联合检测血清CEA、CA125、CA19-9和CA72-4对大肠癌临床价值的探讨

目的:探讨血清CEA、CA125、CA19-9和CA72-4联合检测对大肠癌的临床价值.方法:采用电化学发光法对44例大肠癌患者手术前后、28例大肠息肉患者、30例健康体检者血清CEA、CA125、CA19-9和CA72-4水平进行检测.结果:大肠癌患者血清中四种肿瘤标志物水平明显高于大肠息肉患者和健康体健者(P＜0.05).大肠癌Dukes C-D期患者血清中四种肿瘤标志物水平明显高于Dukes A-B期患者(P＜0.05).同时大肠癌高、中分化患者血清中四种肿瘤标志物水平和低分化患者血清中四种肿瘤标志物水平相比较,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).四种肿瘤标志物联合检查结肠癌的诊断敏感性和准确性明显高于单一标志物.大肠癌患者作根治性切除术后1个月血清中四种肿瘤标志物含量较术前明显降低(P＜0.05),而作姑息性切除术后1个月血清中四种肿瘤标志物含量与术前相比,下降不明显(P＞0.05).结论:联合检测血清CEA、CA125、CA19-9和CA72-4水平可作为大肠癌的早期诊断、手术方法的选择、疗效评价及预后监测有意义的参考指标.     

大肠癌患者血清CEA、CA19-9、CA242联合测定的临床意义

目的探讨大肠癌患者血清CEA、CA19-9、CA242的检测对大肠癌诊断的临床应用价值。方法采用化学发光法对89例大肠癌患者血清CEA、CA19-9、CA242进行了检测。结果CEA、CA199、CA242联合检测阳性率为69.0%,明显高于各单项检测的阳性率(分别为53.6%、30.9%、51.2%,P<0、01),在Dukes A、B、C及D期中,3项肿瘤标志物含量及检测阳性率依次增高(P<0.05~0.01)。结论CEA、CA19-9、CA242可用于大肠癌的诊断、病情判断,联合检测可提高诊断阳性率及判断病情转归。     

胃癌患者血清CA72-4、CEA及CA19-9水平及其与临床病理特征的相关性

目的:探讨血清CA72-4、CEA及CA19-9水平与胃癌患者病理特征的相关性。方法:选择2011年6月-2013年3月收治的86例胃癌患者,56例胃良性肿瘤患者,60例普通胃病患者,比较三组患者CA72-4、CA19-9和CEA水平;CA72-4、CA19-9和CEA单项检测及联合检测胃癌患者的阳性率;CA72-4、CA19-9和CEA水平与胃癌病理特征的关系。结果:胃癌组患者血清CA72-4、CA19-9和CEA水平均高于胃良性肿瘤组患者（P＜0.05),胃癌良性组患者均高于对照组（P＜0.05);三种胃癌肿瘤标志物中CA72-4诊断胃癌的阳性率最高,肿瘤3项标志物的阳性检测率要显著高于单项CA72-4、CA19-9、CEA的阳性检出率（P＜0.05）;肿瘤越大、TNM分期越高,CA72-4、CA19-9和CEA水平越高。结论:采用CA72-4、CA19-9和CEA联合检测是诊断胃癌比较理想的组合。CA72-4、CA19-9和CEA水平的变化可以反应胃癌患者的病理特征。     

