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.     

血清标志物CYFRA21-1、NSE、CEA、CA19-9、CA125、SCC联合检测在肺癌诊断中的应用价值

背景与目的:肿瘤标志物检测在肿瘤血清学诊断中被广泛的使用,但单个肿瘤标志物的阳性诊断率不高.本实验探讨肿瘤标志物CYFRA21-1、NSE、CEA、CA19-9、CA125、SCC在肺癌患者血清中的水平,及其在肺癌鉴别诊断中的价值.方法:采用化学发光法对135例肺癌组和30例健康体检组6项肿瘤标志物的含量进行检测及比较.结果:CYFRA21-1、NSE、CEA、CA19-9、CA125、SCC 6项肿瘤标志物肺癌组水平浓度分别为分别为(7±8)ng/ml、(30±29)ng/ml、(65±293)ng/ml、(110±379)U/ml、(122±412)U/ml、(2±7)ng/ml,显著高于正常对照组(P<0.01),其测定水平与病理类型有关.CEA在腺癌、鳞癌、小细胞癌水平浓度分别为(11±25)×10ng/ml、(2±4)×10ng/ml、(2±3)×10ng/ml;CA125在腺癌、鳞癌、小细胞癌水平浓度分别为(21±48)×10U/ml、(5±6)×10U/ml、(5±4)×10U/ml.CA19-9在腺癌、鳞癌、小细胞癌水平浓度分别为(17±44)×10U/ml、(5±12)×10U/ml、(4±4)×10U/ml.CEA、CA125、CA19-9在腺癌中水平显著高于鳞癌和小细胞癌(P<0.05).NSE、CYFRA21-1、SCC以鳞癌最高其水平浓度分别为(31±36)ng/ml、(8±10)ng/ml、(3±10)ng/ml,但与其他肺癌类型相比,差异均无显著性(P>0.05);SCC在腺癌、鳞癌、小细胞癌的阳性率分别为19.23%、29.78%、17.65%.结论:6项肿瘤标志物对肺癌的检测都有一定意义,不同病理类型各有特点,选择合适的组合检测可以有利于肺癌的鉴别诊断.     

CYFRA21-1、CA19-9和SCCAg检测在食管癌诊断中的价值研究

目的 探讨血清细胞角质蛋白19片段CYFRA21-1、糖类抗原19-9(CA19-9)、鳞状细胞癌抗原(SC-CAg)单独及联合检测在食管癌诊断中的价值.方法 选取100例食管癌患者(观察组)和50例健康志愿者(对照组),检测两组受试者的血清CYFRA21-1、CA19-9和SCCAg水平,并按照临床分期对观察组患者进行亚组分析,采用受试者工作曲线(ROC)分析CYFRA21-1、CA19-9和SCCAg检测在食管癌诊断中的价值.结果 观察组患者的血清CYFRA21-1、CA19-9和SCCAg水平均明显高于对照组,Ⅰ~Ⅱ期患者的血清CYFRA21-1、CA19-9和SCCAg水平均明显低于Ⅲ~Ⅳ期,差异均有统计学意义(P﹤0.01);血清CYFRA21-1、CA19-9、SCCAg三者联合检测诊断食管癌的灵敏度为82.26%,特异度为91.33%,阳性预测值为86.14%,阴性预测值为89.57%,AUC值为0.864,均高于其中任一项指标单独检测,差异均有统计学意义(P﹤0.05).结论 血清CYFRA21-1、CA19-9、SC-CAg三者联合检测可以提高食管癌诊断的灵敏度和特异度.     

Diagnostic significance of the tumour markers CEA, CA 15-3 and CA 125 in malignant effusions in breast cancer

Concentrations of the tumour-associated antigens CEA, CA 15-3 and CA 125 were determined in serous effusions (EF) from patients (pts) with breast cancer. As controls, serous effusions from patients with benign and other malignant diseases were used. The EF levels were also compared with those of serum. CA 15-3 was elevated (greater than 35 U/ml) in 65.7% of breast cancer EF, in 39.3% of EF in various other malignant diseases and in 0% of benign EF. CEA was elevated (greater than 9 ng/ml) in 37.5% of breast cancer EF, in 17.9% of EF of various other malignant diseases and in 27% of benign EF. CA 125 was elevated (greater than 35 U/ml) in 93.8% of breast cancer EF, in 78.6% of EF of various other malignant diseases and in 58.8% of benign EF. There was a statistically significant correlation between EF and serum values for the markers studied. Sensitivity and specificity for CA 15-3 were 65.7% and 76.6%, for CEA 37.5% and 77.7% and for CA 125 93.8% and 28.7%, respectively. CA 15-3 is a marker with definite diagnostic accuracy compared to CEA and CA 125 in breast cancer EF. CA 125 appears to derive from proliferating mesothelia rather than cancer cells alone and occurs in a broad spectrum of malignant as well as benign EF. The above markers should not be used alone for diagnosis of breast cancer in patients with serous effusions.     

