血清糖类抗原及癌胚抗原联合检测在恶性肿瘤诊断中的价值

目的探讨血清糖类抗原及癌胚抗原(CEA)联合检测在恶性肿瘤诊断中的价值,以期为恶性肿瘤的早期诊断提供更可靠的依据。方法选取毕节市中医院2010年3月至2014年3月间收治的恶性肿瘤患者90例,其中直肠癌患者30例,肝癌30例,胰腺癌30例,并选择同期健康体检者40例作为对照,分析癌胚抗原(CEA)以及血清糖类抗原(CA125、CA19-9)在各人群、各类型肿瘤中表达情况。结果在恶性肿瘤患者中,CEA、CA125、CA19-9表达升高的比例显著高于健康体检者,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);各类型肿瘤中,直肠癌中CEA升高明显高于胰腺癌和肝癌,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);胰腺癌中CA125、CA19-9升高率明显高于肝癌和直肠癌,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);CEA、CA125、CA19-9联合检测率直肠癌为96.7%、肝癌为90.0%、胰腺癌为93.3%,明显高于各组的单项检测率,三项联合检测率与单个检查率相比,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论联合检测肿瘤标志物CEA、CA125、CA19-9可显著提高胰腺癌、肝癌、直肠癌等恶性肿瘤诊断的敏感性,为临床治疗提供依据。     

血清肿瘤标志物在消化系统恶性肿瘤诊断中的价值

目的 探讨血清肿瘤标志物在消化系统恶性肿瘤诊断中的价值.方法 692例消化系统疾病患者应用化学发光法检测血清癌胚抗原(CEA)、甲胎蛋白(AFP)、糖类抗原125(CA125)、糖类抗原199(CA199)、糖类抗原153(CA153)的水平.结果 消化系统恶性肿瘤患者血清CEA、CA199、CA125水平均高于消化系统良性疾病患者,差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05或P＜0.01);肝癌,胃、食管癌和胰腺癌患者血清CA153水平高于良性消化系统疾病患者,差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05);肝癌患者血清AFP水平明显高于其他疾病患者,差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.01).肝癌患者血清AFP阳性率为89.5%;胃、食管癌,结直肠癌患者血清CEA阳性率分别为53.2%、52.4%,胰腺癌患者血清CA199阳性率为93.1%.结论 血清CEA、AFP、CA153、CA125、CA199可作为消化系统恶性肿瘤的诊断指标,联合检测可提高诊断的敏感性.     

多肿瘤标志物蛋白芯片中CA19-9表达水平升高对恶性肿瘤的诊断价值

目的探讨多肿瘤标志物蛋白芯片中糖链抗原CA19-9水平升高的临床诊断意义。方法收集可供分析的25 076例多肿瘤蛋白芯片检测结果,分析CA19-9水平在各人群、各肿瘤组织中升高情况。结果恶性肿瘤患者CA19-9水平升高发生率明显高于良性病变患者及正常体检者,且胰腺癌发生率最高(62.04%),其次为肝癌(44.25%)、胃癌(26.40%)、结直肠癌(26.32%);CA19-9伴随升高的指标以CA242最为常见,其次为CEA、CA125;CA19-9/CA242、CA19-9/CEA伴随升高最常见于结直肠癌(90.00%,86.45%);CA19-9/CA125伴随升高最常见于肺癌(71.66%)。CA19-9+CA242+CA125联合升高最常见于胰腺癌(54.91%);CA19-9+CA242+CEA联合升高最常见于结直肠癌(81.61%);CA19-9+AFP+CA125联合升高最常见于肝癌(32.14%);CA19-9+CEA+CA125联合升高最常见于肺癌(55.56%)。结论 CA19-9在恶性肿瘤中广泛表达,但并非恶性肿瘤的特异性指标。CA19-9单项指标升高对消化系统肿瘤具有较高的诊断价值,尤其对胰腺癌,而CA19-9伴随CA125、CA19-9、CA242水平升高,有助于提高各肿瘤诊断阳性率,降低误诊率。     

血清肿瘤标志物CEA、CA19-9对结直肠癌的诊断价值

目的 分析血清肿瘤标志物CEA、CA19-9单项或联合检测对结直肠癌患者的临床诊断价值,探讨其在病理分期、淋巴结转移等临床特征方面的意义.方法 酶联免疫法检测160例健康人和158例结直肠癌患者术前两天以及术后两周血清中CEA、CA19-9含量.结果 结直肠癌患者2种血清肿瘤标志物含量明显高于健康人(P<0.01),术前与术后2种血清肿瘤标志物水平比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).CEA、CA19-9联合检测敏感度和特异度明显高于各单项检测值.在Dukes A、B、C及D期中,2种肿瘤标志物含量及检测阳性率依次增高,淋巴结转移患者的CA19-9含量高于无淋巴结转移患者(P<0.05).结论 肿瘤标志物CEA、CA19-9联合检测可以提高结直肠癌诊断的敏感度和特异度,并对临床分期、判断淋巴结转移、预测预后及监测复发有一定的指导意义.     

