CA153、CA125、CEA联合检测在乳腺癌诊断中的应用价值

目的探讨CA153、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应用价值。方法采用电化学发光免疫分析技术检测68例乳腺癌患者、38例乳腺良性病变者、30例健康人的血清中CA153、CA125、CEA含量,并分析阳性检出率和敏感性、特异性。结果乳腺癌患者血清CA153、CA125、CEA的含量高于健康人和良性病变者（均P〈0.01）。三项指标联合检测的敏感性和特异性为70.6%和84.9%,乳腺癌组与健康人及乳腺良性肿块组有显著性差异（P〈0.01）。结论 CA153、CA125、CEA三项肿瘤标志物联合检测能提高乳腺癌早期诊断的敏感性且有较好的特异性,具有一定的临床应用价值。     

CA153|CA125及CEA在乳腺癌诊断中的应用探讨

目的探讨CA153,CA125,CEA在乳腺癌诊断中的应用和临床价值。方法对450例患者行CA153,A125,CEA检查,其中正常体检对照者40例,乳腺良性增生患者286例,乳腺癌患者124例。结果 CA1 5 3,CA1 2 5,CEA的检测结果从正常对照者到乳腺癌患者之间呈逐渐增高的趋势,3组间差异均有统计学意义(P<0.0 5)。CA1 5 3,CA1 2 5,CEA检测乳腺癌的特异度均较高。CEA在有无淋巴结转移的乳腺癌患者中检测值差异有统计学意义。结论 CA153,CA125,CEA的联合检测对于乳腺癌的诊断和鉴别诊断具有一定的价值,但仍需寻找更有价值的乳腺肿瘤标志物。     

乳头溢液CA153检测的临床应用价值

目的探讨乳头溢液肿瘤标志物CA153检测对乳腺癌早期诊断和鉴别诊断的应用价值。方法采用电化学发光免疫分析技术检测36例乳腺癌患者、68例乳腺良性病变者、40例健康产妇的血清和乳头溢液（乳汁）CA153水平，进行敏感度、特异度计算及对比分析。结果乳腺癌患者血清、乳头溢液CA153的水平高于健康人和良性病变者（P均〈0．01）。乳头溢液CA153对于乳腺癌的敏感性为88．9％，特异性为88．9％。血清CAl53测定的敏感性为50．0％，特异性为95．4％。结论乳头溢液CA153测定对乳腺癌早期诊断有较高的敏感性，特异性稍低于血清，具有一定的临床应用价值。     

胰腺癌血清肿瘤标记物的表达及其临床意义

目的 观察胰腺癌患者血清肿瘤标记的表达,以寻找对胰腺癌诊断与随访有价值的血清肿瘤标记物。方法 采用免疫分析法和放射免疫法检测62例胰腺癌患者血清AFP、CEA、CA50、CA15-3、CA19-9、CA72-4和CA125共7种肿瘤标记物的表达,并取以胃肠道肿瘤患者和良性疾病患者各16例作为对照。结果 7种肿瘤标记物中,CA19-9、CA50和CA125对胰腺癌诊断的相对价值较高,尤以CA19-9的诊断价值最高,灵敏度和特异度分别为90.6%和86.7%,切除术后监测上述三项指标呈下降趋势,结论 血清CA19-9、CA50和CA125的检测对胰腺癌的诊断和随访是有价值的。     

全数字化乳腺钼靶X线摄影联合CA153对乳腺癌诊断价值分析

目的:通过乳腺疾病的全数字化乳腺X线摄影(full-field digitalmammography,FFDM)的影像表现及对血清CA153联合检测,探讨二者对乳腺癌的诊断价值.方法:回顾性分析62例有术后病理的乳腺疾病患者的临床资料,根据全数字化乳腺钼靶X线表现和血清CA153检测结果对乳腺癌诊断价值进行分析.结果:全数字化乳腺钼靶X线诊断乳腺癌的敏感度和特异度分别为81.3％和73.3％,血清CA153对乳腺癌的敏感度和特异度分别为43.8％、93.3％,两项联合检测与单独检测相比敏感度有明显提高.结论:全数字化乳腺钼靶X线摄影联合血清CA153检测有助于乳腺癌的诊断.     

