12种肿瘤标志物检测在卵巢癌诊断中的应用

目的探讨12种肿瘤标志物检测在卵巢癌诊断中的应用价值。方法对45例卵巢癌患者（卵巢癌组）、82例卵巢良性肿瘤患者（良性瘤组）和36名健康体检者（对照组）血清中12种肿瘤标志物水平进行检测。结果卵巢癌组糖链抗原125（CA125）、癌胚抗原（CEA）、糖链抗原242（CA242）和糖链抗原199（CA199）检测阳性率高于良性瘤组及对照组（P均〈0.05）,余肿瘤标记物阳性率三组相比,P均〉0.05。CA125单项检测诊断灵敏度、特异性和准确度分别为68.8%、96.6%和90.0%,高于CEA、CA242和CA199单项检测,CA125、CEA、CA242和CA199联合检测诊断灵敏度低于CA125单项检测、高于后3项单项检测,特异性均低于4项指标单项检测,准确度高于CEA、CA242、CA199单项检测（P均〈0.05）,与CA125单项检测相比,P〉0.05。结论 CA125单项检测诊断卵巢癌的灵敏度、特异性和准确度较高。CA125、CEA、CA242、CA199联合检测用于卵巢癌诊断灵敏度、特异性和准确度较高。     

蛋白芯片检测多肿瘤标志物对原发性肝癌的诊断价值评价

目的:探讨多肿瘤标志物蛋白芯片诊断系统对原发性肝癌的诊断价值.方法:采用多肿瘤标志物蛋白芯片诊断系统,检测分析73例原发性肝癌(PHC)患者、48例良性肝病患者和40例健康对照者血青的12种常见肿瘤标志物,包括糖原199(CA199)、甲胎蛋白(AFP)、神经原特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)、游离前列腺特异抗原(f-PSA)、癌胚抗原(CEA)、前列腺特异抗原(PSA)、糖原242(CA242)、糖原125(CA125)、糖原153(CA153)、铁蛋白(FER)、人生长激素(HGH)和β-人绒毛膜促性腺激素(B-HCG).结果:PHC组AFP,CA199,CA125,CEA,CA242,FER和β-HCG的阳性检出率分别为65.7%,49.3%,45.2%,21.9%,19.1%,41.1%和6.8%,与良性肝病组(25.0%,31.3%,22.9%,4.2%,6.3%,29.2%,0)比较均显著增高(P<0.01或P<0.05).AFP的诊断效率在单项指标中居首位(79.6%),AFP FER和AFP FER CA125的诊断效率最高(均为83.9%).结论:AFP,FER,CA125是肝癌联合诊断的理想指标,其联合检测有利于提高PHC的诊断率.     

C-12多肿瘤标志物蛋白芯片对老年肺癌的诊断价值

目的 探讨多肿瘤标志物蛋白质芯片检测系统(C-12)在老年肺癌诊断中的临床应用价值.方法 采用C-12检测135例老年肺癌患者(肺癌组)、150例肺良性病变患者(肺良性病变组)、154例无肺部病变及其他肿瘤患者(对照组)12种肿瘤标志物水平.结果 肺癌组C-12检测阳性率明显高于肺良性病变组(P＜0.001)和对照组(P＜0.001).肺癌组糖类抗原19-9(CA199)、癌胚抗原(CEA)、糖类抗原242(CA242)、血清铁蛋白(ferritin)、糖类抗原125(CA125)、糖类抗原153(CA153)阳性率明显高于肺良性病变组(P均＜0.001)和对照组(P均＜0.001).肺癌组CA199、CEA、CA242、β-HCG、CA125、CA153水平较肺良性病变组明显升高(P＜0.01、0.001、0.001、0.05、0.001、0.01)和对照组(P＜0.01、0.001、0.001、0.05、0.001、0.01).在单项肿瘤标志物检测中,以CEA敏感性最高,为46.90%.CA199、CEA、CA242、CA125、CA153联合检测、C-12检测敏感性较单项检测明显提高,分别为65.93%和66.67%.5项联合检测的特异性(94.74%vs 81.32%)、有效性(85.88%vs 81.32%)、5项联合检测阳性预测值(84.76%vs 70.87%)较C-12检测均提高.结论 肺癌组CA199、CEA、CA242、β-HCG、CA125、 CA153水平较肺良性病变组和对照组明显升高.C-12检测对诊断老年肺癌有较高的临床应用价值,CA199、CEA、CA242、CA125、 CA153联合检测可能是诊断老年肺癌更优化的组合.     

