肿瘤标志物检测对鉴别卵巢畸胎瘤的临床意义

目的:探讨肿瘤标志物CA125、HE4、AFP、CA199血清检测对鉴别卵巢成熟与未成熟性畸胎瘤的临床意义。方法:分析2010年1月至2017年6月安徽省立医院收治卵巢未成熟性畸胎瘤患者20例和成熟性畸胎瘤患者247例临床资料，分别计算CA125、HE4、AFP、CA199及CA125+HE4+AFP诊断未成熟性畸胎瘤的灵敏度、特异度，并通过绘制受试者工作曲线（ROC曲线）评估诊断准确性。结果:未成熟组患者CA125、HE4、AFP血清水平均高于成熟性组（P＜0.05），CA199血清水平在两组间差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05），CA125诊断未成熟性的敏感性最高（60.0%），而HE4的特异度最高（100%），联合CA125和HE4、AFP的敏感度及特异度分别为76.4%、88.9%。 CA125、HE4、AFP、CA199、CA125+HE4+AFP对应的ROC曲线下面积（AUC）分别为0.856、0.799、0.833、0.509、0.899。结论:CA125诊断未成熟性畸胎瘤的灵敏度较HE4、AFP更高，且具有较高的特异度，但联合CA125、HE4、AFP诊断未成熟性畸胎瘤时灵敏度明显高于单项肿瘤标志物检测，特异度较高,对诊断有一定的意义。CA199对于鉴别诊断卵巢成熟性及未成熟性畸胎瘤无明显临床意义。     

肿瘤标志物检测对卵巢成熟、未成熟畸胎瘤的诊断价值

背景与目的:卵巢成熟、未成熟畸胎瘤术前鉴别诊断较困难,本研究期望通过血清肿瘤标志物联合检测的方法,为其诊断及鉴别诊断提供有价值依据。方法:收集1995年1月至2005年12月在中山大学肿瘤防治中心初治并经病理确诊为单纯型卵巢畸胎瘤的272例患者的临床资料,统计分析血清糖链抗原125(carbohydrate antigen125,CA125)、糖链抗原153(CA153)、糖链抗原199(CA199)、神经元特异性烯醇化酶(neuron specific enolase,NSE)、甲胎蛋白(alpha-fetoprotein,AFP)、癌胚抗原(carcinoembryonic antigen,CEA)的检测水平在卵巢成熟及未成熟畸胎瘤中的差异。结果:254例卵巢成熟畸胎瘤患者,中位年龄30岁,血清CA125、CA153、CA199、NSE、AFP、CEA平均值分别为25.5×103u/L,11.8×103u/L,106.6×103u/L,12.6μg/L,2.7μg/L和2.5μg/L。18例卵巢未成熟畸胎瘤患者,中位年龄23岁,上述6项指标的平均值分别为140.3×103u/L,16.8×103u/L,112.0×103u/L,18.0μg/L,369.5μg/L和3.2μg/L。未成熟畸胎瘤患者血清中CA125、CA153、AFP平均水平及表达阳性率均高于成熟畸胎瘤患者,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。单独应用一项指标,CA125、CA153、AFP对未成熟畸胎瘤诊断性能的特异度均较高,而CA125的灵敏度最高(50.0%)。使用CA125、CA153、AFP三项指标联合检测明显提高了灵敏度(71.4%)。结论:术前肿瘤标志物,尤其是CA125、CA153、AFP联合检测对卵巢未成熟型与成熟型畸胎瘤的鉴别诊断有一定参考价值。     

血清AFP、CA125、CA199和CEA联合检测在原发性肝癌诊断中的价值

目的 通过联合检测血清AFP、CA125、CA199、CEA四种肿瘤标志物的含量,观察其对原发性肝癌(PHC)的诊断价值.方法 运用电化学发光免疫分析的方法,检测PHC组68例、良性肝病组50例及健康对照组58例血清中AFP、CA125、CA199、CEA的含量,分析各肿瘤标志物的灵敏度、特异性、准确度及联合检测的临床意义.结果 单独检测AFP、CA125、CA199、CEA对PHC的诊断阳性率分别为76.4%、35.3%、44.1%、29.4%;联合检测四种肿瘤标志物的阳性率为94.1%.结论 四种肿瘤标志物的联合检测有助于提高PHC患者的诊断阳性率.     