血清CEA、CA19-9、SCC-Ag、NSE、CYFRA21-1和ProGRP在肺癌诊断中的价值

[目的]探讨血清癌胚抗原(CEA)、糖类抗原(CA19-9)、鳞状细胞癌抗原(SCC-Ag)、神经元特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)、细胞角蛋白19片段(CYFRA21-1)、胃泌素释放肽前体(ProGRP)对肺癌的诊断价值.[方法]采用酶联免疫分析法检测150例肺癌、50例良性肺病、80例健康体检者的血清CEA、CA19-9、SCC-Ag、NSE和ProGRP水平,并用电化学发光法测定其CYFRA21-1水平,分析各标志物的阳性率和血清水平.[结果]肺癌组血清CEA、CA19-9、SCC-Ag、NSE、CYFRA21-1和ProGRP阳性率分别为53.3％、32.0％、22.7％、42.0％、42.7％和10.0％,与良性肺病组、健康体检组比较差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.001);肺癌组、良性肺病组、健康体检组6种标志物血清水平差异有统计学意义(P＜0.001).除CA19-9外,肺癌不同病理类型组间其他5种标志物血清水平差异有统计学意义(P＜0.001);6种标志物水平均随肺癌临床分期的升高而升高.[结论]血清CEA、CA19-9、SCC-Ag、NSE、CYFRA21-1和ProGRP对肺癌的辅助诊断有一定价值.     

NSE、CYFRA21-1、CA125、CA19-9、CEA联合检测在抑郁症伴肺癌诊断中的价值

目的 探讨NSE、CYFRA21-1、CA125、CA19-9和CEA在抑郁症伴肺癌患者诊断中的价值.方法 选择2010年12月至2015年12月收治的抑郁症伴肺癌的患者46例纳入A组,收集同期单纯肺癌患者50例纳入B组和健康体检者50例纳入C组.检测入选者血清NSE、CYFRA21-1、CA125、CA19-9和CEA浓度.采用17项汉密顿抑郁量表(HAMD)对抑郁症患者进行评定.结果 A组和B组患者血清NSE、CYFRA21-1、CA125、CA19-9和CEA浓度均显著高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).A组与B组比较,血清NSE、CYFRA21-1、CA125、CA19-9和CEA浓度无统计学差异(P＞0.05).小细胞肺癌患者中血清NSE的浓度显著升高(P＜0.05);鳞癌患者中血清CYFRA21-1浓度显著升高(P＜0.05);腺癌患者中血清CA125浓度显著升高(P＜0.05).5种肿瘤标志物诊断抑郁症伴肺癌敏感度由高到低依次为NSE (0.652)、CA125 (0.598)、CYFRA21-1(0.549)、CEA (0.530)和CA19-9(0.437);特异度由高到低依次为CY-FRA21-1 (0.838)、NSE (0.820)、CA19-9 (0.819)、CA125 (0.718)和CEA(0.659).联合检测的曲线下面积(AUC)为0.826,显著高于任何一种单一标志物(P＜0.05).结论 抑郁症伴肺癌患者血清NSE的浓度与抑郁症的严重程度正相关,联合NSE、CYFRA21-1、CA125、CA19-9和CEA能显著提高抑郁症伴肺癌患者的检出率.     

血清CA125、CA19-9、CEA的检测在大肠癌诊断及治疗中的意义

目的探讨血清CA125、CA199、CEA的检测在大肠癌诊断及治疗中的价值。方法82例大肠癌病人均于2004年6月～2005年6月收治并手术,同时选取41例正常人做为对照组。以蛋白芯片法测定两组血清中CA125、CA199、CEA含量。结果三项指标定量检测大肠癌组明显高于对照组。其阳性率与部位、大体类型、组织类型无明显相关。三项指标阳性率Duke'sC+D期明显高于Duke'sA+B期。CA125、CA199、CEA三项指标敏感度分别为34.1%、34.1%、30.5%,特异度均为97.6%,三项联检敏感度为58.5%,特异度为92.7%,而在Duke'sC+D期,三项联检敏感度为86.8%,特异度为92.7%。结论血清CA125、CA199、CEA的检测对于大肠癌的诊断价值较低,但三项联检在Duke'sC、D期大肠癌病人诊断价值较高,有助于判断大肠癌病理分期并指导手术范围。     

