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.     

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

 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。     

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。     

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.     

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.     

不同标本肿瘤标志物联合检测对肺癌的诊断价值

目的：检测血液、痰液、支气管肺泡灌洗液（BALF）、胸腔积液四种标本中癌胚抗原（CEA）、癌抗原125（CA125）、癌抗原199（CA199）和细胞角蛋白21—1片段（CYFRA21—1）的浓度,探讨不同标本肿瘤标志物（TM）联合检测在肺癌诊断中的意义。方法：采用化学发光免疫分析法检测52例肺癌和46例肺部良性病变患者血液、痰液、BALF、胸腔积液中CEA、CA125、CA199和CYFRA21—1的浓度。结果：52例肺癌患者血液、痰液、BALF、胸腔积液中四种TM联合检测的阳性率分别为69．2％、90．4％、88．5％和82．1％;而46例肺部良性病变患者的阳性率分别为19．6％、26．1％、23．9％、21．7％。经统计学检验两组问四种标本TM联合检测阳性率差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。肺癌组不同标本之间TM联合检测的阳性率差异有统计学意义（P=0．02）;痰液和BALF标本TM联合检测较血液临床意义更大（P=0．01;P=0．02）。联合两个或三个标本检测与单个血液标本检测相比,其差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论：不同标本肿瘤标志物CEA、CA125、CA199和CYFRA21—1联合检测对肺癌的诊断具有一定的意义。联合不同标本检测四种TM能提高肺癌诊断的敏感性。     

胸水和血清CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1、NSE和Pro-GRP联合检测对肺癌的诊断价值

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。     

Preliminary Evaluation of Clinical Utility of CYFRA 21-1, CA 72-4, NSE,CA19-9 and CEA in Stomach Cancer

Background: Although various tumor markers have been utilized in management of stomach cancer (SC), only a few reports have described relevance of examples such as CYFRA 21-1 and neuron-specific enolase (NSE). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential diagnostic performance of  carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CA 19-9, CA72-4, CYFRA 21-1 and NSE in patients with SC. Materials and Methods: Ninety-six SC patients with pathologic confirmation between 2012 and 2013 were enrolled. Serum levels of five tumor markers were analyzed using a solid-phase immunoradiometric assay. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted for the five tumor markers to investigate their diagnostic powers and adjusted cutoff values derived from analysis of ROC curves were evaluated to calculate the sensitivity of each for SC with recommended cutoff values. Results: Based on two different cutoff values (recommended and adjusted), CYFRA 21-1 (≥2.0 and 1.2 ng/ml) had a respective sensitivity of 50% and 78.1%, compared with 8.3% and 18.8% for CEA (≥7.0 and 3.9ng/ml), 15.6% and 18.8% for CA 19-9 (≥37 and 26.7 ng/ml), 28.1% and 9.6% for CA 72-4 (≥4.0 and 13 ng/ml) and 7.3% and 7.3% for NSE (≥14.7 and 15.0 ng/ml) in the initial staging of primary SC. The area under the curve (AUC) for CYFRA 21-1, with a value of 0.978 (95% confidence interval, 0.964-0.991) was comparativelythe highest. Univariate analysis revealed significant relationships between tumor marker level and lymph node involvement, metastasis and staging with CYFRA 21-1, CA 72-4 and NSE. Conclusions: CYFRA 21-1 was the most sensitive tumor marker and showed the most powerful diagnostic performance among the five SC tumor markers. NSE and CA 72-4 are significantly related to lymph node involvement, metastasis or stage. Further evaluations are warranted to clarify the clinical usefulness and prognostic prediction of these markers in SC.     

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.     

CA 19-9, CA 125 and CEA in the endometrial mucosa during the menstrual cycle, in atypical hyperplasia and endometrial carcinoma

CA 19-9, CA 125 and CEA were demonstrated by immunohistochemistry in 58 tissue samples of normal mucosa, 21 samples of atypical hyperplasia and 74 samples of endometrial carcinoma. CA 19-9 was mainly detected in the mid phase of secretion (8/11). CA 125 in the mid (6/11) and in the late phase (8/9). As opposed to CEA, both tumor markers are secretion products of the normal endometrium and are not expressed in the endometrial glands during the proliferation phase. CA 125 expression does not correlate with the degrees of differentiation or malignancy. The percentage of CA 19-9 positive cases rises with increasing differentiation. In atypical hyperplasia, however, this percentage is as small as in undifferentiated carcinoma. 93% of the endometrial carcinomas were CA 19-9, 65% CA 125 and 58% CEA positive.     

六种肿瘤标志物在肺癌胸腔积液中的诊断价值

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。     

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.     

A study of localizations and serum data; four tumor markers (CA125, CA19-9, CEA and TPA) in ovarian cancers

Four tumor markers (CA125, CA19-9, CEA, TPA) were analysed between the localizations and the serum data in the 36 ovarian cancers. The positive rates of each tumor markers were; 23 cases (63.9%) on CA125, 15 cases (41.7%) on CA19-9, 12 cases (33.3%) on CEA, and 27 cases (75.0%) on TPA. CA125 and CA19-9 were observed in the luminar borders and cellular membranes on serous adenocarcinomas and in the cytoplasms on mucinous adenocarcinomas. Both CEA and TPA were stained in cytoplasms. The correlation in the localization was observed between CA19-9s and CEAs (Kendall's rank correlation = 0.5303 greater than 0.5). The correlations between the localization and the serum data were observed on CA19-9 and CA125.     

