肿瘤标志物CEA、CYFRA21-1和NSE联合检测对老年人胸腔积液鉴别诊断的意义

目的评价老年良、恶性胸腔积液患者血清和胸液中3种肿瘤标志物单项和联合检测的诊断价值。方法采集有胸腔积液患者的血清及胸水样本各64例，其中恶性组34例，良性组30例，用放射免疫法检测其血清及胸水癌胚抗原（CEA）、细胞角蛋白19片断（CYFRA21—1）和神经元特异性烯醇化酶（NSE）的含量。结果恶性组血清和胸水中CEA、CYFRA21—1、NSE水平均显著高于良性组（P〈0．01）；血清中3项指标对恶性胸水诊断的敏感性和特异性：CEA为79．4％和86．7％；CYFRA21—1为79．4％和83．3％；NSE为70．6％和73．3％；胸水中3项指标对恶性胸水诊断的敏感性和特异性：CEA为82．4％和83．3％；CYFRA21—1为79．4％和80．0％；NSE为64．7％和70．0％；CYFRA21—1与CEA联合检测可使血清标志物敏感性和诊断符合率提高至97．1％和92．2％，胸水标志物提高至97．1％和90．6％；血清和胸水中3种肿瘤标志物平行联合检测可提高诊断的敏感性至100％，系列联合检测可使特异性提高至100％。结论肿瘤标志物CEA、CYFRA21—1和NSE的联合检测，对老年人胸腔积液的鉴别诊断有较高的临床价值，以CEA＋CYFRA21—1组合为佳。     

CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE、LDH在良恶性胸腔积液中的鉴别诊断价值

目的 探讨血清及胸腔积液中癌胚抗原(CEA)、细胞角蛋白19片段(CYFRA21-1)、神经特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)、乳酸脱氢酶(LDH)在良恶性胸腔积液鉴别诊断价值.方法 分析我院55例肺癌患者和53例良性胸腔积液患者的血清及胸腔积液中CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE、LDH检测水平,并根据受试者工作特性(ROC)曲线建立合理的临床判断临界值及检测的敏感性和特异性.结果 恶性患者胸水CYFRA21-1、NSE、CEA、LDH的水平高于良性患者(P<0.05).胸水CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE、LDH的敏感性和特异性分别为90.9、63.6、72.7、36.4%和98.1、83、67.9、88.7%.血清CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE、LDH的敏感性和特异性分别为89.1、87.3 、32.1、25.5%和92.5、79.2、90.6、92.5%.结论 胸水中CYFRA21-1、NSE、CEA、LDH检测在良恶性胸腔积液鉴别诊断中具有一定临床价值.     

肺癌患者血清和胸水中常用肿瘤标志物的检测

目的探讨肺癌患者血清和胸水中6种肿瘤标志物的检测意义，并选择较理想的肿瘤标志物组合。方法应用ELISA检测120例肺癌患者和90例肺部良性疾病患者血清和胸水中以及50例健康人血清中神经元特异性烯醇化酶（NSE）、胃泌素释放肽前体（pro-GRP）、细胞角质蛋白19（CYFRA21-1）、鳞癌抗原（SCC）、p53抗体和癌胚抗原（CEA）的水平含量。结果肺癌患者血清和胸水6种肿瘤标志物水平均明显高于健康人组和肺部良性疾病组（P〈0．01）。肺部良性疾病组胸水中NSE、CYFRA21—1和CEA的假阳性率较高。血清NSE、pro—GRP在小细胞肺癌中的水平和敏感性明显高于其他类型的肺癌（P〈0．01）；血清CYFRA21-1、SCC在肺鳞癌中的水平和敏感性明显高于其他类型的肺癌（P〈0．01）。6种血清肿瘤标志物经组合后，在特异性下降不大的情况下。敏感性明显高于任一单项肿瘤标志物（P〈0．01）。结论6种肿瘤标志物的检测对于肺癌的辅助诊断有一定的临床意义。血清NSE、pro-GRP可作为联合检测小细胞肺癌的标志物组合；血清CYFRA21-1、SCC可作为联合检测肺鳞癌的标志物组合；血清NSE、CYFRA21-1、CEA可作为联合检测非小细胞肺癌的标志物组合。     