血清CA125、CEA、AFP联合检测在卵巢恶性肿瘤诊断中的临床价值

目的 探讨血清CA125、CEA、AFP联合检测在卵巢恶性肿瘤诊断中的临床价值.方法 将卵巢恶性肿瘤患者86例作为研究对象,另选取同期于我院进行上述指标检测的卵巢良性肿瘤患者45例以及健康女性40例作为对照.观察卵巢恶性肿瘤患者血清CA125、CEA、AFP表达水平,并对不同分期、病理类型以及淋巴结转移情况患者情况进行比较,考察联合检测对比单项检测的阳性率.结果 卵巢癌组、卵巢良性肿瘤组患者以及健康体检女性CA125、CEA、AFP表达水平存在统计学差异(P＜0.05).不同临床分期卵巢癌患者CA125、CEA、AFP表达水平存在差异(P＜0.05).不同病理类型卵巢癌患者CA125及AFP表达水平存在差异,但CEA表达水平差异不明显(P＞0.05);有淋巴结转移的卵巢癌患者CA125、CEA、AFP表达量明显高于无淋巴结转移患者.3种标志物联合检测可提高阳性率(P＜0.05).结论 血清CA125、CEA、AFP对于卵巢恶性肿瘤具有诊断价值,联合检测可提高诊断阳性率,但同时也提高了假阳性率.     

CEA、AFP、CA125、CA199联合检测对结肠癌的早期诊断价值分析

目的 探讨CEA、AFP、CA125、CA199联合检测应用于结肠癌的早期诊断。方法 选取结肠癌患者89例为研究对象,将确诊结肠癌患者纳入观察组(n=89),选取同期体检健康人群纳入对照组(n=85)。比较两组癌胚抗原、甲胎蛋白、糖类抗原125及糖类抗原199检测结果,观察对照组患者肿瘤标志物阳性率,各项指标与肿瘤分期、分化程度的关系以及对结肠癌的诊断价值。结果 与对照组相比,观察组CEA、AFP、CA125及CA199水平较高(P<0.05);观察组患者CEA阳性率为67.42%,AFP阳性率为14.61%,CA125阳性率为77.53%,CA199阳性率为80.90%;观察组患者血清CEA、AFP、CA125及CA199水平随肿瘤病理分期增加而升高,随肿瘤分化程度增高而升高(P<0.05);与单个指标检测相比,血清CEA、AFP、CA125及CA199联合检测诊断效率较高,血清CEA、AFP、CA125及CA199联合检测敏感度为88.8%,特异度为80.0%,ACU为0.920,(P<0.05)。结论 血清CEA、AFP、CA125及CA199联合检测在结肠癌早...     

肿瘤相关物质TAM和肿瘤标志物CA125、CA199、HE4在妇科恶性肿瘤中表达的相关性研究

目的:分析血清肿瘤相关物质TAM和肿瘤标志物CA125、CA199、HE4在妇科恶性肿瘤中表达情况,探讨TAM的诊断价值。方法:对89例确诊为妇科恶性肿瘤患者进行血清TAM、CA125、CA199和HE4检测,观察TAM和CA125、CA199、HE4表达情况。结果:TAM在妇科恶性肿瘤中的阳性率为15.7%,CA125、CA199、HE4的表达分别为36%、11.4%、14.61%。相关分析表明TAM表达和CA125、CA199、HE4的表达没有相关性。结论:非特异性肿瘤标志物TAM在妇科恶性肿瘤中的阳性表达和传统的糖类抗原CA125、CA199、HE4表达没有相关性,其临床价值有待进一步验证。     