宫颈癌患者血清CYFRA21-1、TPS、CA125和CEA表达的临床分析

目的:探讨宫颈癌患者血清CYFRA21-1、TPS、CA125、CEA表达和临床的相关性。方法:随机选取28例宫颈癌患者和同时期的宫颈上皮内瘤样病变患者31例,健康对照人群35例。化学发光分析法检测血清CYFRA21-1、TPS、CA125和CEA水平,观察其和宫颈癌临床分型、分期的关系。结果:宫颈癌组CYFRA21-1、TPS、CA125、CEA检出水平最高,分别为:（5.15±36.35）ng/ml、（129.45±74.73）U/L、（58.35±17.47）U/ml、（15.86±9.35）ng/ml;宫颈上皮内瘤样病变检出水平其次,分别为:（0.96±0.45）ng/ml、（53.12±21.56）U/L、（36.24±14.23）U/ml、（3.28±1.74）ng/ml;健康人群最低,分别为:（0.61±0.32）ng/ml、（36.71±17.35）U/L、（12.69±4.51）U/ml、（1.26±0.86）ng/ml,以上两两比较差异均有显著性差异(P<0.05)。宫颈癌Ⅰ-Ⅱ期和宫颈癌Ⅲ-Ⅳ期在CYFRA21-1、TPS、CA125、CEA水平上比较差异也有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论:血清CYFRA21-1、TPS、CA125、CEA在宫颈癌患者中的表达明显高于宫颈上皮内瘤样病变和健康受试者,为临床诊治研究提供了新的思路和方向。其在宫颈癌诊断中是否具有较好的特异性,需做进一步的临床研究。     

CEA、CA125、pro-GRP及CYFRA21-1联合检测诊断肺癌的临床价值

目的 探讨血清癌胚抗原(CEA)、细胞角蛋白19片段抗原(CYFRA21-1)、胃泌素释放肽前体(pro-GRP)及糖类抗原125(CA125)在肺癌患者中的表达情况及其诊断学价值.方法 选取98例肺癌患者为肺癌组,选取30例肺部良性疾病患者为良性组,选取30例健康体检者为健康组,比较3组研究对象的血清CEA、CYFRA21-1、pro-GRP及CA125水平并进行分析.结果 肺癌组的血清CEA、CYFRA21-1、pro-GRP及CA125水平均明显高于良性组和健康组(P﹤0.01);Ⅰ～Ⅱ期肺癌患者血清中CEA、CYFRA21-1、pro-GRP及CA125阳性表达率均明显低于Ⅲ～Ⅳ期肺癌患者(P﹤0.01);血清CEA、CYFRA21-1、pro-GRP及CA125联合检测诊断肺癌的灵敏度、特异度、漏诊率、误诊率分别为82.65％、95.00％、17.35％、5.00％.结论 血清CEA、CYFRA21-1、pro-GRP及CA125联合检测诊断肺癌具有较高的灵敏度和特异度,可为临床诊断及治疗提供参考.     

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.     

CEA、CYFRA21-1、CA125检测在肺癌诊断中的应用

[目的]探讨CEA、CYFRA21-1、CA125联合检测在肺癌诊断中的价值.[方法]采用电化学发光法检测肺部疾病患者血清中CEA、CYFRA21-1、CA125浓度水平.[结果]肺癌组血清CEA、CYFRA21-1、CA125水平均明显高于肺部良性病变组及正常对照组,经统计学分析差异显著.其中CEA、CA125以肺腺癌中最高,阳性率分别78.13％、65.63％;CYFRA21-1以肺鳞癌中最高,阳性率达51.9％.肿瘤患者单独检测以上肿瘤标志物阳性率较低(CEA28.00％,CYFRA21-1 36.80％,CA125 30.40％.而联合检测以上标志物阳性率则大大提高,肺癌的检测阳性率可达70.41％,肺鳞癌达64.56％,腺癌达87.50％,小细胞癌达63.64％.[结论]临床上适当选用多项血清肿瘤标志物联合检测有利于肺癌的早期诊断与鉴别诊断.     

