腔鏡手術(shù)比例逐年上升;手術(shù)種類隨年變化趨勢(shì)可見根治術(shù)比例逐年下降,而保留腎單位手術(shù)比例逐年上升;患者住院天數(shù)也在隨年逐漸下降。腎細(xì)胞癌與健康對(duì)照組外周血mir-106a、mir-21測(cè)定結(jié)果顯示,腎細(xì)胞癌組血清中mir-106a的相對(duì)表達(dá)量為8.87(2.71~12.68),健康對(duì)照組外周血清mir-106a的相對(duì)表達(dá)量為0.87(0.31~2.13),與對(duì)照組相比較,腎細(xì)胞癌組血清mir-106a的相對(duì)表達(dá)量呈明顯高表達(dá),兩組相對(duì)表達(dá)量差異具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(z=-4.728,p=0.0001);在腎細(xì)胞癌組中,mirna-106a表達(dá)下調(diào)者有4例(13.3%),而表達(dá)量上調(diào)有26例(86.7%)。腎細(xì)胞癌組血清中mir-21的相對(duì)表達(dá)量為8.49(3.92~16.68),健康對(duì)照組中血清mirna-21的相對(duì)表達(dá)量為0.79(0.69~3.60),腎細(xì)胞癌組中mir-21相對(duì)表達(dá)量與對(duì)照組相比,其表達(dá)水平明顯增高,其相對(duì)表達(dá)量差異具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(z=-4.727,p=0.0001);根據(jù)mir-106a的表達(dá)量差異來繪制roc曲線,結(jié)果顯示其曲線下面積(auc)為0.801(95%ci:0.710~0.963,p=0.0001),靈敏度為0.750,特異度為0.814,約登指數(shù)為0.564。根據(jù)mir-21的表達(dá)量差異來繪制roc曲線,結(jié)果顯示其曲線下面積(auc)為0.854(95%ci:0.786~0.947,p=0.0001),靈敏度為0.795,特異度為0.907,約登指數(shù)為0.702,采用mir-106a與mir-106a進(jìn)行聯(lián)合檢測(cè),其結(jié)果顯示系列實(shí)驗(yàn)中靈敏度下降為0.596,特異度為上升為0.983,約登指數(shù)為0.579;平行實(shí)驗(yàn)中靈敏度提高為0.949,特異度下降為0.738,約登指數(shù)為0.687。進(jìn)一步檢測(cè)腎細(xì)胞癌患者對(duì)應(yīng)術(shù)后1個(gè)月、6個(gè)月的外周血mir-106a、mir-21表達(dá)水平,術(shù)后1月組中mir-106a相對(duì)表達(dá)量為1.12(0.38~2.57),mir-21相對(duì)表達(dá)量為0.61(0.42~1.07),與健康對(duì)照組比較,術(shù)后1月組中mir-106a(z=-0.214,p=0.708)及mir-21(z=-1.301,p=0.272)表達(dá)水平差異沒有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義;與術(shù)前組相比,術(shù)后1月組mir-106a(z=-4.218,p=0.0001)及mir-21(z=-3.119,p=0.002)表達(dá)水平明顯下降,其差異具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義;術(shù)后6個(gè)月組中mir-106a相對(duì)表達(dá)量為1.01(0.23~2.44),mir-21相對(duì)表達(dá)量為0.71(0.39~1.27),與健康對(duì)照組比較,術(shù)后6月組中miR-106a(Z=-0.232,P=0.874)及miR-21(Z=-1.221,P=0.291)表達(dá)水平差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。miR-106a、mi R-21在腎細(xì)胞癌患者外周血清的表達(dá)與腫瘤的組織病理學(xué)分級(jí)、臨床分期無關(guān)(P0.05)。結(jié)論:腎細(xì)胞癌患者血清中miR-106a和miR-21的表達(dá)水平明顯上調(diào),ROC曲線分析提示其已經(jīng)達(dá)到臨床應(yīng)用價(jià)值,是腎細(xì)胞癌可選的分子標(biāo)志物。血清miR-106a和mi R-21的表達(dá)水平在切除腫瘤病灶后均明顯下降,并在術(shù)后表達(dá)水平穩(wěn)定,提示其有望用于術(shù)后隨訪監(jiān)測(cè)。
[Abstract]:Objective: through a retrospective analysis of the clinical data of 1005 cases of renal cell carcinoma in our center in recent 10 years, the clinical characteristics, pathological types and racial characteristics of renal cell carcinoma in Xinjiang were analyzed, and the expression of miR-106a and miR-21 in the serum of renal cell carcinoma patients was detected and the difference of expression in the healthy population was analyzed. To evaluate whether it can be used in the early diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma, and to detect the changes in the expression level of miR-106a, MI R-21 before and after operation, and to study the relationship between the clinicopathological features and the clinical application value. Methods: a retrospective analysis of 1005 cases of new renal cell carcinoma in our hospital from January 2006 to December 2015 and the operation treatment of renal cell carcinoma was reviewed. The clinical and pathological features of the patients were analyzed in terms of gender composition, age of onset, urban and rural distribution, ethnic composition, risk factors, treatment and pathological features, and 30 newly diagnosed patients with renal cell carcinoma were collected in our center from February 2013 to February 2015 as experimental group, and 30 cases of health were collected. The serum