大肠癌血清CEA，CA19-9和CA242联合检测及其临床应用

 目的 评价CEA，CA19-9及CA242联合检测对大肠癌患者的临床诊断价值。方法 应用酶联免疫法对术前150例，其中术后70例大肠癌患者和200名健康人血清CEA，CA19-9及CA242含量进行测定。结果 大肠癌患者血清3项标志物含量明显高于健康人（均P＜0.01）；单项和联合检测的阳性率及特异性总体比较差异均有统计学意义（均P＜0.01）；其中CEA、CA242 检测的阳性率显著高于CA19-9， CEA+CA242与3项联合检测的阳性率均显著高于单项或其他两项联合检测的阳性率；CEA特异性高于CA242；3项联合检测的特异性明显低于单项检测。3个年龄段大肠癌患者CEA血清水平差异显著，年龄越大CEA水平越高（P＜0.05）。在Dukes 分期中，3项标志物含量及检测的阳性率依次增高（P＜0.05～0.01）。淋巴结转移患者的3项标志物含量及CA19-9，CA242的阳性率均高于无淋巴结转移的患者。3项标志物含量随肿瘤侵袭程度的加深显著增高，但在组织病理分类和肿瘤大体形态中均无明显的差异。Dukes A+B期大肠癌术后3项标志物含量显著降低（P＜0.01），而C+D期改变不明显。结论 3项标志物的检测有助于大肠癌的临床辅助诊断，联合检测可以提高诊断的阳性率；3项标志物检测对大肠癌临床分期、淋巴结转移及肿瘤侵犯程度评估，尤其CA19-9和CA242比用于术前诊断更有意义，对指导临床医师合理手术有一定的帮助；术后检测有助于观察疗效，评价治疗效果。     

大肠癌血清CEA,CA19-9和CA242联合检测及其临床意义

目的评价CEA，CA19-9及CA242联合检测对大肠癌患者的临床诊断价值。方法应用酶联免疫法对150例术前大肠癌患者及其中70例术后患者和200名健康人血清CEA，CA19-9及CA242含量进行测定。结果大肠癌患者血清3项标志物含量明显高于健康人（均P〈0．01）；单项和联合检测的阳性率及特异性总体比较差异均有统计学意义（均P〈0．01）；其中CEA、CA242检测的阳性率显著高于CA19-9；CEA＋CA242与3项联合检测的阳性率均显著高于单项或其他两项联合检测的阳性率；CEA特异性高于CA242；3项联合检测的特异性明显低于单项检测。3个年龄段大肠癌患者CEA血清水平差异显著，年龄越大CEA水平越高（P〈0．05）。在Dukes分期中，3项标志物含量及检测的阳性率依次增高（P〈0．05～0．01）。淋巴结转移患者的3项标志物含量及CA19-9，CA242的阳性率均高于无淋巴结转移的患者。3项标志物含量随肿瘤侵袭程度的增加显著增高，但在组织病理分类和肿瘤大体形态中均差异无统计学意义。Dukes A＋B期大肠癌术后3项标志物含量显著降低（P〈0．01），而C＋D期改变不明显。结论3项标志物的检测有助于大肠癌的临床辅助诊断，联合检测可以提高诊断的阳性率；3项标志物检测对大肠癌临床分期、淋巴结转移及肿瘤侵犯程度评估，尤其CA19-9和CA242比用于术前诊断更有意义，对指导临床医师合理手术有一定的帮助；术后检测有助于观察疗效，评价治疗效果。     

血清肿瘤标志物联合检测在大肠癌诊断中的价值

[目的]研究血清中多种肿瘤标志物的变化及联合检测在大肠癌诊断中的价值。[方法]采用电化学发光免疫分析方法对161例大肠癌患者进行血清CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4和CYFRA21-1共4项肿瘤标志物检测,并与100例正常体检者进行对比分析其诊断价值。[结果]161例大肠癌患者的CEA、CYFRA21-1、CA72-4和CA19-9的阳性率分别为55.9%、42.2%、38.5%和36.9%,平均浓度分别为29.5±18.6、52.4±19.2、16.7±9.4和13.1±10.5,均明显高于正常对照组（P〈0.01）。采用平行联合检测可使诊断敏感度提高至80.5%,系列联合检测则使特异性提高到100%。Dukes’B、C期患者4项肿瘤标志物均明显高于Dukes’A期患者,术后4项指标均有下降。当肿瘤复发和转移时,CEA、CA72-4和CYFRA21-1再度明显升高。[结论]联合检测血清肿瘤标志物CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4和CYFRA21-1可提高大肠癌的诊断率,有助于大肠癌的早期诊断,并可用于判断大肠癌的疗效和预后。     

