首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 281 毫秒
1.
Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigens 15-3, 19-9 and 72-4 (CA 15-3, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4), cytokeratin 19 fragments (CYFRA 21-1), neuron-specific enolase (NSE) and squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC) were evaluated in pleural fluid for the diagnosis of malignant effusions. With a specificity of 99%, determined in a series of 121 benign effusions, the best individual diagnostic sensitivities in the whole series of 215 malignant effusions or in the subgroup of adenocarcinomas were observed with CEA, CA 15-3 and CA 72-4. As expected, a high sensitivity was obtained with SCC in squamous cell carcinomas and with NSE in small-cell lung carcinomas. CYFRA and/or CA 15-3 were frequently increased in mesotheliomas. Discriminant analysis showed that the optimal combination for diagnosis of non-lymphomatous malignant effusions was CEA + CA 15-3 + CYFRA + NSE: sensitivity of 94.4% with an overall specificity of 95%. In malignant effusions with a negative cytology, 83.9% were diagnosed using this association. The association CYFRA + NSE + SCC was able to discriminate adenocarcinomas from small-cell lung cancers. Regarding their sensitivity and their complementarity, CEA, CA 15-3, CYFRA 21-1, NSE and SCC appear to be very useful to improve the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions.  相似文献   

2.
 目的 探讨胸腔积液4种肿瘤标志物联合检测在良恶性胸腔积液鉴别诊断中的价值。方法 采用电化学发光免疫法检测126例胸腔积液患者(其中恶性组52例,良性组74例)癌胚抗原(CEA)、糖类抗原125(CA125)、糖类抗原15-3(CA15-3)和细胞角蛋白片段19(CYFRA21-1)水平, 并计算上述指标单独和与CEA联合检测在诊断中的敏感度、特异度、准确度和约登指数(YI)。结果 恶性组4种肿瘤标志物水平均明显高于良性组(P<0.01)。单项检测各种肿瘤标志物的敏感度以CA125最高(90.4 %),特异度以CYFRA21-1最高(79.7 %),诊断准确度以CEA和CYFRA21-1最高(71.4 %),YI以CEA最高(0.41)。联合检测较单项检测敏感度、准确度和YI明显提高,其中CEA、CYFRA21-1和CA15-3三项联合效果最好,敏感度为92.3 %,特异度为78.4 %,准确度为84.1 %,YI值最高为0.71。四项联合敏感度为94.2 %,特异度为75.7 %,准确度为83.3 %,YI值为0.70,与三项联合结果相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 单项检测的诊断价值有限,CEA、CYFRA21-1和CA15-3三项联合效果最好、最经济,可指导患者恰当选择进一步的侵入性检查手段。  相似文献   

3.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the individual and combined diagnostic utility of six tumor markers in patients with pleural effusion. Pleural and serum levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 15-3 (CA 15-3), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9), cytokeratin fragment 19 (CYFRA 21-1), neuron-specific enolase (NSE) and total sialic acid (TSA) were assayed in 74 patients with pleural effusions (44 malignant and 30 benign). All tumor markers except TSA and NSE were increased in both serum and pleural fluid of patients with malignant diseases. Using the cut-off values 3 ng/ml, 14 U/ml, 5 U/ml, 8 ng/ml and 70 mg/dl for pleural fluid CEA, CA 15-3, CA 19-9, CYFRA 21-1 and TSA, respectively, the sensitivity (%) and specificity (%) of these tumor markers were as follows: CEA; 52/77, CA 15-3; 80/93, CA 19-9; 36/83, CYFRA 21-1; 91/90, TSA; 80/67, for differentiating malignant effusions from benign. When CA 15-3 and CYFRA 21-1 combined, the sensitivity and specificity were increased (100 and 83%, respectively). Classifying the malignant effusions as bronchial carcinoma and malignant pleural mesothelioma, CEA was shown to have the highest sensitivity and specificity (88 and 90%, respectively) while the combination of CEA with other tumor markers increased sensitivity but decreased specificity. According to our results, tumor markers are not suitable for the differential diagnosis of malignancy.  相似文献   