血清CA19-9、CA242、CEA及CA125在胰腺癌诊断和预后中的价值

目的探讨CA19-9、CA242、CEA和CA125四种肿瘤标志物单独检测或联合检测在胰腺癌诊断和预后中的价值。方法测定并分析我院2007年1月至2009年12月期间收治的63例胰腺癌患者、33例胆管癌和27例胰腺良性疾病患者血清中CA19-9、CA242、CEA和CA125水平,并对术后胰腺癌患者进行随访。结果胰腺癌患者血清中CA19-9、CA242、CEA和CA125水平明显高于胰腺良性疾病患者和胆管癌患者(P<0.05)。单项检测中血清CA19-9的敏感性最高,达79.4%(50/63),但其特异性(61.7%)低于CA242(83.3%)和CEA(80.0%)。联合检测CA19-9+CA242+CEA的特异性最高,达93.3%(56/60)。当肿瘤位于胰腺体/尾部时CA19-9水平显著高于其在胰腺头部或全胰腺时(P<0.05)。胰腺癌Ⅳ期患者的CA19-9和CA242水平显著高于Ⅰ或Ⅱ/Ⅲ期患者(P<0.05)。本组失访15例,48例获得随访,随访时间平均6个月(2~12个月)。胰腺癌患者术后0.5及3个月血清中CA242、CA19-9较术前明显降低(P<0.05)。结论单项检测CA19-9可以提高胰腺癌诊断的敏感性,联合检测CA19-9+CA242+CEA可以提高胰腺癌诊断的特异性,CA19-9和CA242对胰腺癌的治疗效果及预后判断更具有价值。     

Galectin-3和CA153及TSGF检测对乳腺癌的诊断价值

探讨血清中半乳凝素-3(GAL-3)、糖类抗原153(CA153)和肿瘤特异性生长因子(TSGF)鉴别诊断乳腺癌的临床价值。选取2011年1月—2016年1月收治的80例乳腺癌患者(乳腺癌组)、40例乳腺良性疾病患者(良性病变组)和同期体检正常的40例健康妇女(健康组),检测3组血清中GAL-3、CA153和TSGF的水平,计算3种指标鉴别乳腺癌的诊断效能。乳腺癌组血清GAL-3、CA153、TSGF水平均显著高于良性病变组、健康组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);良性病变组血清GAL-3、CA153、TSGF水平与健康组差异无统计学意义(P0.05);血清GAL-3鉴别诊断乳腺癌的敏感度为53.75%、特异度为83.75%;CA153鉴别诊断乳腺癌的敏感度为47.50%、特异度为76.25%;TSGF鉴别诊断乳腺癌的敏感度为41.25%、特异度为68.75%;三者联合检测鉴别诊断乳腺癌的敏感度为86.25%、特异度为95.00%。血清GAL-3、CA153、TSGF联合检测鉴别诊断乳腺癌具有一定的临床价值,单独应用诊断的敏感度、特异度均较低。     

血清肿瘤标志物CA153、CA125、HER-2检测在乳腺癌诊断中的价值

目的分析血清肿瘤标志物CA153、CA125、HER-2检测在乳腺癌诊断中的价值。方法选取2016-07—2017-06间就诊于深圳市宝安区人民医院的疑似乳腺癌患者90例作为观察组,选取同期乳腺良性肿瘤患者85例作为对照组,并将在深圳市宝安区人民医院进行体检的健康女性80例作为健康组。入选者均行CA153、CA125、HER-2检测,以分析其在乳腺癌分期中应用价值。结果观察组的CA153、CA125、HER-2水平高于对照组和健康组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。其中Ⅲ期、Ⅳ期乳腺癌患者的CA153、CA125、HER-2水平高于Ⅰ~Ⅱ期,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);观察组中CA153、CA125、HER-2联合检测阳性率、准确度与敏感性均优于各单项检测,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论血清肿瘤标志物CA153、CA125、HER-2检测在乳腺癌分期中具有一定的诊断价值,三者联合检测可提升检出率,对后期治疗和预后评估均具有重要意义。     