血清CEA、CA125、CA153联合检测在乳腺癌诊断中的应用

目的探讨血清CEA、CA125、CA153联合检测在乳腺癌诊断中的价值。方法采用多肿瘤标志物蛋白芯片检测系统检测632例乳腺癌（乳癌组）、349例乳腺良性肿瘤患者（良性组）及1 200例女性健康体检者（对照组）血清中的CEA、CA125、CA153。结果乳癌组CEA、CA125、CA153阳性率分别为12.0%、7.4%、5.4%,良性组阳性率分别为6.9%、6.0%、2.3%,对照组分别为1.4%、0.5%、0。各组间两两比较,P均〈0.05。乳腺癌组CEA、CA125、CA153联合检测的灵敏度为18.8%,特异性为95.8%,准确性为73.5%,显著高于单指标和两项联合检测（P均〈0.05）。结论血清CEA、CA125、CA153联合检测有助于乳腺癌的诊断。     

应用多种肿瘤标志物蛋白芯片检测肺癌的价值探讨

目的探讨多种肿瘤标志物蛋白芯片检测系统对肺癌的诊断价值。方法用该检测系统测定130例肺癌患者,78例肺良性病变患者血清中12种肿瘤标志物（CD199,NSE,CEA,CA242,CA125,CA153,AFP,fertitin,free—PSA,PSA,β—HCG及HCG）的水平。结果肺癌组的阳性率显著高于良性肺病组（66．15％VS32．05％,x^2=22．78,P〈0．01）;肺癌组中CEA的阳性率最高为47．7％。结论多肿瘤标志物蛋白芯片检测系统在肺良、恶性病变的鉴别诊断中有较高的应用价值。     

CEA、CA199、CA724和CA125在卵巢肿瘤中的诊断价值

目的分析卵巢肿瘤患者手术前血清四种肿瘤标志物水平,为早期诊断卵巢肿瘤提供有效手段。方法采用罗氏电化学发光自动免疫分析仪检测203例卵巢肿瘤患者血清CEA、CA199、CA724和CA125水平并进行分析。结果卵巢恶性肿瘤患者（76例,恶性组）CEA水平与良性肿瘤患者（127例,良性组）比较无显著差异;CA199、CA724和CA125水平则显著高于良性组,P均〈0．05。CA724、CA125联合检测对卵巢恶性肿瘤诊断的敏感性、阴性预测值最高。结论CA125可作为卵巢癌诊断的首选肿瘤标志物,联合检测血清CA724、CA125水平可使卵巢癌首次诊断敏感性提高到89．5％。     

血清CA199、CA125、CA242及CEA联合检测诊断胰腺癌的临床价值

目的探讨血清CA199、CA125、CA242及癌胚抗原（CEA）联合检测诊断胰腺癌的临床价值。方法对48例胰腺癌患者（胰腺癌组）及48例体检正常者（对照组）进行血清CA199、CA125、CA242、CEA检测,并对胰腺癌组进行四项指标联合检测。结果与对照组比较,胰腺癌组血清CA199、CA125、CA242、CEA均明显升高（P均〈0.01）;四项肿瘤标志物联合检测的敏感率和特异率均高于各单项检测,胰腺癌组伴淋巴结转移者的CA199、CA125、CA242、CEA均明显高于无淋巴结转移者（P均〈0.05）。结论血清CA199、CA125、CA242及CEA联合检测可提高胰腺癌诊断的敏感率和特异率,对早期诊断胰腺癌及判定其有无淋巴结转移有一定临床价值。     