CA125、CA199、CEA和AFP检测在卵巢肿瘤诊断中的价值

目的：探讨血清CA125、CA199、癌胚抗原（CEA）和甲胎蛋白（AFP）的检测在卵巢肿瘤诊断中的价值。方法：采用化学发光法检测卵巢恶性肿瘤、良性肿瘤患者血清CA125、CA199、CEA及AFP水平。结果：卵巢恶性肿瘤患者血清CA125、CA199水平明显高于卵巢良性肿瘤患者（P〈0.01）,CEA和AFP值在卵巢恶性肿瘤与卵巢良性肿瘤患者间的差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论：CA125、CA199的检测有助于对卵巢恶性肿瘤诊断,而CEA及AFP的检测对卵巢恶性肿瘤的诊断无明显价值。     

肿瘤标志物检测在卵巢恶性肿瘤筛查中的临床意义

目的探讨血清人附睾蛋白4(HE4)联合CA125和CA199的检测在卵巢恶性肿瘤筛查中的临床意义。方法选取2015年12月至2016年12月间南京市溧水区人民医院收治的74例卵巢肿瘤患者,根据肿瘤良恶性不同分为恶性肿瘤组39例和良性肿瘤组35例,选取同期健康受试者35例为健康组。采用电化学发光法检测3组受试者血清中的HE4、CA125和CA199水平,观察3组中各肿瘤标志物水平,以及3种肿瘤标志物联合检测的诊断效率。结果恶性肿瘤组中血清HE4、CA125和CA199平均水平显著高于良性肿瘤组和健康组,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05);良性肿瘤组和健康组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。卵巢癌组血清HE4和CA125的敏感性和Youden指数均较CA199标志物高,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。与CA125相比,CA199和HE4的特异性较高,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。血清HE4、CA125和CA199联合检测卵巢恶性肿瘤的敏感性显著高于3指标单项检测,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。结论血清HE4、CA125和CA199联合检测对提高卵巢恶性肿瘤的诊断率有重要意义,其中HE4的检测有助于卵巢良恶性的诊断,是卵巢癌诊断的重要参考指标。     

CA125、CEA、HE4与卵巢良恶性肿瘤的关系

目的探讨血清肿瘤标志物糖类抗原CA125、癌胚抗原(CEA)、人附睾蛋白4(HE4)与卵巢肿瘤性质、卵巢癌临床分期、组织学分型的相关性。方法分析卵巢癌和良性肿瘤患者的血清样本HE4抗原、CA125和CEA水平。利用研究结果预测恶性肿瘤的发生率和区分盆腔肿块的良恶性情况。比较各组血清HE4和CA125表达水平、二者单项或联合检测卵巢癌的接收者工作特征曲线下面积(AUCROC)及其特异度为95%时的灵敏度。结果绝经后恶性肿瘤患者的HE4水平显著高于绝经前良性病变患者。CA125和年龄相结合,ROC曲线下面积达到0.677(95%CI:0.584~0.770,P=0.778),而HE4+CA125+CEA与患者的年龄组合,ROC曲线下面积为0.797(95%CI:0.721~0.874,P=0.005)。通过调整卵巢恶性肿瘤风险(ROMA)临界值,绝经前患者的卵巢癌风险比例从36.99%提高到69.86%。结论相比CA125和年龄,将HE4、CA125、年龄和CEA组合起来,可以提高鉴别诊断卵巢癌和区分良恶性肿瘤的能力。     

