Diagnostic performance of ultrasonic flow ratio versus quantitative flow ratio for assessment of coronary stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasonic flow ratio (UFR) is a novel intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-derived modality for fast computation of fractional flow reserve (FFR) without pressure wires and adenosine. AIMS: This study was sought to compare the diagnostic performance of UFR and quantitative flow ratio (QFR), using FFR as the reference standard. METHODS: This is a retrospective study enrolling consecutive patients with intermediate coronary artery lesions (diameter stenosis of 30%-90% by visual estimation) for IVUS and FFR measurement. UFR and QFR were performed offline in a core-lab by independent analysts blinded to FFR. RESULTS: From December 2022 to May 2023, a total of 78 eligible patients were enrolled. IVUS and FFR measurements were successfully conducted in 104 vessels, finally 98 vessels with both FFR, UFR and QFR evaluation were analyzed. Mean FFR was 0.79 ± 0.12. UFR showed a strong correlation with FFR similar to QFR (r = 0.83 vs. 0.82, p = 0.795). Diagnostic accuracy of UFR was non-inferior to QFR (94% [89%-97%] versus 90% [84%-94%], p = 0.113). Sensitivity and specificity in identifying hemodynamically significant stenosis were comparable between UFR and QFR (sensitivity: 89% [79%-96%] versus 85% [74%-92%], p = 0.453; specificity: 97% [91%-99%] versus 95% [88%-99%], p = 0.625). The area under curve for UFR was 0.95 [0.90-0.98], non-inferior to QFR (difference = 0.021, p = 0.293), and significantly higher than minimum lumen area (MLA; difference = 0.13, p < 0.001). Diagnostic accuracy of UFR and QFR was not statically different in bifurcation nor non-bifurcation lesions. CONCLUSIONS: UFR showed excellent concordance with FFR, non-inferior to QFR, superior to MLA. UFR provides a potentiality for the integration of physiological assessment and intravascular imaging in clinical practice.

Expression profile of circular RNAs in IDH-wild type glioblastoma tissues.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study is to investigate the expression profiles of circular RNAs (circRNAs) in IDH-wild type (IDH-wt) glioblastoma and explore the differences in circRNAs expression between IDH-wt glioblastoma and adjacent normal brain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: circRNA expression profiles were detected by circRNA microarray in three matched pairs of IDH-wt glioblastoma and adjacent normal brain. qRT-PCR was used to verify the differential expression of circRNAs from microarray analysis. Bioinformatics analysis was used to analyze potential functions of the differentially expressed circRNAs in IDH-wt glioblastoma. RESULTS: Compared with the adjacent normal brain tissues, 254 circRNAs were upregulated and 361 circRNAs were downregulated in IDH-wt glioblastoma with a ≥1.5-fold change. A total of 12 differentially expressed circRNAs were randomly selected and validated a good correlation of results from circRNA-seq with qRT-PCR. Gene Ontology (GO) analysis revealed the differentially expressed circRNAs possibly involved in cell division, DNA damage repair, cytoskeleton, and protein ubiquitination. 46 and 50 miRNAs were predicted to be adsorbed by the top 10 upregulated circRNAs and top 10 downregulated circRNAs, respectively. CONCLUSION: Differential expression of circRNAs may be associated with IDH-wt glioblastoma development and progression, and these circRNAs can be identified as biomarkers for prognosis prediction and targets for treatment.

Overexpression of G-protein-coupled receptors 65 in glioblastoma predicts poor patient prognosis.

OBJECTIVE: G-protein-coupled receptors 65 (GPR65), identified as an acid-sensing receptor, is overexpressed in several malignancies and promote tumor development. Our aim was to investigate the expression and prognostic value of GPR65 in glioblastoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We determined the expression of GPR65 protein using immunohistochemistry in tissue microarrays containing 11 Grade I, 107 Grade II, 47 Grade III, and 102 Grade IV gliomas and 16 normal brains. Then we evaluated its association with pathological grades, prognosis, and recurrence. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) group (N=528) was further employed to examine transcriptional level of GPR65 in glioblastoma and the correlation between GPR65 expression and clinical outcome. RESULTS: In our cohort, GPR65 expression was positively related to glioma pathological grade (p<0.01) and elevated in glioblastoma (p<0.01). High expression of GPR65 was associated with significantly short overall survival (OS) (p=0.013) and progression-free survival (PFS) (p=0.029), and could be identified as an independent risk factor for OS of glioblastoma patients (Hazard Ratio [HR]=1.596, p=0.037). As an aiding evidence, increased GPR65 mRNA expression was also found in TCGA glioblastoma group (p<0.001) and its high level predicted a poor clinical outcome (OS, p=0.003; PFS, p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that GPR65 is overexpressed in glioblastoma and its high expression predicts unfavorable clinical outcome for patients. Targeting GPR65 may serve as a potential therapy for treating glioblastoma.