CYFRA21—1,CEA联合测定对癌性胸水的诊断价值

检测１１８例胸水ＣＹＦＲＡ２１－１和ＣＥＡ浓度以及ＡＤＡ活性。其中癌性不６７例，结核性胸水４０例，其它良性渗漏液１１例。ＣＹＦＲＡ２１－１对癌胸水的敏感度为６２．６％，特异度为９０．２％，ＣＥＡ的敏感度为５５．２％，特异度为１００％。联合测定ＣＹＦＲＡ２１－１和ＣＥＡ对癌性胸水的敏感度可提高到８５．１％，其临床应用值值得重视。     

血清CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1、CT联检对肺癌诊断的意义

目的：探讨血清CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1、CT联检与肺癌临床诊断的相关性。方法：采用放射免疫分析法与电化学发光法对58例肺癌患者和30例正常健康人进行血清标本测定。结果：肺癌组CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1、CT均高于正常对照组（P〈0.01）,CEA腺癌组的阳性率明显高于鳞癌组和小细胞癌组（P〈0.01）,CA125腺癌组、小细胞癌组阳性率明显高于鳞癌组（P〈0.01）,CYFRA21-1在鳞癌中的阳性率高于腺癌组和小细胞癌组（P〈0.01）,CT在鳞癌、腺癌、小细胞癌的阳性率,无明显差异（P〉0.05）。肺癌患者血清CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1、与CT水平成正相关。结论：CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1、与CT联检可互补,提高肺癌诊断阳性率。     

血清CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1、CT联检对肺癌诊断的意义

目的 探讨血清CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1、CT联检与肺癌临床诊断的相关性.方法 采用放射免疫分析法与电化学发光法对58例肺癌患者和30例正常健康人进行血清标本测定.结果 肺癌组CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1、CT均高于正常对照组(P<0.01),CEA腺癌组的阳性率明显高于鳞癌组和小细胞癌组(P<0.01),CA125腺癌组、小细胞癌组阳性率明显高于鳞癌组(P<0.01),CYFRA21-1在鳞癌中的阳性率高于腺癌组和小细胞癌组(P<0.01),CT在鳞癌、腺癌、小细胞癌的阳性率,无明显差异(P>0.05).肺癌患者血清CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1、与CT水平成正相关.结论 CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1、与CT联检可互补,提高肺癌诊断阳性率.     

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.     

血清ＣＹＦＲＡ２１-１、ＣＥＡ及ＮＳＥ对非小细胞肺癌诊断价值的Ｍｅｔａ分析

目的　系统评价血清细胞角蛋白１９片段（ＣＹＦＲＡ２１-１）、癌胚抗原（ＣＥＡ）及神经元特异性烯醇化酶（ＮＳＥ）对非小细胞肺癌（ＮＳＣＬＣ）的诊断价值。方法　计算机检索Ｃｏｃｈｒａｎｅ图书馆、Ｍｅｄｌｉｎｅ、ＣＢＭＤｉｓｃ、ＣＮＫＩ及万方数据库,检索年限均从建库到２０１０年１０月,收集有关ＣＹＦＲＡ２１-１、ＣＥＡ及ＮＳＥ诊断ＮＳＣＬＣ的临床研究,手工检索纳入研究的参考文献及杂志、会议论文集、学位论文汇编等。根据Ｃｏｃｈｒａｎｅ系统评价方法筛选研究并提取数据,采用ＭｅｔａＤｉｓｃ１.４版软件进行Ｍｅｔａ分析。结果　１４个研究符合纳入标准,其中病例组１１４５例,对照组８５５例。Ｍｅｔａ分析结果显示,血清ＣＹＦＲＡ２１-１的诊断优势比（ＤＯＲ）为１４.８０（９５％ＣＩ：９.５６～２２.９１）,灵敏度为６１％（９５％ＣＩ：５８％ ～６４％）,特异度为８５％（９５％ＣＩ：８３％ ～８７％）;血清ＣＥＡ的ＤＯＲ为９.３１（９５％ＣＩ：５.１８～１６.７１）,灵敏度为５０％（９５％ＣＩ：４６％ ～５５％）,特异度为８９％（９５％ＣＩ：８５％ ～９２％）;血清ＮＳＥ的ＤＯＲ为５.７７（９５％ＣＩ：３.３４～９.９７）;灵敏度为２４％（９５％ＣＩ：２０％ ～２８％）,特异度为９４％（９５％ＣＩ：９１％ ～９７％）;血清ＣＹＦＲＡ２１-１与ＣＥＡ联合检测的ＤＯＲ为１４.２０（９５％ＣＩ：６.１２～３２.９５）,灵敏度为７５％（９５％ＣＩ：６５％ ～８３％）,特异度为８２％（９５％ＣＩ：７０％ ～９.１％）;血清ＣＹＦＲＡ２１-１、ＣＥＡ及ＮＳＥ三项联合检测的ＤＯＲ为３７.９６,灵敏度为５１％,特异度为９７％。结论　血清ＣＹＦＲＡ２１-１检测对ＮＳＣＬＣ的诊断效能优于ＣＥＡ和ＮＳＥ,其中两项或三项联合检测的诊断效能优于单项检测。     