肿瘤标志物CA19-9、CA153、CA125联合测定在诊断消化系统恶性肿瘤中的临床价值

目的探讨肿瘤标志物CA19-9、CA153、CA125联合测定对诊断恶性肿瘤的临床意义。方法对消化系统恶性肿瘤患者血清进行CA19-9、CA153、A125的联合测定。结果其结果对消化系统恶性肿瘤分别存在不同程度的阳性率。结论三者联合测定可提高阳性检出率,对消化系统恶性肿瘤的诊断和监测有无转移或复发都具有重要的临床价值。     

乳头溢液中CEA、CA153的表达与乳腺良恶性疾病关系的临床研究

目的:探讨乳头溢液中CEA及CA153的表达对良恶性乳腺疾病的诊断价值。方法:477例乳头溢液标本(乳腺癌134例,良性乳腺疾病343例)均检测CEA及CA153水平,并计算阳性预测值和阴性预测值为95%的截断值。结果:乳头溢液中CEA及CA153水平在良恶性疾病组中有差别,乳腺癌组表达水平均明显高于良性乳腺疾病组(P值均0.001)。当阴性预测值为95%时,CEA的值为55.8 ng/mL,CA153的值为177.3 U/mL;阳性预测值为95%时,CEA的值为594.5 ng/mL,CA153的值为9775U/mL。结论:不同乳腺疾病其CEA及CA153表达水平有明显差异,乳头溢液中CEA和CA153检测有助于临床鉴别诊断乳腺良、恶性疾病,可作为乳头溢液疾病的临床检查。     

血清CA199、CA242、CA125联合检测对胆囊癌患者诊断的临床价值研究

目的探究血清糖类抗原199(CA199)、糖类抗原242(CA242)、糖类抗原(CA125)联合检测对胆囊癌诊断的临床价值。方法选取我院于2010年1月~2015年1月收治的胆囊癌患者35例,设为恶性组,另选同期于我院就诊的50例良性胆囊疾病患者和50例健康体检者,分别设为良性组和对照组,用固相双位点夹心免疫放射度量分析法经全自动化学发光免疫分析仪检测研究对象血清CA199、CA242、CA125浓度并计算项指标单独及联合检测的灵敏度、特异度、预测值、符合率及约登指数,然后行统计学分析。结果三组患者CA199、CA242、CA125水平的差异有统计学意义(F=12.347,P0.05);恶性组患者CA199、CA242、CA125的水平高于良性组(q=15.354,P0.05;q=13.247,P0.05;q=16.498,P0.05)及对照组(q=16.247,P0.05;q=14.578,P0.05;q=17.244,P0.05);良性组与对照组患者CA199、CA242、CA125的水平接近(q=1.459,P0.05;q=1.687,P0.05;q=1754,P0.05);恶性组患者CA199、CA242、CA125阳性率分别为74.29%、65.71%、45.71%,高于良性组的6.00%、4.00%、4.00%(χ2=9.547,P0.05;χ2=11.215,P0.05;χ2=10.241,P0.05)及对照组的4.00%、2.00%、2.00%(χ2=12.549,P0.05;χ2=15.489,P0.05;χ2=13.492,P0.05);良性组与对照组患者CA199、CA242、CA125的阳性率相当(χ2=1.957,P0.05;χ2=1.824,P0.05;χ2=1.824,P0.05);恶性组患者三者联合检测的阳性率为91.43%,高于良性组的12.00%(χ2=15.498,P0.05)及对照组的8.00%(χ2=16.488,P0.05);良性组和对照组患者联合检测的阳性率相近(χ2=1.548,P0.05);对胆囊癌诊断而言,单一指标检测时,CA199对GBC诊断的灵敏度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值、符合率、约登指数最高,但特异性不高;两种指标联合检测时,含有CA199时对GBC的诊断价值更大;三种指标联合检测时,灵敏度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值、符合率、约登指数高于单一指标或两种联合检测。结论联合检测CA199、CA242、CA125可提高胆囊癌的诊断率,且两种联合检测时与CA199联合更具有诊断意义,临床可考虑推广应用。     