支气管肺泡灌洗液和血清CEA、CYFRA21—1检测对肺癌诊断价值的研究

目的研究支气管肺泡灌洗液（BALF）和血清中癌胚抗原（CEA）、细胞角蛋白19片段（CYFRA21—1）的检测在肺癌诊断中的价值。方法将近来在我院行纤维支气管镜检查的门诊或住院患者38例,分为2组,即肺癌组18例和肺良性病变组20例,纤支镜灌洗留取BALF和采集空腹血清,分别测定CEA、CYFRA21—1。结果肺癌组患者BALF和血清CEA、CY—FRA21-1的水平明显高于肺良性病变组,经比较有显著性差异（P〈0．01）;单个检测BALF和血清CEA、CYFRA21—1的敏感性为61．1％～72．2％,特异性65％～80％;联合检测BALF和血清CEA、CYFRA21—1的敏感性为44．4％～50．6％,较低,但特异性较高。为95％-100％,且准确性增加。结论BALF和血清CEA、CYFRA21—1的检测有助于肺癌的诊断,且支气管肺泡灌洗液CEA、CYFRA21—1的敏感性和特异性较血清高,联合检测能提高肺癌诊断的特异性和准确性。     

胸水、血清中CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1对恶性胸腔积液的诊断价值

目的探讨胸水、血清中CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1对恶性胸腔积液的诊断价值。方法测定40例恶性胸水和40例非恶性胸水及其血清中CEA、NSE、CYFRA21—1的水平。结果恶性胸水组胸水及其血清中CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1的水平明显高于非恶性胸水组,有显著性差异（P〈0．05）。恶性胸水组3项联合检测的阳性率明显高于单项检测（P〈0．05）。结论联合检测胸水及其血清中CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1对鉴别良、恶性胸水有一定的临床价值。     

Twist蛋白、VEGF、CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE在肺癌患者恶性胸水中的表达和应用

目的：探讨肺癌患者恶性胸水中Twist蛋白、血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)、癌胚抗原(CEA)、细胞角蛋白19片段(CYFRA21-1)、神经原特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)的表达及其临床意义。方法采集52例肺癌患者恶性胸腔积液标本,其中腺癌24例,鳞癌16例,小细胞肺癌12例,良性胸腔积液患者45例作为对照。应用酶联免疫吸附试验法和化学发光法检测各指标水平。结果肺癌组恶性胸水中 Twist 蛋白、VEGF、CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE 的表达均高于良性肺病组(t值分别为8.67、9.11、3.94、5.37、3.10,P值均<0.05);肺癌组恶性胸水中 Twist 和 VEGF的水平与患者肿瘤病理类型无关(P 值均>0.05),CEA 水平在腺癌中最高,CYFRA21-1水平在鳞癌中最高,NSE水平在小细胞肺癌中最高。Twist 蛋白、VEGF、CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE 在肺癌恶性胸水中的敏感度分别为78.8%、84.6%、61.5%、46.2%、42.3%,特异度分别为86.7%、88.9%、91.1%、86.7%、77.8%。CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE在不同肺癌恶性胸水中敏感度不同,联合检测可提高敏感度。结论胸水中 Twist 蛋白、VEGF、CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE 检测有利于良、恶性胸水的鉴别, Twist蛋白、VEGF水平与肿瘤病理类型无关,CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE 水平与肿瘤病理类型相关,联合检测可提高诊断的敏感度。     

CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1、ADA联检对癌性与结核性胸腔积液的鉴别诊断价值

目的通过对胸水肿瘤表记物癌胚抗原（CEA）、细胞角蛋白19片段（CYFRA21-1）、神经元特异性烯醇化酶（NSE）和腺昔脱氨酶（ADA）联合检测对癌性与结核性胸腔积液的鉴别诊断价值。方法用放射免疫分析和化学发光法测定已确诊的52例癌性胸腔积液患者（癌性组）及58例结核性胸腔积液患者的胸水CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1、ADA,对检测结果进行回顾性对比分析。结果癌性组胸水中CEA,CYFRA211,NSE水平均比结核组高;胸水中ADA水平结核组较癌性组高。胸水中CEA,CYFRA211,NSE三项指标联合检测,对癌性胸积液的灵敏度为98.08%,特异度为89.66%,正确率为93.63%。结论联合检测CEA,CYFRA211,NSE,ADA对鉴别癌性与结核性胸腔积液有较高的临床价值。     

血清CEA、CYFRA21—1、NSE联合检测在肺癌诊断中的临床价值

目的探讨血清癌胚抗原（CEA）、细胞角蛋白19片段21—1（CYFRA21—1）、神经元特异性烯醇化酶（NSE）联合检测诊断肺癌的临床价值。方法用电化学发光免疫分析技术检测140例肺癌、189例肺良性疾病患者的血清CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE表达水平。结果肺癌患者的血清CEA、CYFRA21—1、NSE均明显高于肺良性疾病患者（P均〈0．05）;三者联合检测诊断肺癌的敏感性明显高于其单独检测,且在肺癌不同病理类型中三者联合检测的阳性率有统计学差异（P均〈0．05）。结论血清CEA、CYFRA21—1、NSE是诊断肺癌较好的标志物,三者联合检测可明显提高肺癌诊断的敏感性。     