samples of the examiners were used as the control group. The expression of miR-106a and miR-21 in the serum samples of each group was detected by real time fluorescence quantitative PCR. The difference in the expression of the serum samples in the renal cell carcinoma and the healthy population was analyzed. The serum samples of the 30 patients in the experimental group were collected for 1 months after the operation, and the serum samples were taken as this study for 6 months. After operation, the expression level of miR-106a and MI R-21 was detected in 1 months, 6 months after operation, and the correlation between the expression level and the preoperative group and the pathological features were analyzed. Results: 1055 cases of renal cell carcinoma were male 672 cases (66.9%), women 333 cases (33.1%), male and female ratio 2.02:1.00; age 12. ~88 years old, the average age of 54.2 years and the age of 40 years old at the age of 40 years, 806 cases in urban areas, 199 in rural areas, 4.1 times in the urban area, 41 in 2006 (4.1%), 55 in 2007 (5.5%), 81 in 2008 (8.1%), 2009 for 107 cases (10.6%) and 2010 visits in 2010. In 2011, there were 125 cases (12.4%), 94 cases (9.4%) in 2012, 111 cases in 2013 (11%), 137 in 2014 (13.6%), 139 in 2015 (13.8%). According to the year of the patients, the number of patients was increased year by year, 605 (60.1%) in the ethnic group and minority 400 cases (39.8%), and the proportion of Han nationality was higher than that of minority nationalities. The pathological types of the patients with human renal cell carcinoma were compared. The results showed that the proportion of clear cell carcinoma in the patients with renal cell carcinoma increased with age (P0.05), and the proportion of clear cell carcinoma in Han patients was significantly higher than that of ethnic minority patients (P0.05), and the pathological types of renal cell carcinoma in male and female were different. Statistical significance (P0.05). The pathological types of renal cell carcinoma patients in cities and towns were not statistically significant (P0.05). The clinical stages and pathological grades of renal cell carcinoma patients in cities and towns were compared. The results showed that compared with urban patients, the clinical stages of township patients were late, and the pathological grades were higher, and the difference was statistically significant (P0.05 Patients with renal cell carcinoma were divided into groups according to whether they were smoking, whether there were hypertension or whether there was diabetes. The clinical stages and pathological grades of different groups were compared. The results showed that the difference was not statistically significant (P0.05), that is, smoking, hypertension and diabetes had no effect on the clinical staging and pathological classification of patients with renal cell carcinoma. The rate of open operation decreased year by year, and the proportion of endoscopic surgery increased year by year, and the trend of radical operation decreased year by year, while the proportion of kidney preserving operation increased year by year, and the number of hospitalization days decreased gradually. The peripheral blood of renal cell carcinoma and healthy control group was mir-106a, Mir The relative expression of mir-106a in the serum of renal cell carcinoma group was 8.87 (2.71~12.68), and the relative expression of serum mir-106a in the healthy control group was 0.87 (0.31~2.13). Compared