Objective To explore the diagnostic value of prostate specific antigen (PSA),compound prostate specific antigen(cPSA),and cPSA / tPSA ratio in prostatic cancer(PCa).Methods Two hundred nineteen people,aged 62-68,were divided into three groups according to the clinical diagnosis,including PCa group(n=73),benign prostatic hyperplasia(BPH) group(n=76) and control group(n=70) composed of healthy people.The various indicators,including tPSA,cPSA and cPSA/tPSA were measured by Advia Centaur CP chemiluminescent analyzer.Results tPSA,cPSA and c/t significantly increased in PCa group compared with those in BPH or control group (P<0.05).ROC analysis indicated that if the tPSA cut-off values was19.89 μg/L,the sensitivity,specificity,the area under the curve (AUC) and Youden index would be 94.5%,97.9%,0.96 and 0.924 respectively.If the cut-off value of cPSA was 13.14 μg/L,the sensitivity,specificity,the area under the curve(AUC) and Youden index would be 95.9%,91.8%,0.98 and 0.877 respectively.The chi-square test showed that there is no correlation between tPSA,cPSA and pathology diagnosis(χ2=102.036、151.409,P<0.05).Conclusion PCa or PCa treatment relapse should be highly suspected when the concentration of tPSA or cPSA in patients reached 19.89 μg/L and 13.14 μg/L,the patients should be reminded for treatment timely.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of the efficacy of mandibular advance clear alig-ners with traditional functional appliances as the control group. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, China Biomedical Abstracts Database, China Knowledge Network Database, Wanfang Database, and Weipu Database were used in this study. The two groups of researchers screened the literature and extracted data based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria established by PICOS entries, and used the ROBINS-I scale for quality evaluation. Revman 5.4 and Stata 17.0 software were used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Nine clinical controlled trials were included in this study with a total sample size of 283 cases. No significant difference was found in SNA, SNB, ANB, Go-Pog, U1-SN, Overjet, and other aspects between the invisible group and the traditional group in the treatment of skeletal class Ⅱ ma-locclusion patients; there was a 0.90° difference in mandibular plane angle between the two groups; the growth of the mandibular ramus (Co-Go) in the traditional group was 1.10 mm more than that in the invisible group; the lip inclination of the lower teeth in the invisible group was better controlled, 1.94° less than that in the control group. CONCLUSIONS The invisible group can better control the lip inclination of the mandibular anterior teeth when guiding the mandible. Furthermore, the mandibular plane angle (MP-SN) can remain unchanged, but the growth of the mandibular ramus is not as good as the traditional group, and auxiliary measures should be taken to improve it in clinical practice.
Humans ; Malocclusion, Angle Class II/therapy* ; Mandibular Advancement ; Orthodontics, Corrective ; Orthodontic Appliances, Functional ; Mandible ; Orthodontic Appliances, Removable ; Cephalometry