血清癌胚抗原联合糖类抗原19-9检测对胰腺癌筛查的临床价值评估

目的 研究血清癌胚抗原(CEA)联合糖类抗原19-9(CA19-9)检测对胰腺癌筛查的临床价值.方法 将103例胰腺癌患者作为胰腺癌组,选取同期收治的105例胰腺炎患者以及健康体检的97例健康人群作为胰腺炎组及健康对照组.对比治疗前3组血清CEA、CA19-9水平,以及手术前后胰腺癌患者血清CEA、CA19-9水平;对比血清CEA、CA19-9单独及联合检测诊断胰腺癌的灵敏度、准确度、特异度.结果 胰腺癌组与胰腺炎组患者血清CEA、CA19-9水平均高于健康对照组,胰腺癌组患者血清CEA、CA19-9水平均高于胰腺炎组,差异均有统计学意义(P﹤0.05).血清CEA联合CA19-9检测诊断胰腺癌的灵敏度明显优于CEA、CA19-9单一检测.术后3个月,胰腺癌患者血清CEA、CA19-9水平均明显低于手术前,差异均有统计学意义(P﹤0.01).结论 在胰腺癌的筛查过程中,采用血清CEA联合CA19-9检测效果显著,两者联合检测对胰腺癌诊断有较高的灵敏度、准确度,有助于提高疾病诊断率.     

外周血内CA19-9、CA242及CEA对胰腺癌诊断及病理分期评估的价值

目的：分析糖类抗原19-9（carbohydrate antigen 19-9,CA19-9）、CA242、癌胚抗原（carcino-embryonic anti-gen,CEA）联合检测诊断胰腺癌的临床价值及其对临床分期判断的指导作用。方法选取95例胰腺癌患者为患者组,及同期60例健康体检者为对照组,比较两组受试者血清CA19-9、CA242和CEA的表达水平,计算血清CA19-9、CA242、CEA单独检测及联合检测诊断胰腺癌的敏感度、特异度和准确性,并比较不同临床分期胰腺癌患者血清CA19-9、CA242、CEA的差异,评价上述指标对胰腺癌临床分期判断的指导作用。结果患者组血清 CA19-9、CA242、CEA水平均高于对照组,差异均具有统计学意义（均P＜0．05）。联合检测诊断胰腺癌的敏感度、特异度和准确性分别为96．8％、66．7％、85．2％,其敏感度、准确性均优于单项检测。随着患者病理分期的增加,其血清CA19-9、CA242、CEA水平均升高,差异均具有统计学意义（均P＜0．05）。患者组治疗后6个月血清CA19-9、CA242、CEA水平均较术前降低,差异均具有统计学意义（均P＜0．05）。肿瘤直径≥5 cm者、肿瘤位于胰腺体／尾部者,其血清CA19-9、CA242、CEA水平均高于肿瘤直径＜5 cm 者及肿瘤位于胰腺头部或全胰腺者,差异均具有统计学意义（均 P＜0.05）。结论联合检测血清CA19-9、CA242和CEA有助于胰腺癌的早期诊断及分期判断,具有较高的临床价值。     

血清和腹水肿瘤标志物对良、恶性腹水的鉴别诊断价值

目的 探讨血清和腹水AFP、CEA、CA125、CA19-9对良、恶性腹水鉴别诊断的价值.方法 70例腹水患者根据病因分为良性组和恶性组,比较2组患者血清和腹水肿瘤标志物的水平.结果 恶性组血清和腹水中AFP、CEA、CA19-9水平均高于良性组(P均＜0.05).血清AFP、CEA、CA19-9联合检测的敏感性、特异性和准确性分别为61.90％、82.14％和70.00％,腹水AFP、CEA、CA19-9联合检测的敏感性、特异性和准确性分别为57.14％、88.46％和67.14％.结论 血清和腹水AFP、CEA、CA19-9的检测有助于良、恶性腹水的鉴别,血清或腹水AFP、CEA、CA19-9联合检测可提高恶性腹水诊断的敏感性和准确性.     