肿瘤标志物在胃癌早期诊断中的应用价值

目的 探讨血清中常见肿瘤标志物在胃癌早期诊断中的应用价值.方法 选择64例胃癌患者(A组),45例胃良性囊肿患者(B组),42例胃黏膜正常的人(C组)作为研究对象.对3组患者血清中CA242、CA724、CA19-9和CEA水平进行比较、癌症各期患者血清中各肿瘤标志物表达水平的检测以及各种肿瘤标志物单测及联合检测对胃癌诊断有效率进行比较.结果 恶性肿瘤组(A组)患者血清中CA242、CA724、CA19-9和CEA水平均显著性高于良性(B组)、对照组(C组)患者,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);B组患者血清中肿瘤标志物水平显著性的高于C组患者,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).随着肿瘤分期的不断延长,胃癌患者血清中CA242、CA724、CA19-9和CEA的表达水平均显著增加;各标志物中CA724的灵敏度最高,CEA标志物的特异性最高,CA724标志物的有效诊断率最高,4项标志物联合检测的灵敏度、特异性以及有效诊断率要显著高于单测肿瘤标志物,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 采用CA242、CA724、CA19-9和CEA联合检测是诊断胃癌的理想组合,联合检测能够有效提高诊断的特异性、灵敏度以及有效率,对于胃癌早期的诊断、治疗具有十分重要的意义.     

血清胆汁CA19-9、CEA、CA242联合检测诊断胆道良恶性肿瘤的可行性分析

目的:探讨血清、胆汁CA19-9、CEA、CA242联合诊断胆道良恶性肿瘤的临床价值。方法:对象为2013年10月-2015年2月来我院诊治的疑似恶性胆道肿瘤的患者202例,均行手术探查。所有患者均通过穿刺的方式取胆汁进行CA19-9、CEA、CA242检测,比较不同疾病类型患者血清、胆汁中的CA19-9、CEA、CA242检测水平,分析血清胆汁联合检测在胆道良恶性肿瘤中的诊断价值。结果:202例手术探查患者中,98例经病理证实为恶性胆道肿瘤患者、22例为良性胆道肿瘤患者,82例为其他胆道疾病。恶性胆道肿瘤与良性胆道肿瘤患者胆汁中CA242、CA19-9和CEA的表达水平要显著性的高于在血清中的表达水平（P＜0.05）;恶性肿瘤组患者的胆汁中CA242、CA19-9和CEA检测水平均显著性高于良性肿瘤患者（P＜0.05);胆汁CA242、CA19-9和CEA联合诊断胆道恶性肿瘤的敏感率为33.66%,准确率为88.98%,特异性为91.16%,阳性率为35.24%。结论:利用胆汁中肿瘤标记物对胆道肿瘤的检测水平要高于血清中的水平,采用CA19-9、CEA、CA242的联合检测是诊断胆道肿瘤比较理想的组合。上述肿瘤标志物的组合能够提高胆道肿瘤良恶性的预判准确度,对于早期胆道良恶性肿瘤的发现、治疗具有十分重要的意义。     

喉癌患者血清中SCCAg、CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4和CYFRA21-1的检测及意义

