RESUMO
Objective To establish a mouse model of lung adenocarcinoma brain metastasis with human luc+-PC?9 cells stably expressing luciferase and to compare the evaluation values of bioluminescence imaging and18 F?FDG ( 18 F?flu?orodeoxyglucose) SPECT/CT in these models. Methods Suspension of luc+?PC?9 cells was injected into the left ventri?cle of BALB/c nude mice to establish a mouse model of brain metastasis from lung cancer. Bioluminescence imaging and18 F?FDG SPECT/CT were used to evaluate the metastasis of tumors as compared with HE?staining pathology as a golden standard. Results The success rate of brain metastases was 85% through injecting luc+?PC?9 cells into the left ventricle. The number of tumor cells was positively related to the intensity of light, with a linear correlation (R2 =0. 96). Fluores?cence was observed in the brain, spine and femur by bioluminescence imaging, and the metastases were confirmed by H&E pathological examination. 18 F?FDG SPECT/CT observed abnormal density collective foci in the spine or femur but not in the brain. Conclusions Injection of tumor cell suspension into the mouse left ventricle is a good method to establish a brain metastasis of lung cancer. Bioluminescence has a higher sensitivity and specificity in detecting brain metastasis and bone metastasis, with advantages of real?time, dynamical and non?invasive detection of tumor metastasis growth. 18 F?FDG SPECT/CT does not have superiority in detection of brain metastases but is suitable for detecting bone metastasis.
RESUMO
Objective To learn the impacts of major diagnosis, other diagnoses, major surgery and other surgeries on the grouping of DRGs, and to optimize the DRGs data grouping quality by analyzing the main influencing factors of DRGs.Methods Based on regrouping results of the 1 940 questionable cases which have been corrected, using SPSS 13.0 to study the impacts of the questions found on the grouping of DRGs.Results 438 Patient records affecting DRGs grouping were regrouped according to major diagnosis, other diagnoses, major surgery and other surgeries.Influences of the above four groups on the grouping vary in general For comparison between two groups, P＞0.007 1 between main surgery and other surgeries;while P＜0.007 1 for comparison between other groups.Conclusion The highest influence of grouping was found in questionable major diagnosis, much higher than such other factors as other diagnoses, major surgery and other surgeries.This conclusion conforms to the steps of basic DRGs grouping logic-sorting the eases according to major diagnosis first of all Correct naming of surgery influences DRGs grouping, but the influence extent of major surgery and other surgeries is close.