多项肿瘤标志物联合应用对肝癌的诊断价值

目的 探讨甲胎蛋白(AFP)、α-L-岩藻糖苷酶(AFU)、癌胚抗原(CEA)和糖链抗原19-9(CA19-9)四种肿瘤标志物对肝癌的诊断价值.方法 收集70例肝癌患者(肝癌组)、80例慢性肝病患者(慢性肝病组)和80例健康体检者(对照组)的临床资料,比较3组研究对象的血清AFP、AFU、CEA和CA19-9水平及其阳性率,比较原发性肝癌与转移性肝癌患者的血清AFP、AFU、CEA和CA19-9水平,分析多指标联合应用对乙肝表面抗原(HB-sAg)(+)肝癌与HBsAg(-)肝癌患者的诊断价值.结果 肝癌组患者的血清AFP、AFU、CEA、CA19-9水平及阳性率均高于对照组和慢性肝病组(P﹤0.05).原发性肝癌患者的血清AFP和AFU水平明显高于转移性肝癌患者(P﹤0.01),血清CEA水平明显低于转移性肝癌患者(P﹤0.01).不同的筛查组合对HBsAg(+)肝癌患者的诊断灵敏度均高于HBsAg(-)肝癌患者,其中AFP+AFU+CEA筛查对HBsAg(+)肝癌患者的灵敏度和约登指数最高,分别为91.11%和0.80.结论 应用AFP+AFU+CEA进行肝癌筛查的诊断效率较好,适合作为HBsAg(+)肝癌高危人群的筛查项目,且有助于区别原发性肝癌和转移性肝癌.     

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。     

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.     

Tumor Markers in Serum and Ascites in the Diagnosis of Benign and Malignant Ascites

Objective: To evaluate the values of 4 tumor markers in serum and ascites and their ascites/serum ratios inthe identification and diagnosis of benign and malignant ascites. Materials and Methods: A total of 76 patientswere selected as subjects and divided into malignant ascites group (45 cases) and benign ascites group (31cases). Samples of ascites and serum of all hospitalized patients were collected before treatment. The levels ofcarcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), alpha fetoprotein (AFP), cancer antigen 125 (CA125) and carbohydrate antigen19-9 (CA19-9) were detected by chemiluminescence (CLIA) . Results: CEA, AFP and CA19-9 in both serumand ascites as well as CA125 in ascites were evidently higher in the malignant ascites group than in the benignascites group (P<0.01). Malignant ascites was associated with elevated ascites/serum ratios for AFP and CA125(P<0.01). The areas under receiver operating characteristic (AUROCs) of CEA and CA125 in ascites and theratios of ascites/serum of AFP, CEA, CA125 and CA19-9 were all >0.7, suggesting certain values, while those ofascites CA19-9 and serum CEA were 0.697 and 0.629 respectively, indicating low accuracy in the identificationand diagnosis of benign and malignant ascites. However, the AUROCs of the remaining indexes were <0.5, with novalue for identification and diagnosis. Compared with single index, the sensitivity of combined detection increasedsignificantly (P<0.05), in which the combined detection of CEA, CA19-9 and CA125 in ascites as well as the ratioof ascites/serum of CEA, CA19-9, CA125 and AFP had the highest sensitivity (98.4%) but with relevantly lowspecificity. Both sensitivity and specificity of combined detection should be comprehensively considered so asto choose the most appropriate index. Conclusions: Compared with single index, combined detection of tumormarkers in serum and ascites can significantly improve the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.     

A clinical evaluation of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 and carcinoembryonic antigen in patients with pancreatic carcinoma