with the control group, the relative expression of serum mir-106a in the renal cell carcinoma group was significantly higher than that of the control group. The difference of the relative expression of the two groups was statistically significant, and the difference of the relative expression of the two groups was statistically significant. Z=-4.728 (p=0.0001); in the renal cell carcinoma group, the expression of mirna-106a expression was 4 (13.3%), and the expression was up to 26 (86.7%). The relative expression of miR-21 in the serum of the renal cell carcinoma group was 8.49 (3.92~16.68), the relative expression of miRNA-21 in the healthy control group was 0.79 (0.69~3.60), and the relative expression of miR-21 in the renal cell carcinoma group and the relative expression of miR-21 in the renal cell carcinoma group. The expression level of the control group was significantly higher than that in the control group (z=-4.727, p=0.0001), and the ROC curve was drawn according to the difference of mir-106a expression. The results showed that the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.801 (95%ci:0.710~0.963, p=0.0001), the sensitivity was 0.750, the specificity was 0.814, and the Jordan index was 0.564. based mir-. 21 of the difference in expression to draw the ROC curve, the results show that the area under the curve (AUC) is 0.854 (95%ci:0.786~0.947, p=0.0001), the sensitivity is 0.795, the specificity is 0.907, and the Jordan index is 0.702. The combined detection of mir-106a and mir-106a shows that the sensitivity of the series is 0.596, the specificity rises to 0.983, about 0.983. The index was 0.579, the sensitivity of the parallel experiment was 0.949, the specificity decreased to 0.738, and the mir-106a index was 0.687., and the expression level of mir-106a and miR-21 in the peripheral blood was 1.12 (0.38~2.57) in the January group, and the relative expression of miR-21 was 0.61 (0.42~1.07) in the January group. Compared with the healthy control group, there was no significant difference in the expression level of mir-106a (z=-0.214, p=0.708) and miR-21 (z=-1.301, p=0.272) in the January group. Compared with the pre operation group, the level of mir-106a (z=-4.218, p=0.0001) and miR-21 (z=-3.119, p=0.002) in the January group decreased significantly, and the difference was statistically significant; 6 months after the operation, the difference was statistically significant. The relative expression of 106A was 1.01 (0.23~2.44), and the relative expression of miR-21 was 0.71 (0.39~1.27). Compared with the healthy control group, there was no significant difference in the expression level of miR-106a (Z=-0.232, P=0.874) and miR-21 (Z=-1.221, P=0.291) in the June group, and the expression of the peripheral blood serum and the histopathology of the tumor in the patients with renal cell carcinoma. P0.05. Conclusion: the expression level of miR-106a and miR-21 in the serum of renal cell carcinoma patients is obviously up-regulated. The ROC curve analysis suggests that it has reached clinical application value. It is an optional molecular marker of renal cell carcinoma. The expression level of serum miR-106a and MI R-21 decreased significantly after the tumor resection, and in the postoperative table. The level is stable, suggesting that it is expected to be used for postoperative follow-up monitoring.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：新疆醫(yī)科大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：R737.11