血清HE4、CA125联合检测对卵巢上皮性恶性肿瘤的诊断价值及其与临床特征的关系

目的 探讨血清人附睾分泌蛋白4(HE4)、糖类抗原125(CA125)联合检测对卵巢上皮性恶性肿瘤的临床诊断价值及其与患者临床特征的关系.方法 选取60例卵巢上皮性恶性肿瘤患者(恶性组)和120例卵巢良性病变患者(良性组)作为研究对象,检测两组患者的血清HE4、CA125水平,分析血清HE4、CA125水平与卵巢上皮性恶性肿瘤病理类型、FIGO分期及分化程度的关系,探究两项指标单独及联合检测对卵巢上皮性恶性肿瘤的诊断价值.结果 恶性组患者的血清HE4、CA125水平分别为(161.3±48.9)pmol/L、(59.3±29.8)U/ml,均明显高于良性组患者的(87.3±26.1)pmol/L、(18.4±9.0)U/ml(P﹤0.01).血清HE4单独诊断卵巢上皮性恶性肿瘤的灵敏度为63.3％,特异度为50.0％;CA125单独诊断卵巢上皮性恶性肿瘤的灵敏度为53.3％,特异度为45.8％;血清HE4+CA125联合诊断卵巢上皮性恶性肿瘤的灵敏度为91.7％,特异度为62.5％.血清HE4的阳性表达水平与卵巢上皮性恶性肿瘤患者的FIGO分期和分化程度有关(P﹤0.05),与病理类型无关(P﹥0.05);血清CA125的阳性表达水平与卵巢上皮性恶性肿瘤患者的病理类型、FIGO分期和分化程度均有关(P﹤0.05).结论 血清HE4、CA125联合检测对卵巢上皮性恶性肿瘤具有较高的诊断价值,较单一指标检测提高了灵敏度和特异度,值得临床推广应用.     

CEA,AFP, CA125, CA153 and CA199 in Malignant Pleural Effusions Predict the Cause

Determination of the cause of malignant pleural effusions is important for treatment and management,especially in cases of unknown primaries. There are limited biomarkers available for prediction of the cause ofmalignant pleural effusion in clinical practice. Hence, we evaluated pleural levels of five tumor biomarkers (CEA,AFP, CA125, CA153 and CA199) in predicting the cause of malignant pleural effusion in a retrospective study.Kruskal-Wallis or Mann-Whitney U tests were carried out to compare levels of tumor markers in pleural effusionamong different forms of neoplasia - lung squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or small cell carcinoma,mesothelioma, breast cancer, lymphoma/leukemia and miscellaneous. Receiver operator characteristic analysiswas performed to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of biomarkers. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed significantdifferences in levels of pleural effusion CEA (P<0.01), AFP (P<0.01), CA153 (P<0.01) and CA199 (P<0.01), butnot CA125 (P>0.05), among the seven groups. Receiver operator characteristic analysis showed that, comparedwith other four tumor markers, CA153 was the best biomarker in diagnosing malignant pleural effusions of lungadenocarcinoma (area under curve (AUC): 0.838 (95%confidence interval: 0.787, 0.888); cut-off value: 10.2U/ml; sensitivity: 73.2% (64.4-80.8)%, specificity: 85.2% (77.8-90.8)%), lung squamous cell carcinoma (AUC:0.716 (0.652, 0.780); cut-off value: 14.2U/ml; sensitivity: 57.6% (50.7-64.3)%, specificity: 91.2% (76.3-98.0)%),and small-cell lung cancer (AUC: 0.812 (0.740, 0.884); cut-off value: 9.7U/ml; sensitivity: 61.5% (55.0-67.8)%,specificity: 94.1% (71.2-99.0)%); CEA was the best biomarker in diagnosing MPEs of mesothelioma (AUC:0.726 (0.593, 0.858); cut-off value: 1.43ng/ml; sensitivity: 83.7% (78.3-88.2)%, specificity: 61.1% (35.8-82.6)%)and lymphoma/leukemia (AUC: 0.923 (0.872, 0.974); cut-off value: 1.71ng/ml; sensitivity: 82.8% (77.4-87.3)%,specificity: 92.3% (63.9-98.7)%). Thus CA153 and CEA appear to be good biomarkers in diagnosing differentcauses of malignant pleural effusion. Our findings implied that the two tumor markers may improve the diagnosisand treatment for effusions of unknown primaries.     

