常规血/尿生化指标与胰腺癌风险因果关联的孟德尔随机化分析

贺逸嘉 ,  刘雍容 ,  张欣 ,  吴可柯

中国普通外科杂志 ›› 2026, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (02) : 343 -349.

PDF (1275KB)
中国普通外科杂志 ›› 2026, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (02) : 343 -349. DOI: 10.7659/j.issn.1005-6947.250598
临床研究

常规血/尿生化指标与胰腺癌风险因果关联的孟德尔随机化分析

作者信息 +

Routine blood and urine biochemical biomarkers in relation to pancreatic cancer risk: a Mendelian randomization analysis

Author information +
文章历史 +
PDF (1305K)

摘要

背景与目的 胰腺癌(PC)早期诊断困难,现有标志物(如CA19-9)难以满足人群筛查需求。常规血/尿生化指标具备可及性强、可重复检测等优势,但其与PC风险的因果关系尚不明确。本研究基于两样本孟德尔随机化(MR)方法,系统评估35项常规生化指标与PC风险的潜在因果关联。 方法 暴露数据来源于英国生物样本库(UK Biobank)相关GWAS汇总数据,结局数据来自FinnGen R12数据库。以逆方差加权法(IVW)为主要分析方法,并结合MR-Egger、加权中位数及加权模式方法进行验证,同时开展异质性、多效性及稳健性分析。 结果 MR分析显示,肾功能相关指标与PC风险存在稳定因果关联:遗传预测的血肌酐每升高1个标准差,PC风险增加18%(OR=1.18,95% CI=1.03~1.36,P=0.019);估算肾小球滤过率(eGFR)每升高1个标准差,PC风险降低17%(OR=0.83,95% CI=0.72~0.97,P=0.016)。多种敏感性分析结果一致,未发现显著异质性或水平多效性。 结论 本研究提供了肾功能相关指标与PC风险之间的遗传学因果证据,提示“肾功能轴”可能参与PC发生发展。血肌酐与eGFR有望作为PC风险分层及早期识别的潜在宿主标志物,仍需进一步机制研究与前瞻性验证。

Abstract

Background and Aims Early detection of pancreatic cancer (PC) remains challenging, and conventional biomarkers such as CA19-9 are inadequate for population screening. Routine blood and urine biochemical markers are widely accessible and reflect systemic physiological status; however, their causal relationships with PC risk remain unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically evaluate the potential causal associations between 35 routine biochemical biomarkers and pancreatic cancer risk using a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) framework. Methods A two-sample MR study was conducted using genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary data from the UK Biobank for 35 biochemical traits. Outcome data for PC were obtained from the FinnGen consortium (release R12). The inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method was used as the primary analysis, complemented by MR-Egger, weighted median, and weighted mode approaches. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess robustness. Results Two kidney function-related traits showed consistent causal associations with PC risk. Genetically predicted higher serum creatinine levels were associated with an 18% increased risk of PC per 1-standard deviation increment (OR=1.18, 95% CI=1.03-1.36, P=0.019), whereas higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was associated with a 17% reduced risk (OR=0.83, 95% CI=0.72-0.97, P=0.016). Sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of these findings, with no evidence of substantial heterogeneity or horizontal pleiotropy. Conclusions This MR study provides genetic evidence supporting a potential causal role of kidney function-related pathways in pancreatic cancer. Serum creatinine and eGFR may serve as promising host-related biomarkers for risk stratification and early detection, warranting further mechanistic and prospective validation.

Graphical abstract

关键词

胰腺肿瘤 / 生物标记 / 肌酸酐 / 肾小球滤过率 / 孟德尔随机化分析

Key words

Pancreatic Neoplasms / Biomarkers / Creatinine / Glomerular Filtration Rate / Mendelian Randomization Analysis

引用本文

引用格式 ▾
贺逸嘉,刘雍容,张欣,吴可柯. 常规血/尿生化指标与胰腺癌风险因果关联的孟德尔随机化分析[J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2026, 35(02): 343-349 DOI:10.7659/j.issn.1005-6947.250598