4.
In order to evaluate the diagnostic yield of tumor markers in differentiating malignant and benign pleural effusions, we carried out a prospective study in a group of Iranian people. Pleural and serum levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 15-3 (CA15-3), neuron-specific enolase (NSE) and cancer antigen 125 (CA 125) were assayed prospectively in patients with pleural effusion (40 malignant and 37 benign). The highest sensitivity was obtained with a combination of CA 15-3 in serum, and CA 15-3 and CEA in pleural fluid (80%), also with combination of CA 15-3 in serum, and CA 15-3, NSE and CEA in pleural fluid (80%). The highest specificity was obtained with combination of CA 15-3 in serum, and CA 15-3 and NSE in pleural fluid (100%), and also with combination of CA 15-3 in serum, and CA 15-3, NSE and CEA in pleural fluid (100%).  相似文献   

5.
六种肿瘤标志物在肺癌胸腔积液中的诊断价值   总被引:1,自引:1,他引:0       下载免费PDF全文
目的通过对胸腔积液和血清中6种肿瘤标志物的检测及胸腔积液脱落细胞学检查,探讨各指标在肺癌胸腔积液中的诊断价值。方法应用化学发光法和酶联免疫分析法测定50例肺癌和30例肺良性疾病患者的胸腔积液和血清中的癌胚抗原(CEA)、糖类抗原19—9(CA19—9)、鳞状细胞癌抗原(SCC)、神经元特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)、细胞角蛋白19片段(CYFRA21—1)、胃泌素前体释放肽(ProGRP)水平,同时对胸腔积液标本进行脱落细胞学检查,并根据受试者工作特性曲线(ROC)建立合理的临床判断临界值。结果肺癌患者胸腔积液中6种肿瘤标志物水平均高于肺良性疾病者,其中CEA、CA19-9、CYFRA21—1、ProGRP水平显著高于肺良性疾病组(P〈0.05)。胸腔积液CEA、血清CYFRA21—1及CEA含量在胸腔积液与血清中的比值(P/S)在各组中的ROC曲线下面积最大。结论胸腔积液CEA、血清CYFRA21—1及CEA的P/S值在鉴别良、恶性胸腔积液中有一定的辅助诊断价值,胸腔积液CEA的诊断价值最大。  相似文献   

6.
Levels of tumor markers in pleural effusions may help to establish the diagnosis of pleural malignancy, but the precise diagnostic value of each marker remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic value of five common pleural fluid tumor markers, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cytokeratin fragment (CYFRA) 21-1, cancer antigen (CA) 15-3, CA 19-9, and CA 125, and to review the literature from the past 15 years. Pleural fluid samples were collected prospectively from 116 patients and assayed for CEA, CYFRA 21-1, CA 15-3, CA 19-9, and CA 125 levels. A MEDLINE search of the English-language literature from the past 15 years was also done. Effusions were classified as benign or malignant on the basis of their definitive pathologic or cytologic diagnoses. The levels of all pleural tumor markers were statistically significantly higher in the malignant group than in the benign group. The marker with the highest accuracy was CEA (85.3%); CA 15-3, CYFRA 21-1, and CA 19-9 had similar accuracies (75.2%, 72.4%, and 71.5%, respectively), and CA 125 had the lowest accuracy (40.5%). On univariate analysis, tumor-marker combinations did not result in a greater accuracy than that of CEA alone. On multivariate logistic regression, CA 15-3 and CYFRA 21-1 were significant predictors of malignancy. Among the nine reports in the literature comparing 11 different tumor markers, CEA, CA 15-3, and CYFRA 21-1 yielded the best results. We conclude that pleural fluid analysis should include CEA for the diagnosis of malignancy. CA 15-3 and CYFRA 21-1 may serve as alternative options.  相似文献   