目的 分析肿瘤标志物鳞状细胞癌相关抗原(SCCAg)、癌胚抗原(CEA)、糖类抗原19-9(CA19-9)、糖类抗原72-4(CA72-4)和细胞角化素蛋白19片段(CYFRA21-1)在喉癌患者血清中的表达及意义.方法 以接受手术治疗的喉癌患者112例为研究对象,设为观察组,另抽取50例健康体检者为对照组,比较两组患者血清中肿瘤标志物的水平.结果 观察组喉癌患者术前血清中的SCCAg、CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4、CYFRA21-1水平,均显著高于对照组和术后(P<0.05);高～中分化喉癌患者血清肿瘤标志物水平显著低于低分化者(P<0.05);TNM分期Ⅰ～Ⅱ期者血清肿瘤标志物水平显著低于Ⅲ～Ⅳ期者(P<0.05);血清肿瘤标志物SCCAg、CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4、CYFRA21-1中,CYFRA21-1敏感度最高,其次为SCCAg、CEA,CA19-9最低;CA19-9特异度最高,其次为CA72-4、CEA,CYFRA21-1最低;SCCAg+ CYFRA21-1两项联合检测与五项联合检测的敏感度均显著高于单项检测,特异度低于单项检测(P<0.05),五项联合检测的敏感度高于SCCAg+ CYFRA21-1两项联合检测,特异度低于两项联合检测,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 血清肿瘤标志物SCCAg、CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4、CYFRA21-1检测在喉癌患者的早期辅助诊断中具有一定的价值,其中CYFRA21-1和SCCAg的诊断价值最高.     

联合检测血清肿瘤标志物对大肠癌辅助诊断及预后研究

目的:探讨联合检测血清肿瘤标志物在大肠癌诊断和预后判断中的应用.方法:收集本院自2007年1月至2010年12月间收治的102例大肠癌患者,以50例同期健康体检者作为对照,分别检测其血清肿瘤标志物CEA、CA125、CA19-9和CA724的水平.观察肿瘤标志物水平与大肠癌患者临床病理特征的关系及联合检测对诊断敏感度和特异性的影响.结果:在大肠癌患者中,各肿瘤标志物的水平均显著高于对照组,且其水平高低与大肠癌的临床分期和肿瘤的分化程度密切相关.联合检测肿瘤标志物的水平可显著提高诊断的特异性和敏感度.结论:联合检测血清肿瘤标志物有助于大肠癌的诊断和判断患者的预后.     

肿瘤标志物在结肠癌诊疗中的应用

目的探讨肿瘤标志物单项检测或联检在结肠癌诊断、随访、预后及疗效观察中的应用。方法用电化学发光方法检测结肠癌105例、良性肠道疾病30例、健康对照40例血浆中CEA、CA19—9、CA72-4、CA242的含量。结果结肠癌患者CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4、CA242的含量明显大于良性肠道疾病患者和健康对照组（P〈0．01）。63例结肠癌根治术后肿瘤标志物明显下降（P〈0．01）。结论肿瘤标志物可用于结肠癌的诊断、预后、疗效观察、复发和早期转移诊断。     

CEA,CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 improve the diagnostic accuracy in gastrointestinal cancers

BACKGROUND: CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242 and CA 72-4 are commonly used tumour markers for gastrointestinal malignancies. The advantage of the concomitant use of these markers is under debate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Serum concentrations of the markers were measured at the time of diagnosis in 161 patients with benign and 125 with malignant gastrointestinal diseases. Concomitant use of the markers was evaluated in a logistic regression model. RESULTS: CA 19-9, CA 242 or CA 72-4 showed similar sensitivity of 44% for gastric cancer, whereas CEA was elevated in 25% of the cases. In patients with colorectal cancer, CEA was most frequently elevated (54%), followed by CA 242 (46%), CA 19-9 (36%) and CA 72-4 (25%). High CA 19-9 and CA 242 serum levels were frequent in patients with cholangiocarcinoma (86% and 68%, respectively) and pancreatic cancer (80% and 63%, respectively). In the benign disease group, serum CA 19-9 was most frequently elevated, i.e. in 24%, 25% and 38% of patients with pancreatic, biliary and liver disorders, respectively. The overall accuracy of CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242 and CA 72-4 was 66%, 71%, 71% and 66%, respectively (p > 0.18). When combined in a logistic regression model, CA 72-4, CA 19-9 and CEA provided independent diagnostic information, whereas CA 242 contributed with independent diagnostic information only on excluding CA 19-9. The probability of cancer for each patient, calculated with the model, was applied as a diagnostic test and was compared with the single markers by ROC-curve analysis. The AUC value of the probability index was significantly higher than the values of the different tumour markers. CONCLUSION: An algorithm based on the combination of CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 improved the diagnostic accuracy in gastrointestinal tract malignancies compared with these markers alone.     

