CA15-3、CEA在乳腺癌中应用价值探讨

目的　探讨CA15 3、CEA在乳腺癌中应用价值。方法　应用电化学发光技术对 6 2例乳腺癌患者、2 2例乳腺良性疾病及2 0例正常对照血清CA15 3、CEA水平进行了检测。结果　CA15 3、CEA水平在乳腺癌Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ期与乳腺良性疾病组及正常对照组无显著性差异 (P >0 .0 5 ) ,但有逐渐升高趋势 ,在Ⅳ期乳腺癌中表达明显增高 (P <0 .0 5 ;P <0 .0 1) ,在远处转移患者表达明显高于单纯淋巴结转移患者 ,有淋巴结转移患者表达明显高于无淋巴结转移患者 (均P <0 .0 1) ,在不同组织来源乳腺癌患者中表达无明显差异 (P >0 .0 5 )。结论　CA15 3、CEA并非乳腺癌早期诊断的理想标志物 ,但其表达与肿瘤临床分期、淋巴结转移及远处转移密切相关 ,在预测乳腺癌转移、复发及监测疗效、判断预后等方面具有重要临床应用价值 ,其在乳腺癌中表达无组织细胞特异性。     

CA15—3、CA125、CEA联合检测在乳腺癌诊断中的临床意义

目的 探讨CA15-3、CA125、CEA三项肿瘤标志物联合检测对乳腺癌早期诊断和鉴别诊断的意义.方法 采用电化学发光免疫分析技术(ECLIA)检测68例乳腺癌患者血清中CA15-3、CA125、CEA等肿瘤标志物的含量,并分析各项指标的阳性检出率和敏感性、特异性.结果 乳腺癌患者血清CA15-3、CA125、CEA的含量分别为78.75±51.28U/ml、55.49±23.65U/ml、30.17±12.15μG/L.阳性率分别为77.94%、38.23%、41.17%,敏感性和特异性分别为77.94%、95.63%、38.23%和89.57%、41.17%、70.51%.三项指标联合检测的敏感性和特异性为90.76%和84.12%.结论 CA15-3、CA125、CEA等肿瘤标志物联合检测能提高乳腺癌早期诊断的敏感性,同时又有较好的特异性,具有一定的临床应用价值.     

乳腺癌P53、CA153的表达及意义

目的　研究乳腺癌P5 3、CA15 3表达与肿瘤分化、浸润转移的关系及其临床意义。方法　分别应用免疫组化法(IHC)及血清放射免疫分析法(IRMA) ,检测P5 3、CA15 3在6 3例乳腺癌及2 5例乳腺良性病变中的表达情况。结果　在6 3例乳腺癌中P5 3和CA15 3阳性率分别为33 3%和4 9 .2 % ,CA15 3血清含量为38. 3±2. 9 3U/ml,均明显高于良性对照组(P <0 . 0 1) ;乳腺癌P5 3阳性率与组织学分级、肿瘤大小、临床分期呈正相关(P <0 .0 5 ) ;乳腺癌CA15 3血清含量及阳性率与组织学分级、肿瘤大小、腋窝淋巴结转移呈正相关(P <0 .0 5 ) ,CA15 3含量还与临床分期呈正相关(P <0 . 0 5 ) ;乳腺癌P5 3阳性表达与CA15 3血清含量呈正相关(P <0 0 5 )。结论　乳腺癌P5 3、CA15 3的表达与肿瘤发生发展、生长分化或转移密切相关;检测这些指标,有助于临床对乳腺癌恶性程度及预后的判断或早期诊断、病情监测。     

血清肿瘤标志物动态检测在乳腺癌早期诊断和复发转移中的价值

目的探讨血清肿瘤标志物动态检测在乳腺癌早期诊断和监控复发转移中的价值。方法采用化学发光法检测187例乳腺癌组患者血清CA15-3、CA125和CEA的水平,并与20例良性病变组患者对照,分析与乳腺癌临床分期和复发转移的关系。结果乳腺癌患者CA15-3、CA125和CEA水平Ⅲ、Ⅳ期明显高于良性对照组和Ⅰ、Ⅱ期组（P〈0．01）;淋巴结转移组、复发组与无转移组、无复发组差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论CA15-3、CA125和CEA与复发转移相关,血清学动态检测是乳腺癌早期诊断和监控复发转移的较好指标。     