7.
目的:分析肿瘤标志物细胞角蛋白19片段(CYFRA21-1)、鳞状上皮细胞癌抗原(SCC)、癌胚抗原(CEA)、神经特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)以及糖类癌抗原125(CA125)检验在肺癌诊断中的临床应用价值。方法:将2015年11月至2016年11月于我院收治的74例肺癌患者(肺癌组)、74例肺良性肿瘤患者(良性肿瘤组)作为研究对象,同期选择74例到院体检的健康人群作为健康组。三组患者均在空腹状态下抽取4.0 ml静脉血,离心处理后进行实验室检验。对比三组患者中CYFRA21-1、SCC、CEA、NSE以及CA125水平的变化情况。结果:肺癌组的CYFRA21-1、SCC、CEA、NSE以及CA125水平均高于健康组和良性肿瘤组(P<0.05)。非小细胞肺癌患者的CYFRA21-1、SCC、CEA以及CA125水平均高于小细胞肺癌患者。小细胞肺癌患者的NSE水平显著高于非小细胞肺癌患者(P<0.05)。结论:肺癌患者的CYFRA21-1、SCC、CEA、NSE以及CA125水平将会显著增高,通过联合检测CYFRA21-1、SCC、CEA、NSE以及CA125能够在一定程度上提高肺癌疾病的诊断准确率,对于肺癌疾病的临床诊断和筛查具有十分重要的作用。  相似文献   

8.
黄芳  薛丽  宋琳岚  徐楠  耿燕 《现代肿瘤医学》2018,(13):2054-2058
目的:探讨联合检测肺癌胸水和血清中癌胚抗原(CEA)、癌抗原125(CA125)、细胞角蛋白19片段(CYFRA21-1)、神经原特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)和胃泌素释放肽前体(Pro-GRP)5 种肿瘤标志物水平在肺癌临床诊断中的应用价值,以期提高鉴别良恶性胸水的能力。方法:用电化学发光法检测93例肺癌患者和54例肺炎性疾病患者的血清及胸水标本CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1、NSE和Pro-GRP水平。结果:癌性胸水组中CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1、NSE和Pro-GRP 5种肿瘤标志物平均水平与炎性胸水组比较,差别均有统计学意义(P<0.05);癌性胸水组中CEA、CYFRA21-1、CA125的含量远远高于炎性胸水组(20~600倍)(P<0.01)。肺癌胸水组中CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1、NSE和Pro-GRP 5种肿瘤标志物水平与肺癌血清组比较,差别均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。肺癌胸水组中CEA、CYFRA21-1、CA125的含量远远高于肺癌血清组(7~80倍)(P<0.01),相比与正常对照组更是有200倍以上的增高(P<0.01),因此胸水中CEA、CYFRA21-1、CA125百倍左右的升高提示恶性肿瘤的存在。将93例癌性胸水和血清分为腺癌、鳞癌和小细胞癌。腺癌、鳞癌和小细胞癌胸水组中CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1、NSE和Pro-GRP 5种肿瘤标志物含量明显高于炎性胸水组(P<0.01);腺癌胸水组中CEA含量明显高于鳞癌和小细胞癌(P<0.01);鳞癌胸水组中CYFRA21-1含量明显高于腺癌和小细胞癌(P<0.01);小细胞癌胸水组中NSE和Pro-GRP含量明显高于腺癌和鳞癌(P<0.01)。CA125含量在胸水组中腺癌、鳞癌含量明显高于小细胞癌(P<0.01)。5 种标志物单项及联合检测的灵敏度肺癌胸水组均高于肺癌血清组,肺癌胸水中5项联合检测后灵敏度可达99.11%。结论:肺癌组胸水中CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1、NSE和Pro-GRP 5种肿瘤标志物联合检测有利于良恶性胸水的鉴别诊断,联合检测可以提高肺癌诊断的灵敏度,当肿瘤标志物显著升高时,CEA可作为肺腺癌的肿瘤标志物;CYFRA21-1可作为肺鳞癌的肿瘤标志物;NSE和Pro-GRP可作为小细胞癌的肿瘤标志物;CA125可作为非小细胞肺癌的肿瘤标志物。  相似文献   