细胞角质蛋白19片段与癌胚抗原联合检测对良恶性胸腔积液的鉴别诊断价值探讨

目的探讨细胞角质蛋白19片段(CYFRA21-1)与癌胚抗原(CEA)检测对结核性胸水与癌性胸水的鉴别诊断价值?方法对胸水患者108例(癌性68例?结核性40例)分别测定其血清?胸水中CYFRA21-1和CEA浓度?结果1.两种肿瘤标记物浓度在恶性胸水中明显高于结核性胸水;2.癌性胸水中CYFRA21-1浓度明显高于血清浓度,而胸水中CEA浓度与血清中浓度相比无显著性差异;3.胸水CYFRA21.1的检测结果存在一定的假阳性?结论联合检测CYFRA21-1与CEA对胸水良恶性的鉴别诊断有较高的临床价值?     

联合检测对良恶性胸腔积液的鉴别诊断价值

目的探讨胸腔积液中内皮抑素（ES）、癌胚抗原（CEA）与肿瘤特异性生长因子（TSGF）联合检测对良恶性胸腔积液的鉴别诊断价值。方法收集恶性胸腔积液组40例及良性胸腔积液组38例的胸水标本,采用酶联免疫吸附测定（ELISA）方法检测胸水标本中的ES、CEA、TSGF水平。结果 （1）恶性胸腔积液组胸水ES、CEA、TSGF水平均显著高于良性胸腔积液组,P〈0.01。（2）联合检测恶性胸腔积液ES、CEA、TSGF的敏感度（92.5%）高于单一检测。结论联合检测胸腔积液ES、CEA和TSGF可能有助于良、恶性胸腔积液的鉴别诊断。     

CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE联合检测在鉴别良恶性胸腔积液中的诊断价值探讨

目的通过分别对胸腔积液病人CEA(癌胚抗原),NSE(神经元特异性烯醇化酶)、细胞角蛋白19片段的测定,以及三者联合检测的应用,来判断患者胸腔积液的良恶性的临床价值。方法对NSE、CEA和CYFRA21-1的检测采用电化学发光法。结果 CYFRA21-1灵敏度为63.16%,准确度为75.64%,You den指数为0.51,特异度为87.5%;NSE的灵敏度为47.37%,准确度为66.67%,You den指数为0.32,特异度为85%;CEA灵敏度为60.53%,准确度为79.49%,You den指数为0.58,特异度为97.5%。对于三者联合使用的结果中,CYFRA21-1和CEA联合检测的阳性率较高。结论肿瘤标志物在对恶性胸腔积液的诊断过程中,联合检测更有临床价值。     

Diagnostic value of CYFRA 21-1 tumor marker and CEA in pleural effusion due to mesothelioma

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to assess the clinical value of CYFRA 21-1 tumor marker and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as diagnostic tools that are complementary to cytology in the diagnosis of malignant mesotheliomas. PATIENTS: We measured CEA and CYFRA 21-1 in the pleural effusions (PEs) and serum of 106 patients (benign lung disease, 34 patients; bronchogenic and metastatic carcinoma, 40 patients; mesothelioma, 32 patients). METHODS: CEA and CYFRA 21--1 levels were determined by means of two commercial enzyme immunoassays. RESULTS: The cutoff levels of CYFRA 21--1 and CEA in malignant PEs, selected on the basis of the best diagnostic efficacy, were 41.9 ng/mL and 5.0 ng/mL, respectively. In all neoplastic PEs, CYFRA 21--1 and CEA sensitivity was 78% and 30.6%, respectively, with a specificity of 80% and 91%, respectively. The sensitivity of CYFRA 21--1 and CEA in patients with mesothelioma was 87.5% and 3.1%, respectively. The results of the CYFRA 21--1 assay were positive in 17 of 19 cases of mesothelioma (89.5%) with a negative or uncertain cytology. The association of the tumor marker assay and the cytology allowed a correct diagnosis in 30 of 32 cases of mesothelioma (93.7%). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that CYFRA 21--1 would provide a useful parameter for the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant PE from mesothelioma when the result of cytology is negative or uncertain and the clinical context does not allow a more aggressive approach. Moreover, the association of CYFRA 21--1 with CEA could provide details for a differential diagnosis between mesotheliomas and carcinomas. In fact, an elevated CYFRA 21--1 level with a low CEA level is highly suggestive of mesothelioma, whereas high levels of CEA alone or high levels of both the markers suggest a diagnosis of malignant PE, excluding mesothelioma.     