乳腺癌预后判断中VEGF、CA15-3、CA125和CEA的表达及其意义

目的 探讨血清中血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)、CA15-3、CA125和癌胚抗原(CEA)检测在乳腺癌预后判断中的表达及其临床意义.方法 用免疫组化(S-P)法动态监测93例乳腺癌患者的VEGF水平,用放射免疫法检测CA15-3、CA125和CEA的水平,并与25例健康体检者的各项指标进行比较,分析其与临床分期、治疗效果和复发转移的关系.结果 乳腺癌组的VEGF阳性率显著高于正常对照组,且乳腺癌Ⅰ～Ⅳ期健康状况依次升高,有淋巴结转移者较无转移患者高,差异有统计学意义(P《0.01);乳腺癌患者中Ⅲ、Ⅳ期的CA15-3、CA125和CEA水平也明显高于正常对照组和Ⅰ、Ⅱ期患者,有淋巴结转移者显著高于无淋巴结转移患者,差异均有统计学意义(P《0.05);随访中发现复发者各项指标均比无复发者高;VEGF、CA15-3、CA125和CEA的表达与临床分期、腋窝淋巴结状况有关(P《0.01),但与患者年龄、肿瘤大小和肿瘤病理学类型无关(P》0.05).结论 VEGF、CA15-3、CA125和CEA的检测对于判断乳腺癌的分期、转移情况及治疗效果的评价有一定意义,可以指导临床对乳腺癌的诊疗工作.     

CA15—3、CA125、CEA联合检测在乳腺癌诊断中的临床意义

目的探讨CA15-3、CA125、CEA三项肿瘤标志物联合检测对乳腺癌早期诊断和鉴别诊断的意义。方法采用电化学发光免疫分析技术（ECLIA）检测68例乳腺癌患者血清中CA15-3、CA125、CEA等肿瘤标志物的含量,并分析各项指标的阳性检出率和敏感性、特异性。结果乳腺癌患者血清CA15-3、CA125、CEA的含量分别为78．75±51．28U／ml、55．49±23．65U／ml、30．17±12．15μG／L．阳性率分别为77．94％、38．23％、41．17％,敏感性和特异性分别为77．94％、95．63％、38．23％和89．57％、41．17％、70．51％。三项指标联合检测的敏感性和特异性为90．76％和84．12％。结论CA15-3、CA125、CEA等肿瘤标志物联合检测能提高乳腺癌早期诊断的敏感性．同时又有较好的特异性．具有一定的临床应用价值。     

不同分子分型乳腺癌血清肿瘤标志物的表达差异与肿瘤复发转移的影响因素

目的探讨不同分子分型乳腺癌患者血清肿瘤标志物CEA、CA125和CA15-3的表达差异,以及其与复发转移的相关性。方法回顾性分析212例乳腺癌患者的病历及随访资料,并根据激素受体表达情况分为Luminal A型、Luminal B型、Her-2过表达型和Basal-like型4个分子亚型。比较不同分子分型乳腺癌患者术前血清肿瘤标志物CEA、CA125和CA15-3的表达水平及其临床特征,并分析影响乳腺癌患者复发转移的因素。结果不同分子分型的乳腺癌患者各肿瘤标志物的表达水平存在差异,其中,Her-2过表达型患者CA15-3的表达水平较其他3组明显升高(χ~2=7.98,P=0.04)。此外,不同分子分型乳腺癌患者肿瘤细胞的分化程度不同,Her-2过表达型患者低分化的比例明显高于其他3组(χ~2=12.42,P=0.006)。4个亚组间的复发转移率也存在明显差异,Her-2过表达型患者的复发转移率最高(F=8.69,P=0.034)。多因素Cox回归分析显示,肿瘤直径、组织分化程度和有无脉管瘤栓是乳腺癌患者复发转移的独立危险因素(P均0.05)。结论 Her-2过表达型乳腺癌患者CA15-3水平高,预后差,提示临床应该结合分子分型、肿瘤标志物以及相关危险因素进行个体化治疗。     

血清CA15-3、CA125、CEA检测在乳腺癌诊断中的临床意义

目的探讨血清中CA15-3、CA125、CEA浓度在乳腺癌诊断中的临床意义。方法以乳腺癌患者76例、乳腺良性疾病患者58例、健康对照60例样本为试验材料,采用电化学发光免疫分析法检测血清中CA15-3、CA125、CEA浓度。结果乳腺癌组中血清CA15-3、CA125、CEA浓度均显著高于乳腺良性疾病患者和健康对照组（P〈0.05）,而在乳腺良性疾病患者和健康对照组间无显著差异。单项指标检测时CA125Youden指数最高（0.678）,相应的敏感度和特异性为73.7%和94.1%。将CA15-3/CA125/CEA三个指标联合检测时,对乳腺癌诊断的敏感性、特异性和Youden指数分别达到81.6%、90.7%和0.723。结论血清中CA15-3、CA125、CEA浓度可以作为乳腺癌临床诊断的分子标志物,且联合检测比使用单一指标能显著提高检测效能。     