We have studied serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in 221 persons to assess their usefulness in the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma. Although serum CA 19-9 and CEA in all healthy controls were within normal limits, the positive ratings of serum CA 19-9 and CEA in all benign disease were 9.8% and 18.1%, respectively. Sensitivity of serum CA 19-9 for pancreatic carcinoma was 70.5%, which was higher than that found in healthy controls, benign disease, and other malignant disease except biliary carcinoma; but sensitivity of serum CEA levels (67.7%) was not different from that seen in malignant disease. Three of 34 patients (8.8%) with pancreatic carcinoma who had a above-normal levels of serum CA 19-9 but not serum CEA were resectable. Although there was no correlation between serum CA 19-9 and CEA, advanced stages of pancreatic, gastric, and colorectal carcinoma tend to show high serum CA 19-9 and CEA, but no statistical differences were observed in relation to the stages of these carcinomas. Comparative studies of serum CA 19-9 and CEA for sensitivity and the predictive value of true positive and negative results for detecting pancreatic, gastric, and colorectal carcinoma showed that serum CA 19-9 has significantly higher sensitivity and predictive value of true positive results for pancreatic carcinoma than for gastric and colorectal carcinoma (P less than 0.05). However, serum CEA measurements did not show any difference between these carcinomas, and the highest predictive value of a true negative result for excluding pancreatic carcinoma was also observed in serum CA 19-9. These results indicate that although the CA 19-9 assay is not specific for pancreatic carcinoma, it is more useful adjunct method for diagnosing pancreatic carcinoma, possibly in resectable stages.     

Measurement of a monoclonal-antibody-defined antigen (CA19-9) in the sera of patients with malignant and nonmalignant diseases. Comparison with carcinoembryonic antigen

Immunoradiometric assay (IRMA) using monoclonal antibody for colon cancer cell surface antigen (CA19-9) was compared with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) with regard to sensitivity and specificity in 730 patients. In the 341 patients who had no evidence of malignant disease, CA19-9 levels ranged between less than 1.5 to 49 U/ml. Specificity of CA19-9 at a cutoff of 20 U/ml was similar to that of CEA at a cutoff of 5.0 ng/ml; CA19-9 was more sensitive than CEA in pancreatic cancer, whereas CEA was more sensitive than CA19-9 in breast, colon, and gastric cancer. Of 17 patients with pancreatic cancer, 13 had elevated levels of CA19-9 (sensitivity, 76%), whereas only 8 had elevated levels of CEA (sensitivity, 47%) and 15 had elevated levels of either CEA or CA19-9 (sensitivity, 88%). These findings suggest that, like CEA, CA19-9 is detectable in nonmalignant diseases and is not specific for gastrointestinal tumors, and has higher sensitivity than CEA only in pancreatic cancer. However, further prospective studies are required to verify its value in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer.     

血清碱性磷酸酶、癌胚抗原、糖类抗原19-9联合检测对胃癌骨转移的诊断价值

目的探讨碱性磷酸酶(ALP)、癌胚抗原(CEA)、糖类抗原19-9(CA19-9)单独与联合检测对胃癌骨转移的诊断价值,为胃癌骨转移的早期诊断提供依据。方法收集522例胃癌患者的临床资料及血清标志物(ALP、CEA、CA19-9)检测结果,根据有无骨转移将入组患者分为骨转移组(n=91)和无骨转移组(n=431)。参照Soloway分级标准将骨转移分为3级,进一步分析ALP、CEA、CA19-9三者单独与联合检测在胃癌骨转移中的诊断价值及其与骨转移分级之间的关系。结果骨转移组患者ALP、CEA、CA19-9水平均明显高于无骨转移组,差异均有统计学意义(P﹤0.01)。ALP、CEA、CA19-9均是胃癌发生骨转移的影响因素(P﹤0.05)。3种血清标志物联合检测的曲线下面积(AUC)大于任何指标单独检测,但ALP单独检测与三者联合检测的AUC值差异不明显;3种血清标志物联合检测诊断效能优于单独检测。ALP与CA19-9水平随着骨转移分级升高呈上升趋势。经Spearman相关分析显示,ALP、CA19-9与骨转移分级均呈正相关(r=0.436、0.391,P﹤0.05),且ALP在评价胃癌骨转移严重程度方面优于CA19-9。结论ALP、CEA、CA19-9联合检测对胃癌骨转移的诊断价值优于单项检测,为胃癌骨转移的早期诊断以及监测提供参考。但考虑到患者的经济因素,对于临床上怀疑胃癌骨转移的患者,ALP是首选的检测指标,且该指标可作为评价胃癌骨转移严重程度的生物学标志物。     

胃癌患者血清CEA、AFP、CA724、CA125的检测联合病理学检查的临床诊断效果

目的 探讨胃癌患者血清癌胚抗原(CEA)、甲胎蛋白(AFP)、糖类抗原724(CA724)、糖类抗原125(CA125)的检测联合病理学检查的临床诊断效果.方法 收集胃癌患者69例为研究对象纳入胃癌组,选择同期良性病变组患者58例为良性病变组,另选同期行健康检查的健康受试者50例为对照组.对胃癌组、良性病变组患者和对照...     