Diagnostic value of the tumor markers TPA-M, CYPFRA 21-1 and CEA in pleural effusion. Prospective comparison of thoracoscopic investigations in patients with pleural effusion

The diagnostic value of tumour markers in pleural effusion is not yet clearly defined. CEA (Carcinoembryonic Antigen), CYFRA 21-1 (Cytokeratin 19-Fragment) and TPA-M, a new monoclonal-based radioimmunoassay for TPA (Tissue Polypeptide Antigen), were measured in pleural fluid and sera of 125 consecutive patients who underwent medical thoracoscopy. The group consisted of 79 patients with malignant and 45 with non-malignant pleural effusion and 1 patient without definitive diagnosis, and hence 124 patients were available for assessing the diagnostic value. In pleural fluid based on a specificity of 90% versus benign diseases the sensitivity for CEA was 52.5%; with the maximum achievable specificity of 80% for CYFRA 21-1 the sensitivity was 68% and for TPA-M with 67% the sensitivity was 67%. Based on the cut-off values for these specificities the combined use of the three tumour markers resulted in a sensitivity of 85.7% but with a lower specificity of 59.1%. There is only a limited value for tumour markers in the diagnosis of pleural effusion.     

Diagnostic utility of CYFRA 21-1 in malignant pleural effusion

OBJECTIVE: The diagnostic utility of the tumour marker CYFRA 21-1 in malignant pleural effusion is not yet clear. This study was designed to evaluate the diagnostic utility of serum and pleural fluid CYFRA 21-1 in malignant pleural effusion. METHODOLOGY: The validity of serum and pleural fluid CYFRA 21-1 was determined in 62 patients with exudative pleural effusion (27 malignant and 35 benign). The diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion was defined by cytological or histological results. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference between the geometric means of CYFRA 21-1 levels in pleural fluid of benign and malignant aetiologies was observed (11.2 vs 63.3 ng/mL, P < 0.0001). In addition, there was a significant difference in the serum levels (0.95 vs 5.55 ng/mL, P < 0.0001). The sensitivity and specificity of pleural fluid CYFRA 21-1 in malignant pleural effusion, at the cut-off value of 55 ng/mL, was 74.1% and 97.1%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of serum CYFRA 21-1, at the cut-off value of 2.5 ng/mL, was 81.5% and 97.1%, respectively. Using a combination of serum and pleural fluid CYFRA 21-1 level, the sensitivity increased to 88.9%. CONCLUSION: Serum and pleural fluid CYFRA 21-1 are useful as measures in differentiating malignant from benign pleural effusion.     

Use of a panel of tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, cancer antigen 125, carbohydrate antigen 15-3, and cytokeratin 19 fragments) in pleural fluid for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant effusions

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The diagnostic value of tumor markers in pleural fluid is subject to debate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of several tumor markers in common use for detecting malignant pleural disease. DESIGN: Blinded comparison of four tumor markers in pleural fluid with a confirmatory diagnosis of malignancy by pleural cytology or thoracoscopic biopsy. SETTING: Two teaching hospitals in Spain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 416 patients (166 with definite malignant effusions, 77 with probable malignant effusions, and 173 with benign effusions) were enrolled. Among them, there were 42 patients recruited from one of the participant centers with thoracoscopic facilities, who had false-negative fluid cytology findings and malignancy confirmed by medical thoracoscopy. Tumor markers in pleural fluid were determined either by electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA], carbohydrate antigen 15-3 [CA 15-3], cytokeratin 19 fragments [CYFRA 21-1]) or microparticle enzyme immunoassay (cancer antigen 125 [CA 125]) technologies. Cutoff points that yielded 100% specificity (ie, all patients with benign effusions had levels below this cutoff) were selected for each marker. RESULTS: Malignant pleural effusions (PEs) had higher levels of pleural fluid markers than did effusions due to benign conditions. At 100% specificity, a pleural CEA > 50 ng/mL, CA 125 > 2,800 U/mL, CA 15-3 > 75 U/mL, and CYFRA 21-1 > 175 ng/mL had 29%, 17%, 30%, and 22% overall sensitivities, respectively. The combination of the four tumor markers reached 54% sensitivity, whereas the combined use of the cytology and the tumor marker panel increased the diagnostic yield of the former by 18% (95% confidence interval, 13 to 23%). More than one third of cytology-negative malignant PEs could be identified by at least one marker of the panel. CONCLUSIONS: No single pleural fluid marker seems to be accurate enough as to be introduced in the routine workup of PE diagnosis. However, a tumor marker panel may represent a helpful adjunct to cytology in order to rule in malignancy as a probable diagnosis, thus guiding the selection of patients who might benefit from further invasive procedures.