DIAGNOSTIC POTENTIAL OF C-REACTIVE PROTEIN IN SEPSIS IN ONCOHEMATOLOGICAL PATIENTS

The study aims to analyze the dynamics, diagnostic, and prognostic significance of C-reactive protein (CRP) in sepsis in oncohematological patients. The CRP levels were compared in 30 patients with lymphoproliferative diseases using two designs. The first design included patients who received cytostatic therapy (groups 1 and 3 with and without complications, respectively), as well as patients who received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation after cytostatic therapy (groups 2 and 4 with and without complications, respectively). The second design consisted of two groups of patients: the first with sepsis (n = 15) and the second without any complications (n = 15). In statistical analysis, the Mann–Whitney U test or Student’s t-test (at p < 0.05) were used to compare quantitative indicators according to the distribution type, and the ROC curve (AUC) was used to assess the diagnostic significance of CRP in predicting a specific outcome. Statistically significant differences were found in the level of CRP in both groups with sepsis compared to the corresponding groups without sepsis (p_1–3 < 0.001, p_2–4 < 0.001), the level of CRP depending on the outcome (recovery/death) in both study designs (p < 0.05), and the dynamics of CRP when comparing groups with sepsis. When assessing the diagnostic significance of CRP, AUC = 0.862 ± 0.029 with 95 % CI: 0.806–0.918, sensitivity (Se) was 85.7 % and specificity (Sp) was 69.7 %. When predicting 10-day mortality, AUC = 0.756 ± 0.069 with 95 % CI: 0.621–0.892, Se was 57.9 % and Sp was 89.2 %, the model was statistically significant (p < 0.001) in both cases. As an available marker, CRP has good diagnostic value in the comprehensive sepsis diagnosis, in particular in hematological oncology patients.

1. Schupp T., Weidner K., Rusnak J. et al. C-reactive protein and procalcitonin during course of sepsis and septic shock // Irish Journal of Medical Science. 2024. Vol. 193, no. 1. P. 457–468. DOI 10.1007/s11845-023-03385-8.

2. Póvoa P., Coelho L. Which biomarkers can be used as diagnostic tools for infection in suspected sepsis? // Seminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2021. Vol. 42, no. 5. P. 662–671. DOI 10.1055/s-0041-1735148.

3. Lu T. C., Yang Y. J., Zhong Y. et al. Simultaneous detection of C-reactive protein and lipopolysaccharide based on a dualchannel electrochemical biosensor for rapid Gram-typing of bacterial sepsis // Biosensors & Bioelectronics. 2024. Vol. 243. P. 115772. DOI 10.1016/j.bios.2023.115772.

4. Póvoa P., Coelho L., Dal-Pizzol F. et al. How to use biomarkers of infection or sepsis at the bedside: Guide to clinicians // Intensive Care Medicine. 2023. Vol. 49, no. 2. P. 142–153. DOI 10.1007/s00134-022-06956-y.

5. Наумова Л. А., Яллыев М. Б. Современный взгляд на традиционные маркеры при сепсисе // Вестник СурГУ. Медицина. 2023. Т. 16, № 4. С. 61–69. DOI 10.35266/2949-3447-2023-4-9.

6. Sproston N. R., Ashworth J. J. Role of C-reactive protein at sites of inflammation and infection // Frontiers in Immunology. 2018. Vol. 9. P. 754. DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00754.

7. Salomão R., Ferreira B. L., Salomão M. C. et al. Sepsis: Evolving concepts and challenges // Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research. 2019. Vol. 52, no. 4. P. e8595. DOI 10.1590/1414-431X20198595.

8. Plebani M. Why C-reactive protein is one of the most requested tests in clinical laboratories? // Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. 2023. Vol. 61, no. 9. P. 1540–1545. DOI 10.1515/cclm-2023-0086.

9. Puspitasari Y. M., Ministrini S., Schwarz L. et al. Modern concepts in cardiovascular disease: Inflamm-aging // Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology. 2022. Vol. 10. P. 882211. DOI 10.3389/fcell.2022.882211.

10. Prasad M., Corban M. T., Henry T. D. et al. Promise of autologous CD34+ stem/progenitor cell therapy for treatment of cardiovascular disease // Cardiovascular Research. 2020. Vol. 116, no. 8. P. 1424–1433. DOI 10.1093/cvr/cvaa027.

11. Xie J., Jiang L., Wang J. et al. Multilineage contribution of CD34+cells in cardiac remodeling after ischemia/reperfusion injury // Basic Research in Cardiology. 2023. Vol. 118, no. 1. P. 17. DOI 10.1007/s00395-023-00981-8.

12. Ou H., Zhao S., Peng Y. et al. Comparison of bone marrow tissueand adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells in the treatment of sepsis in a murine model of lipopolysaccharideinduced sepsis // Molecular Medical Reports. 2016. Vol. 14, no. 4. P. 3862–3870. DOI 10.3892/mmr.2016.5694.

13. Sun X. Y., Ding X. F., Liang H. Y. et al. Efficacy of mesenchymal stem cell therapy for sepsis: A meta-analysis of preclinical studies // Stem Cell Research & Therapy. 2020. Vol. 11. P. 214. DOI 10.1186/s13287-020-01730-7.

14. Ge L., Zhao J., Deng H. et al. Effect of bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cell therapies in rodent models of sepsis: A meta-analysis // Frontiers in Immunology. 2022. Vol. 12. P. 792098. DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2021.792098.

15. Huang C., Chen J., Zhan X. et al. Clinical value of laboratory biomarkers for the diagnosis and early identification of culturepositive sepsis in neonates // Journal of Inflammation Research. 2023. Vol. 16. P. 5111–5124. DOI 10.2147/JIR.S419221.

16. Pierrakos C., Velissaris D., Bisdorff M. et al. Biomarkers of sepsis: Time for a reappraisal // Critical Care (London, England). 2020. Vol. 24, no. 1. P. 287. DOI 10.1186/s13054-020-02993-5.

17. Tang B. M., Eslick G. D., Craig J. C. et al. Accuracy of procalcitonin for sepsis diagnosis in critically ill patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis // The Lancet. Infectious Diseases. 2007. Vol. 7, no. 3. P. 210–217. DOI 10.1016/S1473-3099(07)70052-X.

18. Koizumi Y., Sakanashi D., Ohno T. et al. Plasma procalcitonin levels remain low at the onset of gram-positive bacteremia regardless of severity or the presence of shock: A retrospective analysis of patients with detailed clinical characteristics // Journal of Microbiology, Immunology, and Infection. 2021. Vol. 54, no. 6. P. 1028–1037. DOI 10.1016/j.jmii.2020.08.015.