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 段建敏,李智,秦大山,陳一戎;腎細(xì)胞癌患者血清中血管內(nèi)皮生長(zhǎng)因子的表達(dá)[J];蘭州醫(yī)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2000年04期

2 袁建峰;腫瘤相關(guān)胰蛋白酶抑制因子作為腎細(xì)胞癌預(yù)后的一個(gè)因素[J];中華泌尿外科雜志;2001年08期

3 段建敏,李智,秦大山,史庭凱,董馳;血管內(nèi)皮生長(zhǎng)因子在腎細(xì)胞癌中的表達(dá)意義[J];中華泌尿外科雜志;2001年10期

4 李華,李玲;腎細(xì)胞癌的超聲診斷[J];中國(guó)超聲診斷雜志;2002年08期

5 卓棟,姜書傳,韓杰,程慶水;腎細(xì)胞癌尿激酶型纖溶酶原激活物表達(dá)的研究[J];皖南醫(yī)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年04期

6 孫正船,曲延剛;腎細(xì)胞癌舌轉(zhuǎn)移1例[J];診斷病理學(xué)雜志;2002年05期

7 張秀華,李光明,郭素霞;P~(16)在腎細(xì)胞癌癌組織中表達(dá)的臨床意義探討[J];山東醫(yī)藥;2003年20期

8 王金根,張?jiān)?丁強(qiáng),陳波,金建軍,王忠;血管內(nèi)皮生長(zhǎng)因子在腎細(xì)胞癌的表達(dá)及臨床意義[J];中華醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2003年05期

9 彭作鋒,張功亮,王建,秦文,宋樂明,蔣叔凱;幼兒腎細(xì)胞癌一例報(bào)告[J];中華泌尿外科雜志;2004年02期

10 魏建平,杜聯(lián)芳,邢晉放,蘇一巾;腎細(xì)胞癌超聲表現(xiàn)分析[J];中國(guó)超聲診斷雜志;2005年09期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 張進(jìn);董柏君;陳勇輝;陳奇;陳海戈;薛蔚;周立新;劉東明;黃翼然;;7cm以內(nèi)腎細(xì)胞癌腫瘤大小與臨床病理相關(guān)性研究[A];第十六屆全國(guó)泌尿外科學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文集[C];2009年

2 任曉蘇;毛澤慶;汝曉睿;史文生;張常青;;腎細(xì)胞癌的多層螺旋CT診斷[A];中華醫(yī)學(xué)會(huì)第十三屆全國(guó)放射學(xué)大會(huì)論文匯編（下冊(cè)）[C];2006年

3 劉躍新;畢維棋;陳山;張光銀;喬廬東;鄭宇朋;王偉;張波;;多房性腎細(xì)胞癌的診斷治療[A];第六次全國(guó)中西醫(yī)結(jié)合泌尿外科學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議暨第二屆湖南省中西醫(yī)結(jié)合泌尿外科學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文匯編[C];2007年

4 韓蘇軍;李長(zhǎng)嶺;馬建輝;肖振東;壽建忠;肖澤均;田軍;王棟;畢新剛;管考鵬;魯力;石鴻哲;關(guān)有彥;;雙側(cè)腎細(xì)胞癌15例報(bào)告[A];第十五屆全國(guó)泌尿外科學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文集[C];2008年

5 張開顏;邢金春;陳斌;劉榮福;王惠強(qiáng);陳實(shí)新;周中泉;莊炫;陳躍東;李偉;段波;劉菲;楊宇峰;周鑫;鄭嘉欣;曾彥愷;吳準(zhǔn);;多房性腎細(xì)胞癌的診斷治療[A];華東六省一市泌尿外科學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)暨2011年浙江省泌尿外科、男科學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文匯編[C];2011年

6 杜傳軍;徐杰;;腎細(xì)胞癌的外科治療(附315例報(bào)告)[A];第七次中國(guó)中西醫(yī)結(jié)合泌尿外科學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)暨第二次廣東省中西醫(yī)結(jié)合泌尿外科學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文集[C];2009年

7 杜傳軍;徐杰;;腎細(xì)胞癌的外科治療(附315例報(bào)告)[A];2009年浙江省男科、泌尿外科學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文匯編[C];2009年

8 耿敬姝;趙玉蘭;王艷穎;;腎細(xì)胞癌核形態(tài)定量分析的病理學(xué)研究[A];2000全國(guó)腫瘤學(xué)術(shù)大會(huì)論文集[C];2000年

9 詹敏;王穎斌;王輝萍;周樂;;手術(shù)治療腎細(xì)胞癌(附49例報(bào)告)[A];第三屆浙江中西部科技論壇論文集（第七卷 醫(yī)學(xué)、抗癌分卷）[C];2006年

10 那彥群;孫則禹;葉章群;孫穎浩;馬建輝;何志嵩;萬奔;米振國(guó);杜林棟;周芳堅(jiān);胡志全;靳風(fēng)爍;黃翼然;戴玉田;宋毅;;腎細(xì)胞癌診治指南(2005試行版)[A];貴州省醫(yī)學(xué)會(huì)泌尿外科分會(huì)2006年學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文匯編[C];2006年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前4條

1 紀(jì)小龍;血管平滑肌脂肪瘤·腎細(xì)胞癌[N];衛(wèi)生與生活報(bào);2007年

2 譯自《新英格蘭醫(yī)學(xué)雜志》2001年12月第345卷;轉(zhuǎn)移性腎細(xì)胞癌結(jié)合治療效佳[N];醫(yī)藥經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2001年

