癌胚抗原、糖类抗原15-3和细胞角蛋白片段19检测对乳腺癌临床应用的价值

 目的　研究血清肿瘤标志物癌胚抗原（CEA）、糖类抗原15-3 （CA15-3）、细胞角蛋白片段19 （CYFRA21-1）联合检测对乳腺癌的诊断及复发监测中的意义。方法　采用电化学发光免疫法检测62例乳腺癌患者、57例乳腺良性病患者及50名健康对照组CEA、CA15-3和CYFRA21-1水平,并计算上述指标联合检测在乳腺癌诊断中的敏感度、特异度、准确度和约登指数（YI）。结果　乳腺癌组3种肿瘤标志物水平均明显高于乳腺良性疾病组和健康对照组（P＜0.01）。临床分期越大3种血清肿瘤标志物水平越高;复发病例中3种肿瘤标志物水平均有不同程度升高。单项检测各种肿瘤标志物以CA15-3的敏感性最高（56.5 %）,CYFRA21-1特异性最好（89.7 %）,但CA15-3和CYFRA21-1的准确度及YI值都不高,分别为71.1 %、0.35和70.5 %、0.37。联合检测较单项检测敏感性、准确性和YI明显提高,3项联合检测敏感度高达88.7 %,特异度90.8 % ,准确度89.9 %,YI为0.80。结论　单项检测对乳腺癌的诊断价值有限,3种血清肿瘤标志物联合检测可显著提高乳腺癌的敏感性和准确性,在术后随访和监测复发中可发挥重要作用。     

血清肿瘤标志物联合检测在肺癌诊断中的价值

 目的　探讨血清5种肿瘤标志物联合检测在肺癌诊断中的价值。方法　采用电化学发光免疫法检测168例肺癌患者、46例肺良性疾病患者及健康对照组癌胚抗原（CEA）、糖类抗原125 （CA125）、糖类抗原15-3 （CA15-3）、细胞角蛋白19 片段（CYFRA21-1）和神经元特异性烯醇化酶（NSE）水平,并计算上述指标联合检测在肺癌诊断中的敏感度、特异度、准确度和约登指数（YI）。结果　肺癌组5种肿瘤标志物水平均明显高于肺良性疾病组和健康对照组（P＜0.01）。这5种血清肿瘤标志物在肺癌的不同病理类型、临床分期之间均有不同程度的差异。单项检测各种肿瘤标志物诊断肺癌的敏感度、准确度和YI）以CYFRA21-1最高,分别为58.9 %、65.9 %和0.37 %。联合检测较单项检测敏感性、准确性和YI明显提高,5项联合检测敏感度95.8 %、特异度79.2 %、准确度87.9 %、YI为0.75。结论　单项检测对肺癌的诊断价值有限,5种血清肿瘤标志物联合检测可提高肺癌的敏感度和准确度。     

肿瘤分子标志联合检测对胸腔积液鉴别诊断价值分析

目的:探讨癌胚抗原(CEA)、糖类抗原125(CA125)、细胞角蛋白片段19(CYFRA21-1)和神经元特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)联合检测在良恶性胸腔积液鉴别诊断中的价值。方法:电化学发光法检测56例恶性胸腔积液患者和78例良性胸腔积液患者的CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1和NSE的浓度和阳性表达率,比较其差异。结果:恶性组与良性组CEA(t=5.102)、CA125(t=4.294)、CYFRA21-1(t=3.602)和NSE(t=2.142)浓度进行比较,差异均有统计学意义,P值均<0.05。恶性组与良性组CEA(χ2=69.07)、CA125(χ2=67.34)、CYFRA21-1(χ2=73.99)和NSE(χ2=78.59)阳性率进行比较,差异有统计学意义,P值均<0.01。单项检测各种肿瘤分子标志诊断良恶性胸腔积液的敏感度和特异性以CEA最高,分别为33.93%(19/56)和97.44%(76/78)。联合检测较单项检测敏感度明显增高。2项检测以CEA和CYFRA21-1敏感性和特异性最高,分别为44.64%(25/56)和96.15%(75/78)。3项检测以CEA、CYFRA21-1和NSE联合检测敏感性和特异性最高,分别为51.79%(29/56)和91.03%(71/78)。CEA+CA125+CYFRA21-1+NSE 4项联合检测效果最佳,其敏感性高达53.57%(30/56),特异度达85.90%(67/78)。结论:胸腔积液CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1和NSE联合检测在良恶性胸腔积液鉴别诊断中有重要意义。     

胸水CA125、CA199、CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1、CA72-4对原发性肺癌的诊断价值