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户 忘记密码

胰腺癌(pancreatic cancer,PC)是全球致死率最高的消化道恶性肿瘤之一,发病与死亡曲线近年来在多国呈上升趋势,其5年相对生存率仅为13%[1-2]。由于其起病隐匿,且缺乏有效的普筛策略,美国预防服务工作组(USPSTF)目前仍不推荐对无症状一般人群进行PC筛查[3]。现有血清肿瘤标志物以CA19-9最为常用,但其在早期诊断中的敏感度与特异度不足,难以胜任人群筛查或单独用于早期发现[4-5]。因此,如何从可规模化、可重复测量的体液指标中挖掘与PC发生相关的可干预线索,依旧是早诊早治研究的关键方向[6-7]
与传统肿瘤标志物不同,常规血液/尿液生化指标可同时反映炎症、糖脂代谢、肝胆胰功能、肾功能与内分泌等多条病理生理轴线,为PC风险刻画提供系统健康状态的补充视角。近年来的前瞻性研究逐步揭示了若干与PC风险及预后密切相关的生物标志物,代谢相关指标如γ-谷氨酰转移酶[8]、糖化血红蛋白[9]以及低水平的高密度脂蛋白胆固醇[10]均被证实与PC风险相关,其中新发糖尿病或HbA1c升高更是短期风险的重要提示[11];此外,肾功能不全[表现为估算肾小球滤过率(estimated glomerular filtration rate,eGFR)降低][12]与高尿酸血症[13]也被报道与肝胆胰肿瘤的风险存在剂量-反应关系。
然而,这些观察性研究提供的关联证据常存在不一致性。以胰岛素样生长因子(insulin-like growth factor,IGF)通路为例,Qian等[14]和Knuppel等[15]对其与PC风险的关联结论存在差异,且有研究提示同一通路内不同组分部位的风险信号都可能存在差异[16]。无独有偶,维生素D与PC风险的观察性研究亦长期面临相互矛盾的结果[17-18]。上述不一致性很大程度上源于观察性研究难以规避的固有局限,特别是无法完全控制的残余混杂,以及由疾病亚临床阶段所导致的反向因果关系(如PC可提前数年引发代谢表型改变)[19]
为克服上述局限并强化因果推断,本研究采用孟德尔随机化(Mendelian randomization,MR)方法,利用与暴露强相关的胚系遗传变异作为工具变量,能够尽量规避环境混杂与反向因果的影响,从而为观察性线索提供更接近因果层面的证据[20-22]。近年来,MR已广泛用于肿瘤流行病学以系统筛查可干预危险因素与潜在点[23]。基于此,研究整合大规模GWAS汇总统计数据,对35项常规体液生化指标与PC风险之间的潜在因果关联进行系统评估,以逆方差加权法(inverse-variance weighted,IVW)-MR[24]为主的分析方法,并结合多种稳健性与敏感性分析验证结果可靠性,旨在为PC的风险分层线索与机制研究提供更具可信度的遗传流行病学证据。

1 资料与方法

1.1 数据来源

本研究涉及的35项血液与尿液生化指标的遗传工具变量,源自基于英国生物样本库(UK Biobank)参与者的大规模全基因组关联研究(GWAS)汇总数据。该数据集共纳入363 228名欧洲个体,系统解析了涵盖血脂、肝肾功能、糖代谢、炎症等多类临床常规检测指标的遗传基础。本研究使用了从GWAS Catalog获取的对应汇总统计数据(GCST90019492-GCST90019526)。

PC的GWAS汇总数据来自芬兰FinnGen联盟的第12轮数据发布,编号为finngen_R12_C3_PANCREAS_EXALLC,共纳入381 888名欧洲个体。数据公开获取自FinnGen研究平台。

1.2 工具变量筛选

本研究在MR的三项基本前提(工具与暴露显著相关、与潜在混杂独立、仅经暴露作用于结局)下构建工具变量。具体做法为:首先从各暴露性状的GWAS汇总统计中选取达到全基因组学显著性的变异位点(P<5×10⁻⁸)作为候选集合;随后基于欧洲人群连锁不平衡参考实施clumping,设置r2<0.001、窗口10 000 kb,以确保候选位点之间相互独立。对进入集合的每个位点计算F统计量并剔除F≤10的弱工具[25],以降低弱工具偏倚的风险;在分析前,对暴露与结局数据的等位基因进行统一与效应方向校准,同时删除中间等位基因频率的回文位点以避免链向歧义。对在结局数据中缺失的候选位点,若能在相同基因座找到与之高度连锁的代理变异(r2≥0.80)则以代理替代,否则予以丢弃。经上述步骤得到的、相互独立且强度充足的SNP集合作为工具进入分析。