9.
目的探讨DNA倍体分析联合肿瘤标志物在良、恶性胸腔积液诊断中的价值。方法将108例胸腔积液分为恶性组(68例)和良性组(40例)。除常规细胞学检查外,以流式细胞术(flowcytometry,FCM)检测患者胸腔积液中的DNA倍体,采用化学发光法测定胸腔积液中CEA、CA199、NSE、CYFRA211、SCC、CA125等肿瘤标志物含量。比较DNA倍体联合肿瘤标志物诊断与细胞学诊断的优劣。结果DNA倍体诊断恶性胸腔积液的敏感性、特异性分别为70.6%、95.0%,Youden’s指数为0.656,敏感度稍高于细胞学诊断的65.1%,差异无统计学意义(P〉0.05)。除NSE外,其他5种肿瘤标志物在恶性胸腔积液中浓度均高于良性,差异有统计学意义(P〈0.05)。CYFRA211、CEA、CAl99、CAl25、SCC、NSE的AUC分别为:0.893,0.828,0.759,0.691,0.524及0.490;COV分别为:149.2ng/mL,53.6ng/mL,78.2IU/mL,1559.0IU/mL,48.72ng/mL及78.3ng/mL;敏感性分别为:44.1%,44.1%,35.3%,29.4%,13.2%,5.9%,特异性均为100%。4种肿瘤标志物联合检测+DNA倍体检测的敏感性为88.2%(60/68),特异性95%,显著高于细胞学诊断。结论DNA倍体联合CEA、CA199、CYFRA211和CA125检测诊断恶性胸腔积液有较高敏感性,具有定量、快速、价廉、易标准化的特点,且操作简单。  相似文献   

10.
目的 联合检测CEA、CA-125、CYFRA21-1、NSE和SCC等5种血清肿瘤标志物水平,探讨其在肺癌临床诊断中的意义。方法 采集112例肺癌患者血清样本,其中48例肺腺癌,33例肺鳞状细胞癌和31例小细胞肺癌;同时采集32例良性患者血清样本为对照组,所有诊断均有组织学证实。用电化学发光法检测血清的CEA、CA-125、CYFRA21-1、NSE水平,用微粒子酶联免疫发光法检测SCC水平。计算灵敏度、特异度和阳性预测值。结果 血清CEA、CA-125、CYFRA21-1、NSE和SCC单项检测的灵敏度为54.46%、67.86%、39.29%、38.39%和28.57%,特异度为93.75%、96.88%、93.75%、87.50%和96.88%。血清五项肿瘤标志物联合检测阳性预测值为92.17%,联合检测灵敏度和特异度分别为94.64%和71.87%。结论 血清CEA、CA-125、CYFRA21-1、NSE和SCC水平联合检测对于肺癌的诊断有临床价值,且联合检测可以提高肺癌诊断的敏感性,提高肺癌的检出率。  相似文献   

11.
CYFRA 21-1 assay, measuring cytokeratin 19 fragments, was compared with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assay, as an addition to cytological analysis for the diagnosis of malignant effusions. Both markers were determined with commercial enzyme immunoassays in pleural fluid from 196 patients. Cytological analysis and/or pleural biopsy confirmed the malignant origin of the effusion in 99 patients (76 carcinomas, nine pleural mesotheliomas and 14 non-epithelial malignancies). Effusions were confirmed as benign in 97 patients (33 cardiac failures, 39 infectious diseases--including 12 tuberculosis-- and 25 miscellaneous effusions). Both markers were significantly higher in malignant than in benign effusions. All the patients with non-epithelial malignancies presented CYFRA and CEA values lower than the 95% diagnostic specificity thresholds (100 and 6 ng ml(-1) respectively). The diagnostic sensitivity in the group of carcinomas and mesotheliomas was similar for CYFRA (58.8%) and CEA (64.7%). However, CEA had a significantly higher sensitivity in carcinomas (72.4% vs 55.3%), while CYFRA had a clearly higher sensitivity in mesotheliomas (89.9% vs 0%). Interestingly, 12 out of the 16 malignant effusions with a negative cytology were CEA and/or CYFRA positive. Regarding their high diagnostic sensitivity and their complementarity, CEA and CYFRA appear to be very useful for the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions when cytology is negative.  相似文献   