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。     

新肿瘤标志物及联合检测诊断子宫内膜癌的研究进展

子宫内膜癌患者早期诊断率低,目前仍缺乏敏感而特异的血清学标记物。已有学者研究血清肿瘤标志物CA125、人附睾分泌蛋白4（HE4）、甲壳质酶蛋白40(YKL-40)、periostin(PN)及血清细胞角蛋白片段抗原21-1(CYFRA21-1)在子宫内膜癌诊断中分别作为单项肿瘤标志物的应用,并且与传统肿瘤标志物CA125进行比较。近年来,CA125分别与HE4、YKL-40、CYFRA21-1、PN的联合检测在提高子宫内膜癌诊断的阳性率方面已进一步成为研究热点。新型肿瘤标志物与CA125的比较性研究及CA125与四种新型肿瘤标志物的联合检测研究得出:HE4、YKL-40、CYFRA21-1诊断子宫内膜癌的敏感度、特异度、准确度均高于血清CA125,PN敏感度低于CA125,联合检测诊断子宫内膜癌的敏感度、特异度、准确度均高于单项检测,有助于子宫内膜癌诊断、治疗及预后评估。     

多指标检测对胸腔积液鉴别诊断的价值

目的　探讨单项及联合检测胸腔积液腺苷脱氨酶 (ADA )、糖链抗原 15 3 (CA 15 3 )和癌胚抗原 (CEA )对良、恶性胸腔积液鉴别诊断的价值。方法　对 79例胸腔积液采用全自动化学发光免疫分析技术进行ADA、CA 15 3和CEA含量测定。根据最终诊断结果分为 3组 :恶性胸腔积液组 3 5例 ;结核性胸腔积液组 3 6例 ;其它良性胸腔积液组 8例。结果　以胸腔积液ADA≥ 40IU /L为阳性判定标准 ,对结核性胸腔积液诊断的敏感度、特异度和Youden指数分别为 83 .3 %、81.4%和 0 .64 7;以胸腔积液ADA<40IU /L、CA 15 3 >3 5kU /L和CEA >10 μg/L为阳性判定标准 ,胸腔积液ADA、CA15 3和CEA诊断恶性胸腔积液的敏感度分别为 68.6%、60 .0 %和 65 .7% ;特异度分别为 90 .9%、88.6%和 84.1% ;Youden指数分别为 0 .5 95、0 .486和 0 .498;胸腔积液ADA、CA 15 3和CEA中 2项或 3项联合检测 (串联实验 ) ,可显著提高其诊断恶性胸腔积液的特异度和Youden指数。结论　胸腔积液ADA、CA 15 3和CEA单项或联合检测 ,在良、恶性胸腔积液鉴别诊断中均有较大的价值。     

喉癌患者血清中SCCAg、CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4和CYFRA21-1的检测及意义

目的 分析肿瘤标志物鳞状细胞癌相关抗原(SCCAg)、癌胚抗原(CEA)、糖类抗原19-9(CA19-9)、糖类抗原72-4(CA72-4)和细胞角化素蛋白19片段(CYFRA21-1)在喉癌患者血清中的表达及意义.方法 以接受手术治疗的喉癌患者112例为研究对象,设为观察组,另抽取50例健康体检者为对照组,比较两组患者血清中肿瘤标志物的水平.结果 观察组喉癌患者术前血清中的SCCAg、CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4、CYFRA21-1水平,均显著高于对照组和术后(P<0.05);高～中分化喉癌患者血清肿瘤标志物水平显著低于低分化者(P<0.05);TNM分期Ⅰ～Ⅱ期者血清肿瘤标志物水平显著低于Ⅲ～Ⅳ期者(P<0.05);血清肿瘤标志物SCCAg、CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4、CYFRA21-1中,CYFRA21-1敏感度最高,其次为SCCAg、CEA,CA19-9最低;CA19-9特异度最高,其次为CA72-4、CEA,CYFRA21-1最低;SCCAg+ CYFRA21-1两项联合检测与五项联合检测的敏感度均显著高于单项检测,特异度低于单项检测(P<0.05),五项联合检测的敏感度高于SCCAg+ CYFRA21-1两项联合检测,特异度低于两项联合检测,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 血清肿瘤标志物SCCAg、CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4、CYFRA21-1检测在喉癌患者的早期辅助诊断中具有一定的价值,其中CYFRA21-1和SCCAg的诊断价值最高.     

CEA、CA199和细胞形态学联合检测对281例良、恶性胸腔积液鉴别诊断的临床意义

[目的]探讨肿瘤标志物CEA、CA199、细胞形态学联合检测在鉴别良、恶性胸腔积液中的临床意义。[方法]收集281例胸腔积液患者,其中恶性组149例,良性组132例。采用化学发光免疫法测定患者血清及胸腔积液中CEA和CA199水平。胸腔积液经离心、推片和瑞氏染色后进行细胞形态学检查,以鉴别胸腔积液的良、恶性,并评价CEA、CA199、细胞形态学联合检测在鉴别良、恶性胸腔积液诊断中的敏感度及特异度。[结果]恶性组胸腔积液CEA、CA199水平及阳性率均高于良性组（P<0.05）;恶性组血清CEA、CA199的检测水平均高于良性组（P<0.05)。胸腔积液CEA+CA199肿瘤标志物联合检测的敏感度、特异度及ROC曲线下面积分别为73.82%、69.7%和0.720,而胸腔积液CEA+CA199联合细胞形态学检查的敏感度、特异度及ROC曲线下面积更优,分别为85.23%、69.7%和0.777。[结论]联合测定胸腔积液中CA199、CEA水平和细胞形态学分析能提高良、恶性胸腔积液的鉴别诊断价值。     