Significance of Serum Tumor Markers Carcinoembryonic Antigen, CA 19-9, CA 125, and CA 15-3 in Pre-Orthotopic Liver Transplantation Evaluation

Tumor markers are elevated in a variety of nonneoplastic clinical situations, including liver diseases. Their sensitivity and specificity are lower for tumor screening in these cases. In this study, we investigated the frequency and significance of elevated tumor markers in the pre-orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) evaluation among patients with end-stage liver disease who did not develop tumors after a long follow-up post-OLT. We performed a retrospective analysis of clinical and biological parameters of 100 OLT candidates comparing data for CA 125, CA 19-9, CA 15-3, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels. CA 125, CA 19-9, CA 15-3, and CEA levels were elevated in 59%, 53%, 29%, and 28% of cases, respectively. CA 125, CA 15-3, and CEA were associated with disease severity (Child-Pugh classification). CA 125 was also elevated among patients with ascites, esophageal varices, or alcohol-related cirrhosis. Elevated CA 19-9 levels were associated with increased CA 15-3 and CEA levels. CA 15-3 levels were also increased among patients with elevated alkaline phosphatase, while elevated CEA was related to ascites, bilirubin, and prothrombin time (PT) levels, as well as alcohol-related cirrhosis. There was no association between hepatocellular carcinoma and tumor markers. In conclusion, CA 125, CA 19-9, CA 15-3, and CEA were frequently elevated among end-stage liver disease patients. These elevations were not associated with tumor diseases in this population.     

肿瘤标志物CA19-9、CA242、CEA和CA125联合检测在胰腺癌诊断中的意义

目的 探讨肿瘤标志物CA19-9、CA242、CEA和CA125单项检测和联合检测对胰腺癌患者的临床诊断价值.方法 检测48例胰腺癌患者以及48例健康体检者外周血清中四种肿瘤标志物的水平,并对结果进行分析.结果 胰腺癌患者血清中CA19-9、CA242、CEA与CA125的含量显著高于正常时照组,两者比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.01).单项检测时CA19-9、CA242、CEA与CA125的敏感性分别为79.2%、54.2%、50.0%和35.4%.特异性分别为87.5%、89.6%、79.2%和70.8%.联合检测时敏感性为93.8%,特异性为100%.结论 CA19-9、CA242、CEA与CA125联合检测敏感性和特异性都明显高于单项检测.联合检测较单项血清标志物检测能提高胰腺癌的诊断率.     

肿瘤标志物在胃癌患者中的诊断及预后价值

目的 探讨肿瘤标志物CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4及CA242在胃癌诊断及预后判断中的应用价值.方法 回顾性分析2002-2007年间在北京肿瘤医院就诊的160例胃癌患者血清肿瘤标志物、临床病理参数以及预后资料.结果 160例胃癌患者中CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4及CA242的初诊阳性率分别为37.7％、26.7％、37.6％及21.3％,4种标志物联合检测阳性率为62.9％.CEA阳性与淋巴结转移有关（P=0.029）;CA72-4阳性与脉管浸润及Ⅲ、Ⅳ期胃癌有关（P=0.039,P=0.011）.CA19-9阳性和阴性患者中位生存期分别为17.0和32.0个月,CA72-4阳性和阴性患者中位生存期分别为14.8和37.5个月,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01）.多因素生存分析提示,CA72-4可以作为独立预后因子（P=0.012）,CA72-4阳性患者的死亡危险系数是阴性患者的2.147倍.结论 肿瘤标志物CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4及CA242在胃癌患者的诊断和预后判断中有重要价值,联合检测可提高阳性率;其中CA72-4可以作为独立预后因子,CA19-9及CA72-4与胃癌患者预后相关.     