1.3 敏感度分析

为检验主结果的稳健性,在以IVW[24]作为主测量方法的同时,平行实施MR-Egger[26]、加权中位数法(weighted median)[27]及加权模式(weighted mode)[28]替代估计;当不同方法在效应方向与量级上保持一致且IVW显著时,认为证据更为可靠。异质性通过Cochran's Q统计量[29]评估;水平多效性则以MR-Egger截距项检验[26]。为进一步识别并处置异常工具位点,使用MR-PRESSO[30]进行全局检验与离群定位,同时调用RadialMR[31]修正SNP离群值,并在清除后再次复算。因果方向性通过Steiger检验[32]验证,对方向不一致的工具予以剔除。为最大程度降低残余混杂,借助FastTraitR系统检索GWAS Catalog,将与潜在混杂因素达到全基因组显著关联的候选位点标记并按预设规则排除,同时实施逐一剔除(leave-one-out)分析以判断是否由单一变异驱动。全部统计过程在R(4.5.1)环境完成。

2 结 果

2.1 常规血液与尿液生化标志物与PC风险的因果关联

对35项常规血/尿生化指标进行了双样本MR分析,并在四种估计方法下汇总结果(图1A)。基于IVW识别出两项与PC风险存在稳定因果关联的指标(图1B):血肌酐与eGFR。其中,遗传预测的血肌酐每升高1个标准差,PC风险增加18%(OR=1.18,95% CI=1.03~1.36,P=0.019);而eGFR与风险呈负相关,每升高1个标准差,PC风险降低17%(OR=0.83,95% CI=0.72~0.97,P=0.016)。其余33项指标未发现显著因果关联。

2.2 敏感度分析验证

为评估主要因果关联的稳健性,本研究进行了全面的敏感度分析。结果显示,多种MR估计方法(MR-Egger、加权中位数、加权模式)得出的效应估计值与IVW主分析方向一致。未在结果中检测到显著的异质性(Cochran's Q检验P>0.05)或水平多效性(MR-Egger截距检验P>0.05)(表1)。此外,漏斗图(图2A-B)与散点图(图2C-D)均显示效应分布对称,且不同方法的回归线高度重合。通过MR-PRESSO、Radial MR及留一法分析,进一步证实了结果不受离群SNP或单个强效工具变量的驱动。综上,确认肌酐与eGFR同PC风险的因果关联具备良好的稳健性。

3 讨 论

本研究的核心发现是首次从遗传学层面支持“肾功能轴-PC风险”的潜在因果联系。尽管近年来诊疗不断进步,PC的发病与死亡仍居高不下,早期识别依然是关键瓶颈;现有肿瘤标志物(如CA19-9)在普筛与早检中的性能有限。基于此,本研究以两样本MR系统评估35项临床常规、可规模化检测的血液/尿液生化指标与PC风险的潜在因果关系。在多种分析方法一致性基础上,识别出两条稳定的遗传证据:遗传预测的肌酐水平升高与PC风险增加相关,而eGFR升高与风险降低相关。这两项指标从不同侧面共同指向“肾功能轴”的长期状态可能是影响PC发生的一个重要因素,是除代谢与炎症之外值得重视的一条通路。

本研究的发现与既往观察性流行病学证据相互印证。来自韩国的大型前瞻性队列研究[12]显示,eGFR降低会增加PC的风险,这为上述因果关联提供了直接的人群证据。其次,UK Biobank的大样本研究进一步提示:当肾功能采用更敏感的Cystatin C估算(eGFRcys)时,即使在轻度肾功能下降阶段也能更清晰地捕捉到总体癌症发生与癌症死亡风险上升的信号[33]。此外,慢性肾脏病预后联盟(Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium)基于超过百万人的个体参与者数据Meta分析[34-35]提示,慢性肾脏病人群的总体肿瘤发生率更高。这些研究总体提示,肾功能受损相关表型(尤其是eGFRcys、白蛋白尿等敏感指标)可能反映个体整体健康与代谢炎症状态的长期异常,从而为笔者在MR分析中观察到的肾功能相关信号提供了更有力的外部证据支持。