3 徐述湘;索拉非尼抗腎細(xì)胞癌獲FDA批準(zhǔn)[N];中國(guó)醫(yī)藥報(bào);2006年

4 谷文;GSK公司申請(qǐng)將Pazopanib用于腎細(xì)胞癌治療[N];中國(guó)醫(yī)藥報(bào);2009年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 黃慶波;血管內(nèi)皮特異性因子DLL4在腎細(xì)胞癌腫瘤生長(zhǎng)，侵襲，，血管生成及血行轉(zhuǎn)移中的作用[D];中國(guó)人民解放軍醫(yī)學(xué)院;2015年

2 林友成;PIK3R1基因在腎細(xì)胞癌中的功能及調(diào)控機(jī)制研究[D];南方醫(yī)科大學(xué);2015年

3 呂蔡;miR-495靶向SATB1基因?qū)δI細(xì)胞癌調(diào)控作用的研究[D];武漢大學(xué);2015年

4 張冰;miR-155/PI3K/AKT/FOXO3a信號(hào)通路在腎細(xì)胞癌中作用機(jī)制的研究[D];山東大學(xué);2015年

5 王新勝;MicroRNA-200a-3p靶向調(diào)控SPAG9基因?qū)δI細(xì)胞癌生物學(xué)行為的影響[D];吉林大學(xué);2016年

6 蔡冰;CMTM5對(duì)人腎癌細(xì)胞ACHN的生物學(xué)行為影響的初步研究[D];南方醫(yī)科大學(xué);2016年

7 曹峗杰;CASC2在腎細(xì)胞癌中的功能和調(diào)控機(jī)制研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2016年

8 鄭小麗;表觀遺傳藥物逆轉(zhuǎn)OCT2表達(dá)抑制和增敏腎細(xì)胞癌治療的機(jī)理研究[D];浙江大學(xué);2017年

9 哈木拉提·吐送;miR-106a、miR-21在腎細(xì)胞癌中的表達(dá)及臨床意義研究[D];新疆醫(yī)科大學(xué);2017年

10 柳金順;腎細(xì)胞癌差異蛋白質(zhì)發(fā)現(xiàn)與篩選的實(shí)驗(yàn)研究[D];北京協(xié)和醫(yī)學(xué)院;2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 張德福;腎細(xì)胞癌的腎外臨床特點(diǎn)及預(yù)后多因素分析[D];大連醫(yī)科大學(xué);2013年

2 楊建琪;腎細(xì)胞癌中WNK2基因甲基化狀態(tài)與mRNA表達(dá)的研究[D];河北醫(yī)科大學(xué);2015年

3 朱玲;腎細(xì)胞癌靶向治療藥物的有效性和安全性評(píng)價(jià)[D];四川醫(yī)科大學(xué);2015年

4 趙康樂;P19在腎細(xì)胞癌中表達(dá)以及Bev+Sor+Gem三線治療ⅡF及Ⅱ治療失敗的晚期腎細(xì)胞癌的研究[D];河南科技大學(xué);2015年

5 曹翔;腎細(xì)胞癌假包膜的MRI表現(xiàn)及在腫瘤剜除術(shù)中的意義[D];南京大學(xué);2014年

6 黃晉;腎癌臨床資料回顧性分析[D];天津醫(yī)科大學(xué);2015年

7 欒雪;145例腎細(xì)胞癌患者的臨床特點(diǎn)及預(yù)后多因素分析[D];大連醫(yī)科大學(xué);2015年

8 黃小平;腎細(xì)胞癌患者血清Ang2的表達(dá)及臨床意義[D];山西醫(yī)科大學(xué);2016年

9 陳強(qiáng);腹腔鏡與開放保留腎單位手術(shù)治療T1a期腎細(xì)胞癌的比較[D];山西醫(yī)科大學(xué);2016年

10 楊文杰;促血管生成素-2在腎細(xì)胞癌中的表達(dá)及其意義[D];山西醫(yī)科大學(xué);2016年

本文編號(hào)：1932459