血清CEA、CA15-3、CA125检测对乳腺癌化疗效果的评估价值

目的 研究血清肿瘤标志物癌胚抗原(CEA)、癌症抗原15-3(CA15-3)、糖类抗原(CA125)检测对乳腺癌患者化疗效果的评估价值。方法 选取2016年1月至2020年12月漯河市第六人民医院收治的42例乳腺癌患者作为恶性组,全部患者均进行EOX化疗。同时以1:1配比选取我院同期乳腺良性病变患者42例作为良性组。收集所有患者血液标本,检测肿瘤标志物CEA、CA15-3、CA125水平,并分析不同化疗效果患者血清肿瘤标志物水平变化。结果 恶性组治疗前CEA、CA15-3、CA125水平高于良性组(P<0.05)。治疗后,完全缓解组和部分缓解组CEA、CA125、CA15-3水平明显降低(P<0.05)。进展组CEA、CA15-3、CA125水平明显上升(P<0.05)。稳定组CEA、CA15-3、CA125水平与治疗前比较,差异未见统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 乳腺癌患者血清CEA、CA15-3、CA125水平显著高于乳腺良性病变者,且不同化疗效果患者血清肿瘤标志物水平存在显著差异,血清CEA、CA15-3、CA125联合检测可辅助临床评估化疗效果,指导临...     

乳腺癌患者CEA、CA15-3检测价值探讨

乳腺癌是严重威胁女性身体健康的常见恶性肿瘤之一,近年来其发病率有上升趋势.乳腺癌肿瘤标志物在乳腺癌的诊断、疗效评价、复发转移监测及预后估计等方面有重要意义,本文检测了乳腺癌患者血清癌胚抗原(CEA)及糖类抗原15-3(CA15-3)的含量,分析了在不同临床分期及各种病理类型中的表达,并比较有无淋巴结转移及远处转移患者其水平变化,以探讨其在乳腺癌中临床应用价值.     

Cancer-associated antigen CA 15-3 in the diagnostics of breast tumours

The serum concentration of the new marker CA 15-3 was determined by a kit method, which is based on the use of two different monoclonal antibodies 115D8 and DF3, in a coated tube immunoradiometric technique. The mean CA 15-3 values in breast cancer patients (n = 40) were significantly higher than in patients with benign breast disease (n = 52, p less than 0.001) and in control subjects (n = 32, p less than 0.001). When we used the cut-off level 35 kU/l for CA 15-3, 0/32 of control subjects, 1/52 (2%) of patients with benign breast disease, 8/40 (20%) of all breast cancer patients, 6/19 (32%) of breast cancer patients with axillary nodal involvement and 1/1 of breast cancer patients with distant metastases were above this level. Among the same patients the CEA serum test was positive at a cut-off level of 5 micrograms/l in 7/40 (18%) cancer cases, and in 6/19 (32%) of cancer patients with nodal involvement. When we used the cut-off level 35 kU/l for CA 15-3 and 5 micrograms/l for CEA 1/52 (2%) of patients with benign breast disease, 10/40 (25%) of all breast cancer patients, 7/19 (37%) patients with axillary nodal involvement and 1/1 of breast cancer patients with distant metastases were positive in one or both of the tests. The serum CA 15-3 and CEA values were higher in patients with tumour size above 2 cm in diameter than in patients with smaller tumours (p less than 0.05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Prognostic value of preoperative CEA,CA 19-9, CA 72-4, and AFP levels in gastric cancer

INTRODUCTION: Recent research has suggested that serum tumor markers can give valuable prognostic information in gastric cancer. In this study, we examined the relationship between preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9, CA 72-4, and alfa fetoprotein (AFP) levels on clinicopathologic significance in gastric cancer patients. METHODS: Preoperative plasma levels of CEA, CA 19-9, CA 72-4, and AFP were retrospectively examined in 95 patients who underwent surgical resection for gastric cancer, and the prognostic value of the tumour markers were estimated. RESULTS: The percentage of CA 19-9, CA 72-4, CEA, and AFP-positive cases were 41%, 32.6%, 24.2%, and 8.4%, respectively. CEA was more frequently positive in the patients with liver metastases (P=0.02). CA 19-9 was more frequently positive in patients with lymph node (P=0.005), peritoneal (P=0.01), and serosal (P=0.03) involvement. CA 72-4 was more frequently positive in patients with lymph node (P=0.01), peritoneal (P=0.03), and liver (P=0.01) involvement. Low 3-year cumulative survival was associated significantly with elevated serum levels of CEA (P=0.001), CA 19-9 (P=0.001), CA 72-4 (P=0.001), and AFP (P=0.01). In multivariate analysis, age, tumor stage, and CA 72-4 were the only independent prognostic factors. Being positive for CA 72-4 was associated with a 3.8-fold higher risk of death (95% confidence intervals: 1.3, 10.9). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that high preoperative serum levels of CA 72-4 in gastric cancer patients are associated with a higher risk of death due to gastric cancer.     