12.
目的:探讨CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1等8种肿瘤标志物检测在胸腹水鉴别诊断中的临床应用价值.方法:采用电化学发光法分别对176例患者的胸水和/或腹水进行癌胚抗原(CEA)、糖类癌抗原125 (CA125)、细胞角蛋白片段19(CYFRA21-1)等8项肿瘤标志物检测(其中恶性胸腹水81例,结核性胸腹水45例及不明原因胸腹水50例),评价上述指标在鉴别胸腹水性质诊断中的灵敏度及特异性.结果:8项肿瘤标志物在良、恶性胸腹水中的表达水平具有显著性差异(P<0.05).恶性胸腹水中CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1、NSE的水平及阳性率较高,分别为94%、81%、62%和52%.相关胸腹水肿瘤标志物联合检测对鉴别诊断不同良恶性胸腹水有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论:胸腹水中CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1、NSE联合检测对良恶性胸腹水鉴别诊断有重要价值.  相似文献   

13.
背景与目的 恶性胸腔积液多由肺癌引起,肿瘤标志物检测对其鉴别诊断有一定临床价值。本研究的目的是探讨血清及胸腔积液胃泌素前体释放肽片断31—98(ProGRP)、神经元烯醇化酶(NSE)、细胞角蛋白19(cYFRA21—1)和癌胚抗原(CEA)单项或联合检测对肺癌所致恶性胸腔积液鉴别诊断与组织学分型的临床价值。方法 将肺癌所致的恶性胸腔积液患者按原发肿瘤类型分为小细胞肺癌(SCLC)组、肺腺癌组及肺鳞癌组,同时以良性胸腔积液组、健康对照组作为对照。评估胸腔积液ProGRP、NSE、CYFRA21—1和CEA单项及联合检测对各组恶性胸腔积液的诊断价值。结果 血清及胸腔积液ProGRP、NSE、CYFRA21—1、CEA在各恶性胸腔积液组的水平均明显高于对照组(P〈0.01)。SCLC组检测胸腔积液ProGRP的Youden指数和诊断准确性最高;肺腺癌和肺鳞癌组则以胸腔积液CEA+CYFRA21—1联合检测(按平行试验)的Youden指数及诊断准确性最高。结论胸腔积液肿瘤标志物系列(ProGRP、NSE、CYFRA21—1、CEA)检查对恶性胸腔积液的鉴别诊断与组织学分型有很大的临床价值。胸腔积液ProGRP为SCLC所致恶性胸腔积液的最佳肿瘤标志物;胸腔积液cEA+cYFRA21—1联合检测(按平行试验)为肺腺癌、肺鳞癌所致恶性胸腔积液较好的辅助诊断指标。  相似文献   

14.
目的探讨胸水中糖链抗原125(CA125)、糖链抗原199(CA199)、癌胚抗原(CEA)、神经元特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)、细胞角蛋白19片段(CYFRA21—1)和糖链抗原72-4(CA72-4)在原发性肺癌并胸腔积液的诊断和鉴别诊断、病理分型中的价值。方法采用电化学免疫荧光发光法同时检测90例原发性肺癌并胸腔积液患者(恶性胸腔积液组)和64例良性胸腔积液患者(良性胸腔积液组)胸水中CA125、CA199、CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1和CA72-4水平。结果恶性胸腔积液组各胸水肿瘤标志物水平均高于良性胸腔积液组(P〈0.05),其中CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE分别对腺癌、鳞癌、小细胞肺癌最敏感。联合检测以CEA+NSE+CYFRA21-1最优,可使敏感性达98.9%,阴性预测值至96.6%,准确性提高至76.0%。结论胸水肿瘤标志物在原发性肺癌的诊断中价值较高,其中CEA的诊断价值最大,联合检测诊断准确性优于单项检测。  相似文献   