从生物学机制层面看,肾功能减退常伴慢性低度炎症、氧化应激、胰岛素抵抗与尿毒素负荷等全身稳态异常[36-38],这些病理生理状态与PC相关的促炎微环境、纤维化、免疫重塑和代谢重编程存在交叉[39]。系统性炎症与氧化应激不仅是慢性肾脏病进展的重要驱动,也可能通过促进DNA损伤、影响免疫监视与细胞因子网络等途径,提高肿瘤发生发展的易感性[40],如Xie等[36]发现,蓄积的尿毒素可通过激活AhR等信号通路,可参与纤维化、免疫反应与代谢调控,塑造出有利于肿瘤发生发展的微环境。因此,肌酐与eGFR作为肾功能与整体代谢状态的核心临床指标,其与PC风险之间的因果关联具备合理的生物学基础。但要强调的是,eGFR与肌酐在测量学上高度相关(eGFR多由肌酐等参数推算),两者方向相反的信号更可能提示肾功能轴的不同观测维度而非完全独立的两条通路;这一点在解读时应保持谨慎。

在临床与转化启示方面,研究结果提示肾功能轴可能为PC风险分层与早期识别提供一个值得进一步验证的新维度。在传统高危因素(如糖代谢异常、慢性炎症)的基础上[41],未来可探索将肌酐、eGFR、Cystatin C等肾功能指标纳入风险评估模型,并前瞻性验证其增量预测价值。与此同时,已有研究提示肌酐/胱抑素C比值等指标与PC患者术后预后及肌少症相关,提示肾功能/肌肉代谢相关表型可能还与肿瘤进程与宿主状态有关[42];这也为肾-代谢-肿瘤交叉轴提供了补充的临床线索。鉴于CA19-9在早期检测中的局限性,若在未来构建以肾功能轴、代谢/炎症轴和肿瘤特异性标志物为核心的多标志物组合策略,有望在高危队列中提升早期识别效能。从机制研究的角度,未来或应优先围绕关键通路节点(如肌酸合成的限速酶GATM、肾小管分泌转运体等)[43]展开深入功能研究,以明确最有效的干预靶点。

同时,本研究也存在若干局限性。首先,暴露与结局数据主要源于欧洲人群,结论的外推性需在其他祖源人群中验证[20]。其次,eGFR与肌酐在生理与测量学上高度相关,二者共同反映肾功能这一潜在性状,不宜过度解读为完全独立的证据,而更像是肾功能潜在性状的两个方面。第三,MR估计反映的是生命早期遗传倾向的终身平均效应,不能等同于短期临床干预的效果[20]。此外,本研究的风险分层意义仍需前瞻性与真实世界研究进一步确认,尤其应评估肾功能指标在不同高危亚群中的表现及其与现有指标体系的互补价值。

总之,在多指标系统筛查的基础上,本研究提供了肌酐水平升高导致PC风险增加,eGFR升高导致PC风险下降的因果证据,指向肾功能相关通路在PC发生中的潜在作用。这一发现不仅为理解PC的病因提供了新的视角,也为未来构建更精准的风险预测模型与机制驱动的干预研究奠定了科学基础。

参考文献

[1]

Ilic I, Ilic M. International patterns in incidence and mortality trends of pancreatic cancer in the last three decades: a joinpoint regression analysis[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2022, 28(32):4698-4715. doi:10.3748/wjg.v28.i32.4698 .

[2]

Siegel RL, Kratzer TB, Giaquinto AN, et al. Cancer statistics, 2025[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2025, 75(1):10-45. doi:10.3322/caac.21871 .

[3]

Owens DK, Davidson KW, Krist AH, et al. Screening for pancreatic cancer: us preventive services task force reaffirmation recommendation statement[J]. JAMA, 2019, 322(5):438-444. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.10232 .

[4]

Smith LM, Mahoney DW, Bamlet WR, et al. Early detection of pancreatic cancer: Study design and analytical considerations in biomarker discovery and early phase validation studies[J]. Pancreatology, 2024, 24(8):1265-1279. doi:10.1016/j.pan.2024.10.012 .

[5]

Lee T, Teng TZJ, Shelat VG. Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 - tumor marker: Past, present, and future[J]. World J Gastrointest Surg, 2020, 12(12):468-490. doi:10.4240/wjgs.v12.i12.468 .

[6]

Abdel-Razeq R, Mansour A, Barbar M, et al. Enhancing early detection of pancreatic cancer in genetically predisposed individuals: integrating advanced imaging modalities with emerging biomarkers and liquid biopsy[J]. Biologics, 2025, 19:511-523. doi:10.2147/BTT.S543427 .