CA19-9、CA50、CA242、CEA检测对胰腺癌早期诊断的意义

目的　探讨CA19- 9、CA5 0、CA2 42、CEA肿瘤标志物联合检测对早期诊断胰腺癌 (PCA)的意义。方法　采用放射免疫分析法 ,检测 5 6例PCA患者及 5 4例胰腺良性疾病患者血清CA19- 9、CA5 0、CA2 42、CEA值并进行比较分析。结果　PCA患者血清CA19- 9(10 8± 148)、CA5 0 (45± 80 )、CA2 42 (78± 5 4)、CEA(3 5± 2 7)。与对照组血清CA19- 9(2 9± 3 6) ,CA5 0 (2 0± 3 0 )、CA2 42 (2 0± 14)、CEA(2 5± 12 )比较有非常显著差别(P <0 0 1)。结果　胰腺恶性肿瘤患者中 ,血清CA19- 9、CA5 0、CA2 42、CEA标志物含量明显高于胰腺良性疾病 ,且CA19- 9阳性率较高 (76 8% )。肿瘤越大CA19- 9水平越高 ;当癌肿手术后复发、转移时 ,均有CA19- 9再度明显升高 ,可早期发现以随时调整治疗方案。PCA标志物联合检测阳性率 (92 % ) ,明显高于单检阳性率 (76 8% )。四种标志物之间有相关性及互补性 ,可显著提高PCA的早期诊断 ,并有助于与良性胰腺疾病鉴别     

Clinical usefulness of three monoclonal antibody-defined tumor markers: CA 19-9, CA 50, and CA 125

This article reviews the clinical usefulness of three monoclonal antibody-defined tumor markers: CA 19-9 or GICA, CA 50, and CA 125. These markers have been regarded as worthwhile tools for diagnosis and monitoring the management of patients with cancers in selected sites. The CA 19-9 test in combination with the CEA test is a useful adjunct for staging in some advanced cases and for monitoring therapy in the majority of patients with carcinoma of the stomach. Sensitivity of these assays performed concurrently is comparable to CEA alone in colorectal carcinoma. The CA 19-9 test alone is useful for staging and monitoring management of patients with carcinoma of the pancreas. In colorectal carcinoma the CA 19-9 test is redundant because of significantly lower sensitivity than that of the CEA assay; the latter remains the test of choice. The CA 50 test per se is redundant since the CA 19-9 antigen is the target for both the C50 MAb and the NS 19-9 MAb. The CA 125 test contributes to staging and is a useful adjunct for monitoring management of patients with non-mucinous carcinomas of the ovary. If positive after initial surgery and chemotherapy, this test provides evidence of the presence of residual or metastatic tumor and thus may obviate the need for second-look surgery. These conclusions are based on a review of recent relevant publications as well as on our own results obtained from preoperative evaluation and postoperative follow-up of about 600 patients with cancers in relevant sites.     

CA125、CA153、CA199和SCC联合检测对宫颈癌的诊断价值

目的 探讨CA125、CA153、CA199和SCC联合检测在诊断宫颈癌中的价值.方法 将54例宫颈癌患者纳入A组,72例宫颈良性肿瘤患者纳入B组,同期健康妇女60例纳入对照组.采用电化学发光免疫分析法检测血清CA125、CA153、CA199,采用微粒子酶免疫分析法检测血清SCC.结果 宫颈癌组患者血清CA125、CA153、CA199和SCC水平均高于宫颈良性肿瘤组和对照组患者,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).联合CA 125、CA153、CA199和SCC检测的阳性率远高于CA153,CA199和SCC单独检测,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).特异性方面,联合组显著低于CA199和SCC单独检测组(P＜0.05);灵敏度方面,联合组显著高于CA125、CA153、CA199和SCC单独检测组(P＜0.05);准确性方面,联合组显著高于CA153、CA199和SCC单独检测组(P＜0.05);联合组在阳性预测值方面与各指标单独检测比较无显著差异(P＞0.05).结论 CA125、CA153、CA199和SCC四种标志物联合检测对宫颈癌具有很高的诊断价值,对宫颈癌的诊断有重要意义,可以在临床推广使用.     