血清CEA、CA15-3及CA125检测对乳腺癌诊断价值的临床评价

乳腺癌是女性最常见的恶性肿瘤之一,目前发病率在女性恶性肿瘤中已高居第一位.我国乳腺癌的特点是发病年龄较早,早期多无症状,就诊时病期相对偏晚,出现转移致存活期较短,所以早期诊断、早期治疗是提高其生存率的关键.     

Effect of hemodialysis on the concentration of the seven tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen, alpha-fetoprotein, squamous cell carcinoma-related antigen, neuron-specific enolase, CA 125, CA 19-9 and CA 15-3 in uremic patients.

The incidence of the 7 tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), squamous cell carcinoma-related antigen (SCC), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), CA 125, CA 19-9 and CA 15-3 was studied before and after hemodialysis (HD) in 144 uremic patients who had no malignancies. Before HD, of all tumor markers, the mean concentration of SCC only exceeded the normal value. The positive rate was highest in SCC (95.1%), and that of CEA and NSE was 25.7 and 10.6%, respectively. However, AFP was within the normal range in all cases. Among CA antigens, the positive rate of CA 125 was 7.6%, of CA 19-9 was 6.3% and of CA 15-3 was 3.5%. After HD, the incidence as well as the mean concentration of all tumor markers increased. A parallel increment of total protein was observed after HD. The membrane filter used in HD appears to be insufficient to remove tumor marker proteins during HD. It is necessary to consider the clinical interpretation of elevated tumor markers in patients with uremia.     

Clinical utility of CEA, CA 19-9, and CA 72-4 in the follow-up of patients with resectable gastric cancer

BACKGROUND: The aim of this longitudinal study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the serum tumor markers CEA, CA 19-9, and CA 72-4 in the early diagnosis of recurrence of gastric cancer. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-three patients who had undergone potentially curative surgery were considered. Serum samples were obtained preoperatively, 1 week after surgery, and at every follow-up examination. Mean follow-up time for the entire patient population was 41 +/- 33 months, and 71 +/- 27 months for patients classified as disease-free. RESULTS: Preoperative positivity was 16% for CEA, 35% for CA 19-9, and 20% for CA 72-4. Recurrence of disease was found in 75 patients (56%). Marker sensitivity in recurrent cases was 44% for CEA, 56% for CA 19-9, and 51% for CA 72-4; the combined use of the three markers increased sensitivity to 87%, which reached 100% in patients with positive preoperative levels. Marker specificity, evaluated in 58 disease-free patients, was 79% for CEA, 74% for CA 19-9, and 97% for CA 72-4. CONCLUSIONS: The combined assay of CEA, CA 19-9, and CA 72-4 may be useful for early diagnosis of recurrence of gastric cancer; however, only CA 72-4 positivity should be considered a specific predictor of tumor recurrence.     

胃癌患者CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4及幽门螺旋杆菌抗体测定及其临床意义

对162例经手术和病理证实的胃癌患者血中的肿瘤标记物CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4及幽门螺旋杆菌(HP)抗体进行了测定，并以90例非肿瘤患者作为对照。结果 胃癌组患者CEA、CA19-9及CA72-4的敏感性分别为24.0%、35.5%和21.9%，特异性分别为93%、77%和100%；阳性预测值(拟然比)分别为85.7%(3.24)、78.6%(1.52)和100%(0)，阴性预测值(拟然比)分别为39.9%(0.28)、33.0%(0.84)和38.9%(0.78)。CA19-9及CA72-4的含量随肿瘤直径的增大而明显增高(P＜0.05)；当肿瘤浸润深度增加时，CA19-9含量也显著增高(P＜0.05)。在淋巴结转移率＞50%或有远处转移的患者，其CEA、CA72-4及CA19-9含量显著增加；在肿瘤分化差的患者，这3种肿瘤标记物的含量均明显高于对照组(P＜0.05)。胃癌患者HP抗体阳性率为54%，对照组为22%(χ