Serum HCG beta,CA 72-4 and CEA are independent prognostic factors in colorectal cancer

In colorectal cancer, stage is considered to be the strongest prognostic factor, but also serum tumour markers have been reported to be of prognostic value. The aim of our study was to investigate the prognostic value of serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CA 19-9, CA 242, CA 72-4 and free beta subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG beta) in colorectal cancer. Preoperative serum samples were obtained from 204 colorectal cancer patients, including 31 patients with Dukes' A, 70 with Dukes' B, 49 with Dukes' C and 54 with Dukes' D cancer. The serum levels of CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242 and CA 72-4 were measured with commercial kits with cut-off values of 5 microg/L for CEA, 37 kU/L for CA 19-9, 20 kU/L for CA 242 and 6 kU/L for CA 72-4. The serum hCG beta was quantitated by an immunofluorometric assay (IFMA) with 2 pmol/L as a cut-off value. Survival analyses were performed with Kaplan-Meier life tables, log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model. The sensitivity was 44% for CEA, 26% for CA 19-9, 36% for CA 242, 27% for CA 72-4 and 16% for hCG beta. The overall 5-year survival was 55%, and in Dukes' A, B, C and D cancers the survival was 89%, 77%, 52% and 3%, respectively. Elevated serum values of all markers correlated with worse survival (p < 0.001). In Cox multivariate analysis, the strongest prognostic factor was Dukes' stage (p < 0.001), followed by tumour location (p = 0.002) and preoperative serum markers hCG beta (p = 0.002), CA 72-4 (p = 0.003) and CEA (p = 0.005). In conclusion, elevated CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242, CA 72-4 and hCG beta relate to poor outcome in colorectal cancer. In multivariate analysis, independent prognostic significance was observed with hCG beta, CA 72-4 and CEA.     

Comparison of a new tumour marker CA 242 with CA 19-9, CA 50 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in digestive tract diseases

The levels of CA 242, a new tumour marker of carbohydrate nature, were measured in sera of 185 patients with malignancies of the digestive tract and of 123 patients with benign digestive tract diseases. High percentages of elevated CA 242 levels (greater than 20 U ml-1) were recorded in patients with pancreatic and biliary cancers (68%). The sensitivity was somewhat lower than that of CA 19-9 (76%) and CA 50 (73%). On the other hand, in benign pancreatic and biliary tract diseases the CA 242 level was less frequently elevated than the CA 19-9 and CA 50 levels. The serum CA 242 concentration was increased in 55% of patients with colorectal cancer. CA 242 detected more Dukes A-B carcinomas (47%) than CEA (32%), whereas CEA was more often elevated (71% vs 59%) in Dukes C-D carcinomas. CA 242 was slightly elevated (ad 41 U ml-1) in 10% of patients with benign colorectal diseases. CA 50 and CA 19-9 had lower sensitivities than CA 242 using the recommended cut-off values. When cut-off levels based on relevant benign colorectal diseases were used, the sensitivities of these markers were similar and somewhat higher than that of CEA. Less than half of patients with gastric cancer (44%) had an elevated CA 242 serum level. CA 242 is a promising new tumour marker, that may be of additional value in the diagnosis of pancreatic and biliary, as well as colorectal cancer, and may be useful in monitoring cancer patients after radical surgery.     

