血清TSGF、CA242、CA19-9对老年胰腺癌患者诊断作用的临床研究

目的 评价血清中肿瘤标志物恶性肿瘤相关物质(TSGF)、糖类抗原CA242和CAl9-9对老年胰腺癌患者的诊断作用。方法 采用生化比色法与酶免法分别检测200例健康人、52例胰腺炎及96例胰腺癌患者的TSGF、CA242和CAl9-9含量。结果 TSGF、CA242和CAl9-9阳性似然比依次为5．4、12．6和6．3，阴性似然比依次为0．10、0．19和0．17。单项肿瘤标志物对胰腺癌诊断：TSGF敏感性高达91．6％，CA242特异性高达93．5％。以3项均为阳性诊断胰腺癌：敏感性为77．1％，特异性和阳性预测值皆为100．0％。胰头癌TSGF与CA242水平显著高于胰体癌、胰尾癌及全胰癌，而CAl9-9的表达与其部位无相关性。TSGF、CA242与CAl9-9随着临床分期的进展而敏感性增加，Ⅰ期者TSGF的敏感性显著高于CA242与CAl9-9，因此TSGF可以作为胰腺癌早期筛选的肿瘤标志物。结论 应用TSGF、CA242和CAl9-9联合诊断胰腺癌可以提高特异性，其表达对胰腺癌的不同组织分型起到重要作用，3项标志物联合检测可助早期诊断胰腺癌。     

肿瘤标志物CA242与CA19-9对胰腺癌的诊断价值

目的:比较血清肿瘤标志物CA242与CA19-9对胰腺癌的诊断价值。方法:1996年4月至1997年6月,北京医院对门诊及住院197例患者进行了血清CA19-9的检测,148例进行了CA242的检测,其中25例为临床明确诊断为胰腺癌,12例为急性胰腺炎,18例为良性阻塞性黄疸。结果显示:胰腺癌患者血清CA19-9和CA242较对照明显增高,其中25例胰腺癌患者有21例CA19-9阳性,检测的灵敏度为84％,特异性为74.4％,有17例CA242阳性,检测的灵敏度为68％,特异性为87.8％。CA242与CA19-9比较,灵敏度无显著差异(0.10相似文献   

Comparison of tumor marker CA 242 with CA 19-9 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Although there are a variety of tumor markers used for diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma, the sensitivity and specificity of those markers have not yet reached an ideal level. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic value of CA 242 with CA 19-9 and CEA in the patients with pancreatic cancer. METHODOLOGY: Serum CA 242, CA 19-9 and CEA levels were determined in 135 subjects in the following groups: Pancreatic cancer (n = 40), cholangiocellular carcinoma (n = 15), hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 10), cirrhosis (n = 7), chronic active hepatitis (n = 7), choledochal stone (n = 12), chronic pancreatitis (n = 9), acute pancreatitis (n = 6), and healthy controls (n = 29). RESULTS: An elevated serum CA 242 concentration (> 20 U/mL) was found in 30 out of 40 (70%) (mean; 2163 +/- 838 U/mL) patients with pancreas cancer, in 11 out of 15 patients with cholangiocellular carcinoma (93.3%) (mean 916 +/- 529 U/mL), in none of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and healthy controls. Slightly elevated CA 242 concentration was found in 6 out of 41 patients with benign hepatobiliary and pancreatic disease (range 0.4-97.8 U/mL) (1 acute pancreatitis, 2 chronic pancreatitis, 1 cirrhosis, 2 choledochal stone). Mean serum CA 242, CA 19-9 and CEA levels of the pancreas cancer group were significantly higher than those of the other groups except the cholangiocellular carcinoma group. There was no significant difference between the stage of pancreas cancer regarding mean serum CA 242, CA 19-9 and CEA level. There was positive correlation between serum CA 242 and CA 19-9 level. In the pancreas cancer, the sensitivity of CA 242, CA 19-9 and CEA was 75%, 80%, 40%, respectively and the specificity of those markers was 85.5%, 67.5% and 73%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the advantage of CA 242 compared to CA 19-9 is that its specificity is higher than that of CA 19-9 in the diagnosis of pancreas cancer.     