[7]

Kawai M, Fukuda A, Otomo R, et al. Early detection of pancreatic cancer by comprehensive serum miRNA sequencing with automated machine learning[J]. Br J Cancer, 2024, 131(7):1158-1168. doi:10.1038/s41416-024-02794-5 .

[8]

Liao W, Yang Y, Yang H, et al. Circulating gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase and risk of pancreatic cancer: a prospective cohort study in the UK Biobank[J]. Cancer Med, 2023, 12(7):7877-7887. doi:10.1002/cam4.5556 .

[9]

Huang X, Li H, Zhao L, et al. Prediabetes increases the risk of pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies[J]. PLoS One, 2024, 19(10):e0311911. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0311911 .

[10]

Nam SY, Jo J, Cho CM. A population-based cohort study of longitudinal change of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol impact on gastrointestinal cancer risk[J]. Nat Commun, 2024, 15(1):2923. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-47193-9 .

[11]

McDonnell D, Cheang AWE, Wilding S, et al. Elevated glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) is associated with an increased risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a UK biobank cohort study[J]. Cancers (Basel), 2023, 15(16):4078. doi:10.3390/cancers15164078 .

[12]

Shin S, Kim MH, Lee DY, et al. Decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate increase the risk of pancreatic cancer: a nationwide retrospective cohort study[J]. J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2024, 39(2):392-398. doi:10.1111/jgh.16400 .

[13]

Huang CF, Huang JJ, Mi NN, et al. Associations between serum uric acid and hepatobiliary-pancreatic cancer: a cohort study[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2020, 26(44):7061-7075. doi:10.3748/wjg.v26.i44.7061 .

[14]

Qian F, Huo DZ. Circulating insulin-like growth factor-1 and risk of total and 19 site-specific cancers: cohort study analyses from the UK biobank[J]. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2020, 29(11):2332-2342. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-0743 .

[15]

Knuppel A, Fensom GK, Watts EL, et al. Circulating insulin-like growth factor-I concentrations and risk of 30 cancers: prospective analyses in UK biobank[J]. Cancer Res, 2020, 80(18):4014-4021. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-20-1281 .

[16]

Adachi Y, Nojima M, Lin YS, et al. Insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 3 and incidence of pancreatic cancer in a nested case-control study[J]. Jpn J Clin Oncol, 2025, 55(12):1365-1371. doi:10.1093/jjco/hyaf146 .

[17]

Ong JS, Dixon-Suen SC, Han XK, et al. A comprehensive re-assessment of the association between vitamin D and cancer susceptibility using Mendelian randomization[J]. Nat Commun, 2021, 12(1):246. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20368-w .

[18]

Schömann-Finck M, Vogt T, Reichrath J. Umbrella review on the relationship between vitamin D intake and cancer[J]. Anticancer Res, 2025, 45(3):855-864. doi:10.21873/anticanres.17474 .

[19]

Lemanska A, Price CA, Jeffreys N, et al. BMI and HbA1c are metabolic markers for pancreatic cancer: Matched case-control study using a UK primary care database[J]. PLoS One, 2022, 17(10):e0275369. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0275369 .

[20]

Sanderson E, Glymour MM, Holmes MV, et al. Mendelian randomization[J]. Nat Rev Meth Primers, 2022, 2:6. doi:10.1038/s43586-021-00092-5 .

[21]

Skrivankova VW, Richmond RC, Woolf BAR, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology using Mendelian randomisation (STROBE-MR): explanation and elaboration[J]. BMJ, 2021, 375:n2233. doi:10.1136/bmj.n2233 .

[22]

Mounier N, Kutalik Z. Bias correction for inverse variance weighting Mendelian randomization[J]. Genet Epidemiol, 2023, 47(4):314-331. doi:10.1002/gepi.22522 .

[23]

Daghlas I, Gill D. Mendelian randomization as a tool to inform drug development using human genetics[J]. Camb Prism Precis Med, 2023, 1:e16. doi:10.1017/pcm.2023.5 .

[24]

Burgess S, Scott RA, Timpson NJ, et al. Using published data in Mendelian randomization: a blueprint for efficient identification of causal risk factors[J]. Eur J Epidemiol, 2015, 30(7):543-552. doi:10.1007/s10654-015-0011-z .

[25]

Levin MG, Judy R, Gill D, et al. Genetics of height and risk of atrial fibrillation: a Mendelian randomization study[J]. PLoS Med, 2020, 17(10):e1003288. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003288 .