7种血清肿瘤标志物联合检测对肺癌诊断和治疗的临床价值

目的比较7种血清肿瘤标志物联合检测对肺癌诊断和治疗的临床价值。方法采用酶联免疫吸附试验法检测47例肺癌和46例肺良性疾病患者的血清神经元特异性烯醇化酶（NSE）、细胞角蛋白19片段（Cyfra21-1）、恶性肿瘤生长因子（TSGF）、糖类抗原125（CA125）、糖类抗原15—3（CA15-3）、糖类抗原19-9（CA19-9）、癌胚抗原（CEA）,观察肿瘤标志物联合检测对肺癌的诊断和治疗价值。结果肺癌组7种肿瘤标志物水平均显著高于肺良性疾病组（P均〈0．01）;其中NSE在小细胞肺癌中高表达,CA125在腺癌中高表达,CY21-1在鳞癌中高表达;7种肿瘤标志物联合检测的灵敏度和准确度分别为91．49％、88．17％,均优于单项检测。结论肿瘤标志物联合检测可提高肺癌诊断的灵敏度和准确度,对肺癌的鉴别诊断提供依据。     

5种肿瘤标志物联合检测对肺癌的诊断价值

目的探讨5种肿瘤标志物联合检测对肺癌的诊断价值。方法采用蛋白质芯片检测系统（C-12）检测81例肺癌患者和85例肺良性病变患者血清中5项肿瘤标志物的水平。结果肺癌组5种肿瘤标志物检测水平值均明显高于肺良性病变组（P〈0.05）。CEA有高的敏感度和特异度（43.21%和100%）。两项、三项及四项联合最优化的组合分别为CEA＋CA242、CEA＋CA242＋CA153、CEA＋CA242＋CA153＋CA199。结论 5种肿瘤标志物的联合检测明显提高了对肺癌诊断的灵敏度和准确性,有一定的临床价值。     

肿瘤标志物联合检测在肺癌早期诊断中的应用

目的：探讨外周血肿瘤标志物癌胚抗原（CEA）、神经元特异性烯醇化酶（NSE）、细胞角质蛋白19片段（CYFRA21-1）、糖链抗原125（CA125）、糖链抗原19-9（CA19-9）、糖链抗原15-3（CA15-3）联合检测在肺癌早期诊断中的应用价值。方法：采用Elecsys2010电化学发光仪检测80例肺癌患者,55例肺部良性疾病患者,40例健康人血清中CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1、CA125、CA19-9、CA153等肿瘤标志物的水平。结果：肺癌患者中CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1、CA125、CA19-9、CA153等6种标志物显著高于正常对照组及肺部良性疾病组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。6项标志物不同组合对不同分期肺癌检出的敏感性均高于单项标志物。其中第6种CY-FRA21-1＋CA125＋NSE和第7种CYFRA21-1＋CA125＋NSE＋CEA组合的敏感性较其他组合均高,特别是对早期患者检出率明显提高,但第7种方式成本较高且6、7两种方式检出率差异无统计学意义。结论：CYFRA21-1＋CA125＋NSE联合检测能提高肺癌的早期诊断率。     

血清肿瘤标记物检测在肺癌诊断中的应用价值

目的探讨血清肿瘤标记物癌胚抗原（CEA）、神经元特异烯醇化酶（NSE）、细胞角蛋白19片段（CYFRA21-1）、组织多肽抗原（TPA）、癌抗原153（CA153）以及癌抗原242（CA242）在肺癌临床诊断中的应用价值。方法采用电化学发光法（ECLIA）分别对肺癌组、肺部良性疾病组患者及健康人的血清肿瘤标记物浓度进行检测分析。结果肺癌组患者6种血清肿瘤标记物浓度均显著高于肺部良性疾病组和健康对照组患者（P〈0．05）;其中在不同病理类型肺癌患者血清中的CEA、NSE及CYFRA21-1水平总体比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）,各血清肿瘤标记物单独检测灵敏度较低,进行联合检测灵敏度则可大大提高。结论血清肿瘤标记物的联合检测可显著提高肺癌检测的特异性、敏感性。同时可为肺癌临床分期及病理类型的鉴别提供重要参考。     