15.
CEA, CA 125, SCC, CYFRA 21-1 and NSE were prospectively studied in 211 patients with non-small cell lung cancer and compared with clinical parameters (age, sex, Karnofsky Index, symptoms and smoking status), histopathological parameters (stage, histology, tumor size and nodal involvement), biological parameters (LDH and albumin) and the therapy used (surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy). Tumor marker sensitivity was CYFRA 21-1: 76%, CA 125: 55%, CEA: 52%, SCC: 33% and NSE: 22%. One of the tumor markers was abnormally high in 87% of the patients with locoregional disease and in 100% of the patients with metastases. Except for NSE, all tumor markers showed a clear relationship with tumor stage and histology and therefore enabled a better histological diagnosis. Abnormal CEA serum levels were mainly found in adenocarcinomas, CA 125 in large-cell lung cancers (LCLC) and adenocarcinomas and SCC in squamous tumors. Eighty-five percent of the patients with SCC levels >2 ng/ml had squamous tumors. Likewise, CA 125 levels <60 U/ml or CEA <10 ng/ml excluded adenocarcinoma or LCLC with a probability of 82 and 91%, respectively.  相似文献   

16.
目的:探讨DNA倍体联合肿瘤标志物检验恶性胸腔积液的临床价值.方法:70例胸腔积液患者,分为恶性组、良性组.采用全自动细胞分析仪对胸腔积液进行DNA倍体分析,并同时检测NSE、CYFRA21-1、CEA、CA199、SF.结果:恶性胸腔积液中DNA倍体和各肿瘤标志物(NSE、CYFRA21-1、CEA、CA199、SF)的灵敏度分别为80.00%、45.83%、76.67%、60.00%、26.67%、72.00%,特异性分别为82.50%、88.24%、70.97%、95.00%、100.00%、55.17%,准确性分别为82.43%、70.68%、73.77%、80.00%、68.11%、63.64%.组合模型中以DNA倍体串联CEA,DNA倍体并联铁蛋白诊断价值较高.结论:使用DNA细胞全自动检测分析仪对恶性胸腔积液进行DNA倍体测量具有很高的阳性率、灵敏度,如果联合胸腔积液肿瘤标志物中的CEA或SF可提高其临床诊断价值.  相似文献   

17.
We evaluated the diagnostic utility of simultaneous determination of 5 tumor markers, CEA, CA 125, CA 15-3, CA 19-9 and cytokeratin 19 (CYFRA 21-1), in fluid and serum from 101 patients, 52 with pleural effusion (22 malignant) and 49 patients with ascites (14 malignant). Tumor marker concentrations in fluid from patients with malignant effusions were significantly higher than those obtained in benign fluids or serum. However, there are two types of tumor markers: those released/secreted by normal mesothelia such as CA 125 and cytokeratin 19 (higher levels in benign fluids than in serum) and non-released/secreted tumor markers (low concentrations in benign fluids) such as CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 15-3. The fluid/serum (F/S) ratio showed better sensitivity with maximum specificity than a single determination in fluid for CEA, CA 15-3 and CA 19-9, but not for CA 125 and CYFRA. The combination of a F/S ratio greater than 1.2 and a cut-off of 5 ng/ml for CEA, 30 U/ml for CA 15-3 and 37 U/ml for CA 19-9 showed sensitivities of 58, 57 and 44%, respectively, and a specificity of 100%, with a combined sensitivity of 82% for overall effusions and 79% for fluids with negative cytology with a specificity of 100%. In conclusion, the use of the F/S ratio in nonsecreted tumor markers such as CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 15-3 improve the sensitivity and specificity and allow standardization of the cut-off.  相似文献   