大肠癌患者血清肿瘤标志物含量测定与临床研究

目的评价血清肿瘤标志物(CEA、CA199和CA242)单项或多项联合检测对大肠癌患者的临床诊断价值,探讨其在病理分期、淋巴结转移、侵袭程度及肿瘤大体形态等临床特征方面的意义。方法应用酶联免疫法检测134例大肠癌患者和200名健康人血清中CEA、CA199和CA242含量。结果大肠癌患者血清3种肿瘤标志物含量明显高于健康人(均P<0.01);单项检测中,CEA和CA242的阳性率无差异,但均显著高于CA199;CEA+CA242联合检测和CEA+CA242+CA199联合检测的阳性率显著高于单项和CEA+CA199的联合及CA199+CA242的联合,但特异性低于单项检测。在dukesA、B、C及D期中,3项肿瘤标志物含量及检测的阳性率依次增高,总体水平差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05～0.01);淋巴结转移患者的3项标志物含量及CA199、CA242的阳性率均高于无淋巴结转移的患者;3项标志物含量随肿瘤侵袭程度的加深显著增高,但在组织病理分类和肿瘤大体形态中均无明显的差异。结论CEA、CA199及CA242肿瘤标志物联合检测可以提高大肠癌诊断的敏感度,并对临床分期、判断淋巴结转移、肿瘤侵袭程度、进而进行有效临床治疗,具有一定的指导意义。     

Estimating the probability of cancer with several tumor markers in patients with colorectal disease

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare serum tumor markers, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CA 19-9, CA 242, CA 72-4 and hCGbeta, and their value in the diagnosis of malignant colorectal disease. METHODS: The serum concentrations of the markers were measured in 204 patients with colorectal cancer and in 104 inpatients with benign colorectal disease. The combined use of the markers was evaluated with a logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: When all five markers were evaluated in the same model, only CEA and CA 72-4 provided significant diagnostic information (p < 0.001), indicating that their combination improves the accuracy. The probability of cancer for each patient was calculated entering CEA and CA 72-4 in the logistic regression model. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were constructed, and the difference in the area under the curve (AUC) values was determined between the markers and the calculated probability of cancer. Of the individual markers, the highest AUC was observed for CEA (AUC = 0.746). The difference in the AUC between CEA and CA 72-4 (AUC = 0.716) was insignificant (p = 0.492), but between CEA and the other three markers it was significant (p < 0.015). The calculated probability of cancer index, based on a combination of CEA and CA 72-4, had a significantly higher AUC (AUC = 0.804) than CEA alone (AUC = 0.746; p = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic value of CA 72-4 was additive to that of CEA in colorectal cancer, and both markers contributed with significant diagnostic information. As a diagnostic test, the probability of cancer calculated with logistic regression provided higher accuracy than any of the markers alone, implying that it might be a useful diagnostic tool.     

血清脂联素、CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4联合检测在胃癌早期筛查中的临床价值分析

目的:探讨血清脂联素、CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4联合检测在胃癌早期筛查中的临床价值。方法:选取首次确诊的早期胃癌患者60例,胃癌患者再根据幽门螺杆菌是否感染分为感染组32例与未感染组28例;胃良性疾病组患者100例;健康对照组110例。采用化学发光法检测CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4水平,ELISA检测血清脂联素水平,幽门螺杆菌检测采用C14呼气试验,比较不同分组间各指标的差异。结果:胃癌组血清CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4水平均高于胃良性疾病组和健康对照组(P<0.01),血清脂联素水平显著低于胃良性疾病组和健康对照组(P<0.01);胃癌患者幽门螺杆菌感染时,血清CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4水平明显高于未感染组(P<0.01),感染组患者血清脂联素水平与未感染组比较,无显著性差异(P>0.05);四项联合检测胃癌灵敏度最高,达96.67,特异度为98.10%,阳性预测值为93.55%,阴性预测值为99.04%,阳性似然比为50.75、阴性似然比为0.03,约登指数达0.95,ROC曲线下面积为0.955。结论:胃癌早期患者血清脂联素水平不受幽门螺杆菌感染的影响,四项联合检测可明显提高检测的灵敏度和特异度,对胃癌患者早期筛查具有较高的临床应用价值。