Comparison of CA 72-4 with CA 19-9 and carcinoembryonic antigen in the serodiagnostics of gastrointestinal malignancies

Serum levels of the new tumor-associated marker CA 72-4 were measured in healthy controls (n = 64) and patients with benign (n = 410) or malignant (n = 199) gastrointestinal diseases. A cut-off limit of 4 U/ml was established. Tumor-indicating sensitivity was compared with that of the conventional markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and CA 19-9. In serodiagnostic evaluations CA 72-4 was clearly inferior to CA 19-9 in pancreatic carcinomas (22% versus 82%; all stages) and to CEA in colorectal cancer (32% versus 58%; all stages), with no appreciable diagnostic gain from combined determination. However, in gastric carcinoma CA 72-4 identified 59% of all patients (CA 19-9, 52%; CEA, 25%), and a combination of CA 72-4 and CA 19-9 detected as many as 70%. Positive results correlated roughly with tumor size. Compared with the other two tumor markers, CA 72-4 had a very high specificity (98%) in benign diseases of the gastrointestinal tract, including inflammatory processes, so that elevated serum levels of CA 72-4 should always be taken seriously.     

Immunohistochemical Expression of Carbohydrate Antigen 19–9 in Colorectal Carcinoma

Objectives : Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) is one of the most representative tumor markers in colo-rectal carcinomas. We studied the immunohistochemi-cal expression of CA19-9 in primary colorecta) carcinoma to identify its signiflcance as a prognostic factor. Methods : The avidin-hiotin-peroxidase complex method was used for CA19-9 staining in sections from 149 patients with primary colorectal carcinoma. The data were studied by univariate and multivariate analyses. Results : 86 tumors (56%) stained positively. The staining pattern was classified into three groups: group I (a stromal type, 22 tumors), group II (an apical and/or cytoplasmic type, 64 tumors), and group 111 (no staining, 63 tumors). Eight clinicopathologic variables showed a significant relationship with the staining pattern of CA19-9. The 5-yr survival rate of the group I subjects was significantly lower than that of the other two groups. With the multivariate analysis, the staining pattern of CA19-9 proved to be one of the independent prognostic variables. Conclusions : In addition to conventional prognostic factors, the staining pattern of CA19-9 is considered to be of value in predicting the prognosis of patients with colorectal carcinomas.     

Tumour markers CA 19-9 and CA 50 in digestive tract malignancies.

CA 19-9 and CA 50 are tumour marker tests measuring the same carbohydrate structure, sialosyl-fucosyl-lactotetraose--that is, the sialylated Lewis blood group antigen. In addition, the C50 antibody reacts with sialosyl-lactotetraose, which may be expressed in small amounts in some carcinomas. In this study we compared these tests in sera from patients with benign and malignant digestive tract diseases. The sensitivity of the markers for different cancers was also compared at several specificity levels with patients with benign diseases as reference groups. Both markers showed a high sensitivity for pancreatic cancer (77% for CA 19-9; 69% for CA 50) and biliary cancer (88%). The figures in colorectal cancer were almost as high as those reported for CEA; 16-21% elevated values in Dukes A and B tumours and 44-47% in Dukes C and D tumours. The sensitivity for gastric cancer was 48% for both markers. CA 50 had a higher sensitivity for liver cancer (55%) than CA 19-9 (9%), but the proportion of elevated values in benign liver diseases was also higher (33% versus 15%, respectively). Overall, there was good correlation between the CA 19-9 and CA 50 levels, and the difference in sensitivity and specificity was marginal. In clinical practice the greatest value of CA 19-9 and CA 50 is in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.     