18.
目的 探讨血清肿瘤标志物水平与支气管镜活检组织病理学分型的关系。方法 本研究纳入2013年1月—2018年12月于哈尔滨医科大学附属肿瘤医院行支气管镜下活检病理检查,且完成相关血清肿瘤标志物(SCCA、CYFRA21-1、CEA、CA125、NSE)检测的356例肺癌患者(140例小细胞癌、122例鳞状细胞癌、94例腺癌),对患者进行回顾性分析。结果 在支气管镜活检的肺癌患者中,五种血清肿瘤标志物的组合(SCCA+CYFRA21-1+CEA+CA125+NSE,AUC=0.948,P<0.001)对小细胞肺癌与非小细胞肺癌的辅助诊断价值更高;三种(SCC+CEA+NSE,AUC=0.901,P<0.001)或四种(SCC+CYFRA21-1+CEA+NSE,AUC=0.901,P<0.001)标志物联合鉴别鳞状细胞癌与腺癌准确性更高;而在非小细胞肺癌中鉴别鳞状细胞癌与腺癌,三种标志物组合(SCCA+CEA+CA125,AUC=0.831,P<0.001)的价值更高。结论 对于不同病理分型的肺癌患者,不同血清肿瘤标志物组合对支气管镜下活检病理的分型有一定的辅助诊断...  相似文献   

19.
非小细胞肺癌患者血清多项肿瘤标志联合检测的临床意义   总被引:4,自引:0,他引:4  
目的:评价癌胚抗原(CEA)、鳞状细胞癌相关抗原(SCC-Ag)、细胞角蛋白21-1片段(CYFRA21-1)、糖类抗原125(CA125)、糖类抗原153(CA153)和神经元特异性烯醇华酶(NSE)等6项标志联合检测,在非小细胞肺癌(non-small cell lung cancer,NSCLC)的临床诊断、预后及评价疗效等方面的临床意义。方法:收集284例NSCLC患者的临床资料及肿瘤标志水平,评价标志水平与病情的关系。统计学分析采用SPSS10.0软件,用Kaplan-Merier法计算生存率和无肿瘤生存率,用Log-rank法进行差异检验,对单因素分析中P<0.3的预后因素使用Cox比例风险回归进行多因素分析。结果:肿瘤标志CEA的总阳性率为42.6%,CYFRA21-1为54.2%,SCC为12.6%,CA125为51.8%,CA153为39.4%,NSE为16.5%。6项标志联合检查的总阳性率为80.3%。CEA、CA153阳性患者的化疗疗效较差,而NSE阳性患者的化疗疗效较好。出现转移或病情进展的患者中,73.1%出现阴性标志和(或)经治疗已转为阴性的标志转为阳性。全组患者的中位无病生存期为12.98(2~22)个月,中位生存期为17.69(6~22)个月。结论:CEA、SCC-Ag、CYFRA21-1、CA125、CA153和NSE等6项标志在NSCLC患者中有较高的阳性率。多项标志联合检测的阳性率远高于任一标志单独检测的阳性率。  相似文献   

20.
目的:探讨胸腔积液中肿瘤标志物癌胚抗原(CEA)、细胞角蛋白19片断(CYFRA21-1)、神经元特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)检测在胸腔积液诊断中的价值。方法:应用电化学发光法对65例肺癌患者和28例良性对照者的血清和胸腔积液进行检测。结果:肺癌组中血清和胸水肿瘤标志物明显高于对照组(P<0.01);肺癌组胸水三项指标高于血清水平(P<0.01);CEA对肺腺癌,NSE对小细胞肺癌,CYFRA21-1对肺鳞癌的阳性率高于其它单项(P<0.05)。结论:胸腔积液CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1检测有助于肺癌的诊断。  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号