Serum tumor markers in breast cancer: are they of clinical value?

BACKGROUND: Although multiple serum-based tumor markers have been described for breast cancer, such as CA 15-3, BR 27.29 (CA27.29), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), tissue polypeptide antigen, tissue polypeptide specific antigen, and HER-2 (the extracellular domain), the most widely used are CA 15-3 and CEA. METHODS: The literature relevant to serum tumor markers in breast cancer was reviewed. Particular attention was given to systematic reviews, prospective randomized trials, and guidelines issued by expert panels. RESULTS: Because of a lack of sensitivity for early disease and lack of specificity, none of the available markers is of value for the detection of early breast cancer. High preoperative concentrations of CA 15-3 are, however, associated with adverse patient outcome. Although serial determinations of tumor markers after primary treatment for breast cancer can preclinically detect recurrent/metastatic disease with lead times of approximately 2-9 months, the clinical value of this lead time remains to be determined. Serum markers, however, are the only validated approach for monitoring treatment in patients with advanced disease that cannot be evaluated by use of conventional criteria. CONCLUSIONS: CA 15-3 is one of the first circulating prognostic factors for breast cancer. Preoperative concentrations thus might be combined with existing prognostic factors for predicting outcome in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. At present, the most important clinical application of CA 15-3 is in monitoring therapy in patients with advanced breast cancer that is not assessable by existing clinical or radiologic procedures.     

探讨肿瘤标记物CY211、NSE、CEA及CA125在肺癌诊断中的意义

目的探讨血清细胞角蛋白19片段(CY211)、神经元特异烯醇化酶(NSE)、癌胚抗原(CEA)及糖类抗原125(CA125)水平,对肺癌诊断、判断病理类型中的意义。方法电化学发光法检测295例肺癌患者和147例肺良性疾病及156例健康对照者血清CY211、NSE、CEA及CA125水平,并用ROC曲线评价肿瘤标记物的检测效能并进行比较分析。结果肺癌患者血清CY211、NSE、CEA及CA125水平明显高于肺良性疾病组及健康对照组,差异显著(P均0.05),其中CY211的敏感度优于其余3项指标,差异显著(P0.01);NSE在SCLC中敏感度最高,而腺癌组血清CEA水平高于鳞癌及小细胞癌组,差异显著(P0.01)。结论血清CY211、NSE、CEA及CA125均可作为肺癌筛查的指标,取特异性90%时,CY211(3.1 ng/mL)的敏感度最高(51.9%);NSE及CEA升高分别有助于小细胞癌及腺癌诊断;CA125对肿瘤病理类型的判断意义不大。     

血清肿瘤标志物联合检测在肺癌诊断中的临床价值

目的探讨肿瘤标志物癌胚抗原(CEA)、糖类抗原125(CA125)、神经特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)、细胞角蛋白19片段(CYFRA21-1)检测对肺癌诊断的临床价值。方法收集肺癌患者92例和肺良性疾病患者60例,用电化学发光法检测其血清中CEA、CA125、NSE和CYFRA21-1的阳性率。结果肺癌患者血清肿瘤     

乳腺癌手术前后血清CA15-3和CEA水平与病理参数的相关性研究

目的探讨乳腺癌患者手术前后血清中CA15-3和CEA水平与病理参数的相关性。方法随机选择2012年6月至2014年7月南通市第四人民医院外科和南通市肿瘤医院肿瘤科共计267例乳腺癌患者为研究对象,采用电化学发光免疫分析法检测所有患者术前一周、术后1月血清中CA15-3和CEA水平,并分析CA15-3和CEA水平与乳腺癌患者临床病理参数的相关性。结果 267例乳腺癌患者术前一周血清中CA15-3和CEA水平分别为35.6±11.41U/ml和8.9±3.4ng/ml,术后1月分别为20.1±9.23U/ml和4.1±1.7ng/ml,P0.05,差异具有统计学意义;Ⅲ和Ⅳ期癌症患者的CA15-3和CEA阳性表达率均明显高于Ⅰ和Ⅱ期,肿瘤有多处转移的CA15-3和CEA阳性表达率明显高于1处转移的,术后复发患者的CA15-3和CEA阳性表达率高于没有复发患者,P0.05,差异均具有统计学意义;采用不同手术类型患者术后CA15-3和CEA阳性表达率无显著性差异,P0.05。结论乳腺癌患者血清中CA15-3和CEA水平与癌症TNM分期、转移、术后复发具有相关性,便于及时诊断术后癌症转移复发。     