血清CA125、CA153、CA242三种肿瘤标志物联合检测对肺癌诊断的价值

目的探讨CA125、CA153、CA242联合检测在肺癌筛查与临床诊断中的应用价值.方法采用CanAg诊断试剂盒,对56例肺癌患者及108例健康人血清进行CA125、CA153、CA242测定.结果肺癌患者组CA125、CA153、CA242值分别为54.97±95.70,36.02±40.38,14.38±21.99;阳性率分别为41.07%、44.64%、23.21%.健康人组CA125、CA153、CA242值分别为11.23±1.58,12.73±11.92,15.11±13.60,阳性率均为0%,肺癌患者组CA125、CA153值明显高于健康人组(P＜0.01),肺癌患者组中CA125、CA153阳性率明显高于CA242(P＜0.05),CA125、CA153联合检测阳性率明显大于单独检测(P＜0.05)、Ⅰ-Ⅱ期肺癌患者与Ⅲ、Ⅳ期肺癌患者CA125、CA153值相比有显著性差异(P＜0.05).结论 CA125、CA153联合检测对肺癌筛查与临床诊断有良好辅助价值,CA242测定对肺癌筛查与临床诊断价值不大.     

血清CA153、CA125、CA199和CEA联合检测在乳腺癌诊断中的价值

目的探讨联合检测血清CA153、CA125、CA199和CEA的含量对乳腺癌的诊断价值。方法运用电化学发光免疫分析方法检测乳腺癌68例、乳腺良性疾病50例及体检健康女性58名血清中CA153、CA125、CA199、CEA的含量,分析各肿瘤标志物诊断的灵敏度、特异度、准确度及联合检测的临床意义。结果单独检测CA153、CA125、CA199、CEA对乳腺癌诊断的阳性率分别为76．4％（52／68）、44．1％（30／68）、35．3％（24／68）、29．4％（20／68）;联合检测4种肿瘤标志物的阳性率为94．1％（64／68）。结论血清CA153、CA125、CA199和CEA联合检测具有提高乳腺癌早期诊断的价值。     

CA125、CA19.9、CA15-3联合测定对卵巢良恶性肿瘤的诊断价值

目的 评价肿瘤标志物CA125、CA19.9、CA15-3在卵巢良恶性肿瘤的诊断价值,以提高CA125单独测定的敏感性与特异性。方法应用放射免疫方法测定了21例卵巢良性肿瘤及21例卵巢恶性肿瘤的血清CA125、CA19.9、CA15-3值并进行比较分析。结果 卵巢恶性肿瘤患者血清CA125、CA15-3含量显著高于良性肿瘤组(P<0.001),单独应用CA125诊断卵巢恶性肿瘤的准确性为78.57％,优于CA15-3和CA19.9。而以三项肿瘤标记物中的任意两项阳性为标记物诊断阳性时,准确性为85.71％,较CA125单独测定诊断卵巢良恶性肿瘤有较高的准确性。结论 CA125、CA15-3、CA19.9三项肿瘤标记物联合检测,以其中任意两项同时增高作为阳性标准,对提高卵巢良、恶性肿瘤诊断及鉴别诊断的准确性有一定意义。     