非小细胞肺癌患者化疗前后血清癌胚抗原细胞角蛋白19片段和糖类抗原125的变化

目的探讨晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者化疗前后血清癌胚抗原(CEA)、细胞角蛋白19片段(CYFRA21-1)和糖类抗原(CA125)的变化。方法选取2013年8月至2015年8月间辽宁省本溪市本钢总医院经病理以及细胞学诊断证实的NSCLC患者42例为研究组,化疗前采用酶联免疫法测定患者血清CEA、CYFRA21-1和CA125表达水平,化疗治疗结束3周后再次测定患者血清中CEA、CYFRA21-1和CA125表达水平变化,并行胸部CT检查,根据结果分为化疗有效者(完全缓解+部分缓解)和无效者(病情稳定+疾病进展)。选取同期来院体检的42例健康者为对照组,均排除肺部疾病,与研究组患者血清中CEA、CYFRA21-1和CA125水平变化进行比较。结果研究组患者化疗前血清CEA、CYFRA21-1和CA125水平分别为(38.78±10.37)ng/ml、(3.51±1.37)ng/ml和(37.22±15.39)U/ml,对照组患者分别为(1.86±0.47)ng/ml、(2.0±0.11)ng/ml和(20.1±15.7)U/ml,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。研究组患者化疗前血清CEA、CYFRA21-1和CA125在化疗有效组和无效组中无显著统计学意义(P<0.05)。化疗后血清CEA、CYFRA21-1和CA125在治疗有效组明显低于化疗前,有显著统计学意义(P<0.05);在无效组化疗后血清CEA、CYFRA21-1和CA125表达水平与化疗前相比差异不大,无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论对临床NSCLC患者进行血清CEA、CYFRA21-1和CA125检测,可有效评估患者临床疗效及预后,为临床NSCLC化疗疗效提供标准依据。     

检测胸水中CEA、CA125、CA153及CA199对肺癌的诊断价值

目的　探讨检测胸水中癌胚抗原 (CEA)、癌抗原 12 5 (CA12 5 )、癌抗原 15 3 (CA15 3 )及癌抗原 199(CA199)在肺癌诊断中的应用价值。方法　采用化学发光法对 5 2例肺癌患者的胸水、血清及 5 0例非肺癌患者的胸水进行了免疫蛋白定量分析。结果　肺癌组胸水内 4项标志物水平均明显高于非肺癌组水平 (P <0 .0 1或P <0 .0 5 ) ;肺癌组胸水中 4项标志物水平明显高于血清中水平 (P <0 .0 1或P <0 .0 5 ) ;CEA与CA199联合检测其敏感性和特异性高达 96.2 %和 96.0 %。结论　检测胸水中CEA、CA12 5、CA15 3及CA199对肺癌的诊断具有重要的临床意义 ,其中CEA与CA199联合检测为最佳组合     

联合检测血清CA125、CA19—9对消化系统恶性肿瘤的诊断价值

目的探讨联合检测血清CA125、CA19—9对消化系统恶性肿瘤的诊断价值。方法收集2007年5月至12月在我院消化内科所有住院病例的病历资料,回顾性分析恶性肿瘤患者治疗前的血清CA125和血清CA19-9浓度,并与消化系统良性疾病患者进行比较。结果根据最终诊断将住院患者分为消化系统恶性肿瘤组及消化系统良性疾病组。消化系统恶性肿瘤组血清CA125浓度水平及阳性率均显著高于良性疾病组（P=0．000）;恶性肿瘤组血清CA19—9浓度水平及阳性率亦均显著高于良性疾病组（P=0．000）。单独使用血清CA125和血清CA19-9诊断消化系恶性肿瘤的敏感性、特异性相似;若以二者中任一阳性即判断阳性,则敏感性有较明显提高,而特异性明显下降;若以二者同时阳性作为诊断,则敏感性明显下降,特异性明显提高。结论单独使用血清CA125或血清CA19-9诊断消化系统恶性疾病敏感性较高,但特异性不高;联合使用血清CA125或血清CA19-9,则可明显提高其特异性。     

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.