The clinical value of serum CEA, CA19-9, and CA242 in the diagnosis and prognosis of pancreatic cancer.

AIM: Serum tumour markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) and CA242 were investigated to evaluate the values of single and combined test in the diagnosis and prognosis of pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Pre-operative serum CEA, CA19-9 and CA242 were measured in 105 pancreatic cancers, 70 non-pancreatic malignancies and 30 benign pancreatic diseases. RESULTS: The sensitivity of CA19-9 alone was the highest in pancreatic cancer patients (80%), but the specificity was significantly lower than that of CEA and CA242 (P<0.01). The combination of CEA and CA242 could increase the specificity to 92%. In serum CA242 positive patients, the survival time was remarkably shorter than that of patients with negative result (P<0.01). The survival time in patients with more than two markers positive expression of CEA, CA19-9 and CA242 was obviously shorter than that of only one or no marker positive expression (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic rate of CA19-9 in pancreatic cancer is better than that of CEA and CA242. Combined detection of CEA and CA242 can improve the diagnostic specificity obviously. High levels of serum markers are associated with advanced stage of the disease. Patients with two or three markers positive expression of CEA, CA19-9, and CA242 simultaneously had a shorter survival time.     

Applicative Value of Serum CA19-9, CEA,CA125 and CA242 in Diagnosis and Prognosis for Patients with Pancreatic Cancer Treated by Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy

Objective: To evaluate the application value of serum CA19-9, CEA, CA125 and CA242 in diagnosis andprognosis of pancreatic cancer cases treated with concurrent chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: 52patients with pancreatic cancer, 40 with benign pancreatic diseases and 40 healthy people were selected. Theelectrochemiluminescence immunoassay method was used for detecting levels of CA19-9, CEA and CA125, anda CanAg CA242 enzyme linked immunoassay kit for assessing the level of CA242. The Kaplan-Meier methodwas used for analyzing the prognostic factors of patients with pancreatic cancer. The Cox proportional hazardmodel was applied for analyzing the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidential interval (CI) for survival timeof patients with pancreatic cancer. Results: The levels of serum CA19-9, CEA, CA125 and CA242 in patientswith pancreatic cancer were significantly higher than those in patients with benign pancreatic diseases andhealthy people (P<0.001). The sensitivity of CA19-9 was the highest among these, followed by CA242, CA125and CEA. The specificity of CA242 is the highest, followed by CA125, CEA and CA19-9. The sensitivity andspecificity of joint detection of serum CA19-9, CEA, CA125and CA242 were 90.4% and 93.8%, obviouslyhigher than single detection of those markers in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. The median survival time of52 patients with pancreatic cancer was 10 months (95% CI7.389~12.611).. Patients with the increasing level ofserum CA19-9, CEA, CA125, CA242 had shorter survival times (P=0.047. 0.043, 0.0041, 0.029). COX regressionanalysis showed that CA19-9 was an independent prognostic factor for patients with pancreatic cancer (P=0.001,95%CI 2.591~38.243). Conclusions: The detection of serum tumor markers (CA19.9, CEA, CA125 and CA242)is conducive to the early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and joint detection of tumor markers helps improve thediagnostic efficiency. Moreover, CA19-9 is an independent prognostic factor for patients with pancreatic cancer.     

糖抗原CA19—9测定对消化系统恶性肿瘤的诊断意义

Serum carbohydrate antigen CA 19-9 level was measured by radioimmunoassay in 55 patients with malignant digestive disease (14 esophageal cancers, 11 gastric cancers, 5 colorectal cancers, 14 primary liver cancers and 11 pancreatic cancers). The mean value of serum CA 19-9 levels was 22.11 +/- 24.79 u/ml in esophageal cancer, 99.91 +/- 100.12 u/ml in gastric cancer, 64.5 +/- 53.43 u/ml in colorectal carcinoma, 47.81 +/- 68.62 u/ml in primary hepatic cancer and 459.55 +/- 696.76 u/ml in pancreatic cancer (CA 19-9 greater than 37 mu/ml as positive). There were significant differences (P less than 0.05) between the mean serum CA 19-9 levels of pancreatic cancer and esophageal cancer, primary hepatic cancer. An increased CA 19-9 synthesis and excretion by tumor cells or increased pressure on pancreatic duct by the tumor may cause the elevation of serum CA 19-9 level in cancer patients. The authors conclude that CA19-9 is a valuable tumor marker in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and, probably, other gastrointestinal tumors.