探讨胆汁肿瘤标志物对胆管良恶性疾病的诊断价值

目的探讨胆汁肿瘤标志物对胆管良恶性疾病的诊断价值。方法160例因胆道疾病需要ERCP治疗者,ERCP时取胆汁检测胆汁肿瘤标志物（CA19-9、CEA和CA242）和细菌培养。结果恶性狭窄组与良性疾病组间胆汁和血清CA19-9、CEA、CA242水平差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．05）;根据ROC曲线制定恶性狭窄的胆汁肿瘤标志物界限值：CA19-9239ku／L,CEA40ng／ml,CA24260ku／ml。CEA敏感度、准确度、阴性预测值与血液标志物比较差异有统计学意义（P〈O．05）。3种胆汁标志物的特异性与血清比较差异无统计学意义。胆管癌、胰腺癌、十二指肠乳头癌与胆管旁转移癌、肝癌比较CA19-9水平差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）;无论是恶性狭窄组还是良性疾病组,细菌阳性胆汁与阴性胆汁组间CA19-9水平比较差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论胆汁CA19-9、CEA、CA242水平对鉴别胆道良恶性疾病有一定帮助,但并不明显优于血清标志物。胆汁细菌感染可引起胆汁CA19-9水平升高,但不影响良恶性诊断结果。     

术前血清CEA、CA19-9、CA50联合检测在结直肠癌肝转移预测中的应用

目的研究术前血清CEA、CA19-9、CA50联合检测在结直肠癌肝转移预测中的应用价值。 方法选择2015年1月至2017年1月在中国医学科学院肿瘤医院接受手术治疗的结直肠癌患者316例为研究对象,其中结直肠癌伴有肝转移的患者158例作为实验组,并按照性别、年龄等匹配结直肠癌不伴有肝转移的患者158例作为对照组。对所有患者的术前血清癌胚抗原（CEA）、糖类抗原19-9（CA19-9）以及糖类抗原50（CA50）进行检测,采用单因素及多因素分析以上肿瘤标志物单独或联合检测在结直肠癌肝转移中的预测价值。 结果单因素及多因素分析结果表明,术前血清CEA、CA19-9、CA50升高与结直肠癌发生肝转移显著相关（P<0.05）,CEA、CA19-9、CA50单独预测结直肠癌肝转移的敏感度分别为62.7%、57.4%、67.1%;特异度分别为58.2%、53.5%、56.6%。CEA、CA19-9、CA50联合诊断预测直肠癌肝转移的敏感度和特异度分别为74.3%、76.3%。 结论术前血清CEA、CA19-9、CA50升高是结直肠癌肝转移的独立预测因素,但三者单独预测结直肠癌肝转移的敏感度和特异度均较低。三者联合检测对于预测结直肠癌肝转移的敏感度和特异度均较高,可以作为结直肠癌肝转移的预测模型。     

胰腺癌患者血浆k-ras基因与肿瘤标志物联合检测及其意义

目的 :了解胰腺癌患者血浆中肿瘤标志物水平和k ras基因突变情况 ,评价基因突变与肿瘤标志物联合检测对胰腺癌患者的诊断价值。方法 :收集经手术或病理确诊为胰腺恶性疾病患者 2 1例 ,ELISA检测血浆CA19 9、CA2 42、CA5 0、CEA水平 ,PCR RFLP检测k ras基因突变 ,并与 11例胰腺良性疾病患者对照。结果 :胰腺癌患者血浆中k ras基因突变率 73.7%,胰腺良性疾病k ras基因无突变。k ras基因突变检测的敏感性与特异性分别为 6 1.9%和10 0 %,血浆k ras、CA19 9、CA2 42联合检测的敏感性和特异性分别为 85 .7%和 71.9%。结论 :联合检测血浆中k ras基因与肿瘤标志物可提高胰腺癌诊断的敏感性 ,对胰腺癌筛查、诊断与鉴别诊断有一定的临床意义。     