[26]

Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Burgess S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression[J]. Int J Epidemiol, 2015, 44(2):512-525. doi:10.1093/ije/dyv080 .

[27]

Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Haycock PC, et al. Consistent estimation in Mendelian randomization with some invalid instruments using a weighted Median estimator[J]. Genet Epidemiol, 2016, 40(4):304-314. doi:10.1002/gepi.21965 .

[28]

Hartwig FP, Davey Smith G, Bowden J. Robust inference in summary data Mendelian randomization via the zero modal pleiotropy assumption[J]. Int J Epidemiol, 2017, 46(6):1985-1998. doi:10.1093/ije/dyx102 .

[29]

Burgess S, Butterworth A, Thompson SG. Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data[J]. Genet Epidemiol, 2013, 37(7):658-665. doi:10.1002/gepi.21758 .

[30]

Verbanck M, Chen CY, Neale B, et al. Detection of widespread horizontal pleiotropy in causal relationships inferred from Mendelian randomization between complex traits and diseases[J]. Nat Genet, 2018, 50(5):693-698. doi:10.1038/s41588-018-0099-7 .

[31]

Bowden J, Spiller W, Del Greco M F, et al. Improving the visualization, interpretation and analysis of two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization via the Radial plot and Radial regression[J]. Int J Epidemiol, 2018, 47(4):1264-1278. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyy101 .

[32]

Hemani G, Tilling K, Davey Smith G. Orienting the causal relationship between imprecisely measured traits using GWAS summary data[J]. PLoS Genet, 2017, 13(11):e1007081. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1007081 .

[33]

Lees JS, Ho F, Parra-Soto S, et al. Kidney function and cancer risk: an analysis using creatinine and cystatin C in a cohort study[J]. EClinicalMedicine, 2021, 38:101030. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101030 .

[34]

Mok Y, Surapaneni A, Sang YY, et al. Chronic kidney disease and incident cancer risk: an individual participant data meta-analysis[J]. Br J Cancer, 2025, 133(10):1535-1543. doi:10.1038/s41416-025-03140-z .

[35]

Elyan BMP, Tan B, Lambourg E, et al. Incidence of cancer in people with CKD not requiring kidney replacement therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Clin Kidney J, 2025, 18(5):sfaf084. doi:10.1093/ckj/sfaf084 .

[36]

Xie H, Yang N, Yu C, et al. Uremic toxins mediate kidney diseases: the role of aryl hydrocarbon receptor[J]. Cell Mol Biol Lett, 2024, 29(1):38. doi:10.1186/s11658-024-00550-4 .

[37]

van de Vyver M. Immunology of chronic low-grade inflammation: relationship with metabolic function[J]. J Endocrinol, 2023, 257(1):e220271. doi:10.1530/JOE-22-0271 .

[38]

Vanholder R, Snauwaert E, Verbeke F, et al. Future of uremic toxin management[J]. Toxins, 2024, 16(11):463. doi:10.3390/toxins16110463 .

[39]

Lees JS, Elyan BMP, Herrmann SM, et al. The 'other' big complication: how chronic kidney disease impacts on cancer risks and outcomes[J]. Nephrol Dial Transplant, 2023, 38(5):1071-1079. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfac011 .

[40]

Rapa SF, Di Iorio BR, Campiglia P, et al. Inflammation and oxidative stress in chronic kidney disease-potential therapeutic role of minerals, vitamins and plant-derived metabolites[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2019, 21(1):263. doi:10.3390/ijms21010263 .

[41]

Reese KL, Pantel K, Smit DJ. Multibiomarker panels in liquid biopsy for early detection of pancreatic cancer - a comprehensive review[J]. J Exp Clin Cancer Res, 2024, 43(1):250. doi:10.1186/s13046-024-03166-w .

[42]

Tsukagoshi M, Watanabe A, Araki K, et al. Usefulness of serum creatinine and cystatin C ratio as a screening tool for predicting prognosis in patients with pancreatic cancer[J]. Ann Gastroenterol Surg, 2023, 7(5):784-792. doi:10.1002/ags3.12671 .

[43]

Costa E Silva VT, Xiong F, Mantz L, et al. Update on the assessment of GFR in patients with cancer[J]. Kidney360, 2025, 6(5):861-870. doi:10.34067/KID.0000000736 .

AI Summary AI Mindmap
PDF (1275KB)

5

访问

0

被引

详细

导航
相关文章

AI思维导图

/