Evaluating the utility of N1,N12-diacetylspermine and N1,N8-diacetylspermidine in urine as tumor markers for breast and colorectal cancers

BackgroundAmong natural polyamines, the concentrations of the diacetylated form of spermine and spermidine increase in the urine of patients with cancer. We evaluated the utility of urinary N¹,N¹²-diacetylspermine (DiAcSpm) and N¹,N⁸-diacetylspermidine (DiAcSpd) as tumor markers for breast and colorectal cancers.MethodsUrinary DiAcSpm and DiAcSpd concentrations were measured by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Urine and serum samples were collected from 33 and 28 patients with colorectal and breast cancers, respectively. The sensitivity of urine samples to DiAcSpm and DiAcSpd concentrations was compared with serum concentrations of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen CA 15-3 in breast cancer patients and with serum concentrations of CEA and CA 19-9 in colorectal cancer patients, respectively.ResultsIn breast cancer patients, the sensitivity of DiAcSpm and DiAcSpd was 46.4% and 14.2%, respectively, which was higher than that of CEA and CA 15-3. In patients with colorectal cancer, the sensitivity of DiAcSpm and DiAcSpd was 69.6% and 36.3%, respectively. CEA was the second sensitive marker and CA 19-9 was the least sensitive marker in these patients.ConclusionDiAcSpm is a highly sensitive tumor marker. DiAcSpm can serve as a powerful tool in settings such as initial screening for cancers in routine health examination.     

血清CEA、CA199、CA125、CA153联检对肺癌的诊断价值

目的：评价血清CEA、CA199、CA125、CA153水平对肺癌诊断的临床价值。方法：测定60例肺癌患者血清CEA、CA199、CA125、CA153水平,并观察其在不同TNM分期的变化及其不同病理水平变化。结果：肺癌组CEA、CA199、CA125、CA153水平明显高于正常对照组和良性肺病组。4项肿瘤标志扬水平以腺癌最高,鳞癌次之;联合检测可提高肺癌诊断率,TNM临床分期越晚,CEA、CA199、CA125、CA153水平越高。结论：讠4项肿瘤标志物在肺癌的诊断,病情监测方面可为临床提供有价值的资料。     

血清肿瘤标志物对胃癌诊断及预后判断的临床意义

目的探讨血清肿瘤标志物癌胚抗原(carcinoembryonic antigen,CEA)、糖链抗原125(carbohydrate antigen125,CA125)、糖链抗原199(carbohydrate antigen 199,CA199)对胃癌诊断及预后判断的临床意义。方法采用电化学发光法测定78例胃癌患者、52例良性胃病者、47例健康人血清中CEA、CA125、CA199的水平,比较三组间及胃癌不同分期患者间的差异。结果胃癌组血清CEA、CA125、CA199均水平高于良性胃病组及健康对照组(P0.05),标志物联合试验较单项检测灵敏度升高,Ⅲ+Ⅳ期胃癌患者肿瘤标志物水平及阳性率均明显高于Ⅰ+Ⅱ期患者(P0.05)。结论CEA、CA125及CA199在胃癌具有较高的辅助诊断价值,三项标志物联合检测有助于提高胃癌诊断的灵敏度及预后判断。     

56例女性系统性红斑狼疮患者血清肿瘤标志物检测分析

目的探讨女性系统性红斑狼疮（SLE）患者血清肿瘤标志物甲胎蛋白（AFP）、癌胚抗原（cEA）、肿瘤抗原CA125和CA19—9含量变化及临床意义。方法用微粒子酶免疫分析方法测定56例女性SLE患者血清中AFP、CEA、CA125和CA19—9水平,并与健康对照组进行比较。结果女性SLE患者血清AFP、CA125和CA19—9含量显著高于健康对照组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）;CEA水平与健康对照组比较差异无统计学意义;SLE患者CA125阳性率显著升高。结论SLE患者某些血清肿瘤标志物含量较健康对照组增高,可能与器官受累有关。