CEA, CA 242, CA 19-9, CA 72-4 and hCGbeta in the diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the utility of serum CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242, CA 72-4 and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG)beta in the follow-up of 102 surgically treated colorectal cancer patients, out of which 40 patients developed clinical recurrence. METHODS: In patients with recurrent disease, serum samples were obtained at the time of clinical recurrence, and in the disease-free group, they were obtained postoperatively. The combined use of the markers was evaluated with logistic regression analysis. The sensitivities of the different tumour markers at various specificity levels were compared by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: When the five tumour markers, Dukes stage and location of the primary tumour were evaluated together in the same model, only CEA provided significant diagnostic information (p < 0.0005) in addition to the location of the primary tumour (p = 0.003). The diagnostic information provided by the other serum tumour markers was insignificant, although CA 72-4 approached borderline significance (p = 0.053). ROC curves were constructed and the difference in the values of the area under the curve (AUC) between the different serum tumour markers was determined at the time of clinical recurrence. Of the individual markers, the highest AUC was observed for CEA (AUC = 0.931). The difference in AUC values between CEA and the other tumour markers was highly significant (p < or = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CEA had the highest diagnostic accuracy in detecting recurrent colorectal cancer. Inclusion of CA 19-9, CA 242, CA 72-4 or hCGbeta in the model did not improve the accuracy, although CA 72-4 approached borderline significance (p = 0.053). Thus, CEA seems to retain its position as the surveillance marker of choice for patients surgically treated for colorectal cancer.     

Role of HE4, CA72.4, and CA125 in monitoring ovarian cancer

The aim of this study was to investigate the role of biomarkers CA125, HE4, and CA72.4 at diagnosis and throughout the follow-up in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Thirty-nine patients with EOC were deemed eligible, and 20 were followed up. CA125, HE4, and CA72.4 serum levels were determined for all patients at initial diagnosis of EOC. Among these patients, the number of cases with an elevated level of each individual marker was CA125 77?%, HE4 85?%, and CA72.4 72?%. A statistically significant difference was observed between the level of HE4 when compared to CA72.4 (p?<?0.02). In the follow-up phase, we observed tumor marker levels fluctuating according to response to chemotherapy. When combining two out of the three biomarkers together, we observed increased values of CA125 and CA72.4 in 55?% of the patients, increased values of CA125 and HE4 in 65?% of the patients, and finally increased HE4 and CA72.4 in 75?% of the patients. A statistically significant difference was observed when combining HE4 and CA72.4, but not CA125 and CA 72.4 (p?<?0.002). In conclusion, our study demonstrates that the association of three biomarkers CA125, HE4, and CA72.4 provides a valuable contribution in the follow-up of EOC patients.     

Evaluation of seven tumor markers (CA 50, CA 19-9, CA 19-9 TruQuant, CA 72-4, CA 195, carcinoembryonic antigen, and tissue polypeptide antigen) in the pretreatment sera of patients with gastric carcinoma.

Preoperative serum levels of the tumor markers CA 50, CA 19-9, CA 19-9 TruQuant, CA 72-4, CA 195, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA) were measured in 94 patients with well-staged adenocarcinoma of the stomach and in 15 patients with benign gastric diseases. In all patients with carcinoma, a laparotomy was done. The serum levels were correlated with the stage of disease, the location of the primary tumor, and the resectability and grade of differentiation. The marker CA 50 was the best, with an overall positivity of 59.5%. For CA 19-9, this figure was 34%; for CA 19-9 TruQuant, 22%; for CA 72-4, 34%; for CA 195, 29%; for CEA, 33%; and for TPA, 50%. The best combination of two markers was CA 50 and TPA; this combination gave a positivity of 81%. There was no evident correlation with stage of disease and the percentage of positive serum levels or the median serum levels. The marker CA 50 gave the widest range of elevated serum levels between the cutoff level and the 90th percentile (54%). Patients with carcinoma of the cardia had higher preoperative serum levels than those with a tumor in other parts of the stomach. There was no correlation with the resectability of the tumor and the preoperative serum level. Patients with an undifferentiated tumors did not have significantly lower serum levels than those with more differentiated tumors. Currently, preoperative determination of serum tumor marker levels in patients with gastric carcinoma has no significant in clinical practice.