纤维支气管镜联合痰液细胞角蛋白19片段抗原胚胎抗原和糖类抗原125检查对肺癌的诊断价值

目的探讨纤维支气管镜(FB)联合痰液细胞角蛋白19片段抗原(CYFRA21-1)、胚胎抗原(CEA)和糖类抗原125(CA125)检查对肺癌的诊断价值。方法 2013年1月至2014年12月间对45例经病理组织学确诊为肺癌(肺癌组)及40例肺部良性病变(肺部病变组)患者行FB检查,并采用酶联免疫吸附法(ELISA)法测定两组患者痰液中肿瘤标志物(CYFRA21-1、CEA、CA125)的表达。比较两组患者的检测结果。结果肺癌组患者FB检查阳性率、CYFRA21-1、CEA、CA125阳性率均高于良性肺部病变组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。肺癌组患者中,Ⅲ~Ⅳ期患者FB检查阳性率、CYFRA21-1、CEA、CA125阳性率高于Ⅰ~Ⅱ期组(P<0.05)。FB联合痰液肿瘤标志物敏感度、特异度和准确率高于单一指标的敏感度、特异度和准确率(P<0.05)。结论纤维支气管镜联合痰液肿瘤标志物能有效提高肺癌患者临床诊断的准确性。     

胸水CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1检测对恶性胸腔积液的诊断价值

目的:探讨癌胚抗原(CEA)、神经特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)、细胞角质蛋白19片断(CYFRA21-1)联合检测对恶性胸腔积液的诊断价值.方法:采用放射免疫法测定176例病人胸腔积液中上述指标的含量.结果:62例恶性胸腔积液(肺癌)组的测定值显著高于70例非恶性胸腔积液组的测定值(P＜0.01).CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1在肺癌中的腺癌、小细胞癌、鳞癌的测定值最高,阳性率亦最高.两项联检NSCLC以CYFRA21-1、CEA阳性率较高,SCLC以NSE、CYFRA21-1阳性率较高.三项标志物联合检测诊断肺癌并恶性胸腔积液的敏感性显著高于单项检测和两项联检.结论:三者联检有助于恶性胸腔积液的诊断.在肺癌并恶性胸腔积液中,CEA对腺癌,NSE 对小细胞癌、CYFRA21-1对鳞癌有较高的敏感性.     

Diagnostic utility of CYFRA 21-1, carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 125, neuron specific enolase, and squamous cell antigen level determinations in the serum and pleural fluid of patients with pleural effusions.

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge the role of tumor marker determination in the differential diagnosis of pleural effusions has not been established definitively. The current article reports the results of a study of CYFRA 21-1, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen 125 (CA 125), squamous cell antigen (SCC), and neuron specific enolase (NSE) in the serum and pleural fluid of patients with pleural effusions of diverse etiologies. METHODS: One hundred forty-six patients with pleural effusions (43 malignant, 47 tuberculous, 32 miscellaneous benign, and 24 paramalignant) were studied prospectively. Levels of CYFRA 21-1, CA 125, CEA, NSE, and SCC were measured by radioimmunoassay in the pleural fluid in all patients and in the serum in 118 patients. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the serum and pleural fluid levels of tumor markers with the exception of CA 125, which was higher in the pleural fluid. With maximum specificity, the highest sensitivity in the diagnosis of pleural malignancy was obtained with a combination of CYFRA 21-1 (with a cutoff value of 150 U/L), CEA (with a cutoff value of 40 ng/mL), and CA 125 (with a cutoff value of 1000 ng/mL) in pleural fluid. NSE and SCC added no diagnostic value. The simultaneous use of tumor markers and cytology in pleural fluid increased the sensitivity from 55.8% to 81%. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that a combination of CYFRA 21-1, CEA, and CA 125 in the pleural fluid can be a useful addition to pleural cytology in the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion.     

Diagnostic value of CEA, CA 15-3, CA 19-9, CYFRA 21-1, NSE and TSA assay in pleural effusions

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.     

Diagnostic value of CYFRA 21-1, CEA, CA 19-9, CA 15-3, and CA 125 assays in pleural effusions: analysis of 116 cases and review of the literature

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.     

Diagnostic value of tumor markers for differentiating malignant and benign pleural effusions of Iranian patients

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%).     

Clinical evaluation of the simultaneous determination of tumor markers in fluid and serum and their ratio in the differential diagnosis of serous effusions.

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.     

Evaluation of seven tumour markers in pleural fluid for the diagnosis of malignant effusions

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.     

Evaluation of pleural CYFRA 21-1 and carcinoembryonic antigen in the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions.

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.     

肿瘤标志物联合检测在胸腹水性质鉴别中的临床应用

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.