Comparison of tumor marker CA 242 with CA 19-9 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Although there are a variety of tumor markers used for diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma, the sensitivity and specificity of those markers have not yet reached an ideal level. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic value of CA 242 with CA 19-9 and CEA in the patients with pancreatic cancer. METHODOLOGY: Serum CA 242, CA 19-9 and CEA levels were determined in 135 subjects in the following groups: Pancreatic cancer (n = 40), cholangiocellular carcinoma (n = 15), hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 10), cirrhosis (n = 7), chronic active hepatitis (n = 7), choledochal stone (n = 12), chronic pancreatitis (n = 9), acute pancreatitis (n = 6), and healthy controls (n = 29). RESULTS: An elevated serum CA 242 concentration (> 20 U/mL) was found in 30 out of 40 (70%) (mean; 2163 +/- 838 U/mL) patients with pancreas cancer, in 11 out of 15 patients with cholangiocellular carcinoma (93.3%) (mean 916 +/- 529 U/mL), in none of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and healthy controls. Slightly elevated CA 242 concentration was found in 6 out of 41 patients with benign hepatobiliary and pancreatic disease (range 0.4-97.8 U/mL) (1 acute pancreatitis, 2 chronic pancreatitis, 1 cirrhosis, 2 choledochal stone). Mean serum CA 242, CA 19-9 and CEA levels of the pancreas cancer group were significantly higher than those of the other groups except the cholangiocellular carcinoma group. There was no significant difference between the stage of pancreas cancer regarding mean serum CA 242, CA 19-9 and CEA level. There was positive correlation between serum CA 242 and CA 19-9 level. In the pancreas cancer, the sensitivity of CA 242, CA 19-9 and CEA was 75%, 80%, 40%, respectively and the specificity of those markers was 85.5%, 67.5% and 73%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the advantage of CA 242 compared to CA 19-9 is that its specificity is higher than that of CA 19-9 in the diagnosis of pancreas cancer.     

High sensitivity and specificity of CA 19-9 for pancreatic carcinoma in comparison to chronic pancreatitis. Serological and immunohistochemical findings

The serum carbohydrate antigenic determinant (CA 19-9) was assayed in patients with various diseases (87 patients with pancreatic carcinoma, 747 patients with benign diseases, and 547 patients with extrapancreatic malignant growths) and it proved to be particularly sensitive for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (80 of 87, 92%) as compared to only 14% in the group of patients with benign diseases. Twenty-seven percent of the patients with chronic pancreatitis and 28% of the patients with acute pancreatitis showed elevated CA 19-9 concentrations of more than the upper normal value of 37 U/ml. In 38% and 32% of our cases with carcinoma of the stomach and colorectal carcinoma, respectively, CA 19-9 was estimated as being above the normal range. The preoperatively raised CA 19-9 concentration in patients with pancreatic carcinoma decreases after curative resection of the carcinoma to values within the normal range. However, in no CA 19-9 estimation following a palliative surgical intervention or in cases of inoperable carcinomas a serum concentration of less than 37 U/ml was recorded. In immunohistochemical specimens we found a difference between CA 19-9 antigen concentrations on the cell surface and secretion in pancreatic carcinoma and chronic pancreatitis.     

四种肿瘤标志物血清水平的联合检测对肺癌诊断的临床价值

目的探讨血清肿瘤标志物细胞角蛋白19片段（CYFRA21-1）、神经元特异性烯醇化酶（NSE）、癌胚抗原（CEA）、糖类抗原125（CA125）联合检测对肺癌诊断的临床价值。方法采用瑞士罗氏公司cobas e 411型全自动电化学发光免疫分析系统检测经病理确诊的52例肺癌患者、30例肺部良性疾病患者及35例正常人血清CYFRA21-1、NSE、CEA、CA125水平,并计算阳性率、特异度及准确度。结果肺癌组血清4种肿瘤标志物水平显著高于肺良性疾病及健康对照组。其中单项检测CYFRA21-1阳性率以鳞癌最高（70.8%）,NSE阳性率以小细胞肺癌最高（75.0%）,CEA阳性率以腺癌最高（65.0%）,与其他型肺癌相比差异有统计意义。4种肿瘤标志物联合检测阳性率、特异度及准确度明显高于单项检测结果。结论 4种肿瘤标志物对于肺癌的辅助诊断均具有实用价值,且联合检测有助于提高肺癌诊断的阳性率、特异度及准确度。