Clinical Evaluation of Tumor Markers for Diagnosis in Patients with Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in China

Background: To evaluate the value of combined detection of serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA),cytokeratin 19 fragment (CYFRA21-1), and carbohydrateantigen 125 (CA125) for the clinical diagnosis of nonsmallcell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Serum CEA, CYFRA21-1 and CA125 were assessed in140 patients with NSCLC, 90 patients with benign lung disease and 90 normal control subjects, and differencesof expression were compared in each group, and joint effects of these tumor markers in the diagnosis of NSCLCwere analyzed. Results: Serum CEA, CYFRA21-1 and CA125 in patients with NSCLC were significantly higherthan those with benign lung disease and normal controls (P<0.05). The sensitivity of CEA, CYFRA21-1 andCA125 were 49.45%, 59.67%, and 44.87% respectively. As expected, combinations of these tumor markersimproved their sensitivity for NSCLC. The combined detection of CEA + CYFRA21-1 was the most cost-effectivecombination which had higher sensitivity and specificity in NSCLC. Elevation of serum CEA and CYFRA21-1was significantly associated with pathological types (P<0.05) and elevation of serum CEA, CYFRA21-1 andCA125 was significantly associated with TNM staging (P<0.05). Conclusions: Single measurement of CEA,CYFRA21-1 and CA125 is of diagnostic value in the diagnosis of lung cancer, and a joint detection of these threetumor markers, could greatly improve the sensitivity of diagnosis on NSCLC. Combined detection of CEA +CYFRA21-1 proved to be the most economic and practical strategy in diagnosis of NSCLC, which can be usedto screen the high-risk group.     

检测肿瘤标志物ProGRP、NSE、CYFRA21-1、CEA对胸腔积液鉴别诊断价值的研究

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。     

Diagnostic value of CA 549 in pleural fluid. Comparison with CEA,CA 15.3 and CA 72.4

Several tumor markers have been evaluated in pleural fluid, but their clinical role has not been firmly established. The aim of this study is to determine the diagnostic value of carbohydrate antigen 549 (CA 549) levels in pleural fluid, and to compare it with another previously studied tumor markers: carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CA 15.3 and CA 72.4. We prospectively studied 252 patients with pleural effusion: 101 malignant (20 mesothelioma) and 151 of several benign diseases. The levels of the tumor markers were measured by immunoradiometric assays (RIA). CA 549 in pleural fluid has an acceptable sensitivity (0.49), with high specificity (0.99). The best combination of tumor markers for differentiating malignant from benign effusions was CA 549+CEA+CA 15.3, with a sensitivity of 0.65, specificity of 0.99 and accuracy of 0.85. The addition of any one tumor marker assay consistently improved the diagnostic value of cytology. In our study, none of the tumor markers was organ-specific. When mesothelioma and hematological malignancy were ruled-out, the combination of CA 549+CEA+CA 15.3, improved the results up to a sensitivity of 0.77, specificity of 1 and accuracy of 0.92. In conclusion, CA 549 assay has an acceptable sensitivity with high specificity. The best combination of tumor markers in this series with a high relative frequency of mesothelioma and low frequency of breast carcinoma was CA 549+CEA+CA 15.3. Individual tumor markers or their combination increased the sensitivity of pleural cytology.     

Tumor markers in dialysis-dependent renal failure. A comparison of the mucin-like carcinoma antigen, CA 15-3, CA 125, CA 19-9 and CEA antigens

The concentration of tumor markers in human sera is affected not only by malignant, but also by many benign diseases. In this regard, only few reports exist about renal insufficiency, whereas influences of different liver diseases have frequently been described. We determined the serum levels of the antigens MCA, CA 15-3, CA 125, CA 19-9, and CEA in 50 patients suffering from renal insufficiency in chronic hemodialysis, but without indication of malignant diseases. We found no difference between the serum concentrations of MCA and CA 125 as compared to the healthy control group, whereas the other antigens were more often elevated in the group of patients (CEA, 24% of patients greater than 5 ng/ml; CA 15-3, 20% of patients greater than 30 U/ml; CA 19-9, 14% of patients greater than 40 U/ml). We did not find any correlation between pathological values of markers and diseases leading to renal failure. As the increase of tumor markers could not be explained by concomitant diseases, it seems likely that the terminal renal insufficiency plays a causal role.     

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.     

CA125联合 CA19－9、CEA、CA72－4检测在上皮性卵巢癌诊断中的意义

目的：阐明联合检测糖类抗原（CA125、CA19－9、CA72－4）与癌胚抗原（CEA）在上皮性卵巢癌中的诊断意义。方法：对81例上皮性卵巢癌患者,81例良性卵巢肿瘤患者以及作为对照的80例健康体检者血清中的 CA125、CA19－9、CA72－4与 CEA 进行检测。采用 ROC 曲线及 AUC、Logistic 回归分析评估上述血清标记物对上皮性卵巢癌的诊断意义。结果：卵巢癌患者血清肿瘤标记物 CA125、CA19－9、CA72－4的水平与阳性率明显高于良性卵巢肿瘤以及对照组健康体检者（P ＜0．05）。ROC 曲线显示 CA125、CA19－9、CEA 与CA72－4曲线下面积分别为0．904±0．025、0．670±0．042、0．497±0．046 and 0．821±0．033。联合检测上述肿瘤标记物显示最高的敏感性（91．4％）与较好的特异性（83．9％）。与其他单一肿瘤标记物相比,CA125显示最高的敏感性与较好的特异性。结论：联合检测 CA125、CA19－9、CEA 与 CA72－4可以提高上皮性卵巢癌早期诊断的敏感性与准确性。