胰腺癌患者血清中巨噬细胞因子-1、糖链抗原19-9、糖链抗原242及癌胚抗原的检测分析

目的 探讨血清巨噬细胞因子-1（MIC-1）、糖链抗原（CA）19-9 、CA242及癌胚抗原（CEA）在胰腺癌中的应用价值.方法 分析129例胰腺癌患者和120例健康体检者4项肿瘤标志物的检测结果,计算各肿瘤标志物组合方式对提高胰腺癌诊断的作用.结果 胰腺癌患者血清中各项肿瘤标志物的水平与对照组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）.MIC-1＋CA19-9组合的敏感性与单项检测敏感性最高的MIC-1比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;MIC-1＋CA19-9组合的特异性与单项检测特异性最高的CA19-9比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）.Ⅲ~Ⅳ期胰腺癌患者血清CA19-9、CA242水平与Ⅰ~Ⅱ期比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）.结论 4项肿瘤标志物的检测对胰腺癌的诊断均有一定的价值,MIC-1＋CA19-9联合检测可提高诊断的敏感性,同时未降低其特异性.CA19-9、CA242对判断胰腺癌的预后有一定价值.     

肿瘤标志物、K-ras和p53突变对胰腺癌诊断的价值

目的评价血清肿瘤标志物CA19-9、CA242、CA50、癌胚抗原和粪便K-ras以及p53基因突变对胰腺癌诊断的价值。方法收集2002年2月至2004年3月在北京协和医院、中国医学科学院肿瘤医院和沈阳军区总医院确诊的新发胰腺癌患者136例,良性消化系统疾病患者240例,进行血清肿瘤标志物和粪便K-ras、p53基因突变的检测。根据结果绘制不同检测方法的受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线,计算ROC曲线下面积,并确定最佳阳性分界值。结果血清CA19-9和CA242的ROC曲线下面积分别为0·855±0·031(95%可信区间0·794~0·916)和0·859±0·031(95%可信区间0·799~0·920),最佳阳性分界值分别为68U/ml和25U/ml,其诊断胰腺癌的敏感性分别为84·4%(98/116)和88·4%(84/95),特异性分别为84·3%(145/172)和79·1%(144/182)。粪便K-ras和p53基因突变诊断胰腺癌的敏感性分别为77·8%和27·8%,特异性分别为82·2%和95·2%。将粪便K-ras和p53基因突变与血清CA19-9和CA242测定相结合计算胰腺癌诊断评分,绘制有序分类资料的ROC曲线,其曲线下面积为0·946±0·017(95%可信区间0·912~0·980),最佳阳性分界值为2分。结论血清CA19-9及CA242对胰腺癌诊断具有相似价值;联合粪便K-ras及p53突变的检测,通过胰腺癌可能性积分,可以显著提高胰腺癌的诊断效率。     

Diagnostic value of serum CA242, CA 19-9, CA 15-3 and CA 125 in patients with carcinoma of the gallbladder.

BACKGROUND: Tumor markers have an increasing significance in the diagnosis and evaluation of tumor, but their role in gallbladder cancer has not been established. The present study was undertaken to determine the utility of serological markers in carcinoma of the gallbladder (CaGB). METHODS: This study was carried out in 55 cases and 8 healthy controls presenting to a single surgical unit of the University Hospital, Varanasi, India. CA242, CA19-9, CA15-3 and CA125 were assayed preoperatively in serum of patients with carcinoma of the gallbladder (39), cholelithiasis (16) and healthy controls (8) using ELISA technique. RESULTS: Mean concentration of all tumor markers was significantly raised in carcinoma of the gallbladder when compared with cholelithiasis. CA 242 was 12.10 vs 42.19 u/ ml, CA19-9 was 211.27 vs 86.06 uml, CA 15-3 was 71.42 vs 1.93u/ml and CA125 was 253.61 vs 65.5 u/ml <0.05). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated at various cut off points. Significant changes in CAl9-9 and CA242 occurred with advanced stage (p <0.05) and grade of tumor (p<0.00 1). When two tumor markers were combined, like CA242 and CA125, sensitivity and specificity improved to 87.5% and 85.7% respectively. Diagnostic accuracy is highest with a combination of CA 19-9 and CA 125 (80.65%). However, combination of tumor markers did not improve any further sensitivity or specificity of markers. CONCLUSION: Assay of CA242, CA15-3, CA19-9 and CA 125 are fairly good markers for discriminating patients of carcinoma of the gallbladder from cholelithiasis. CA242 and CA125 when used together achieved best sensitivity and specificity. Serum markers seem to be less sensitive when used individually in carcinoma of the gallbladder but may prove useful in combination.     

������־���������ٰ���Ϻ�Ԥ�������еļ�ֵ�о�

??Abstract??Objective To investigate the roles of tumor markers in diagnosis and prognosis assessment of patients with pancreatic carcinoma.Methods We collected 198 cases of pancreatic carcinoma??50 cases of benign pancreatic diseases and 61 cases of normal controls.Radioimmunoassay was used to detect the tumor markers such as CA19-9??CA242??CA125??CA50 and CEA.A total of 120 cases of pancreatic carcinoma were followed up and the factors influencing their prognosis were analyzed.Results The average levels of CA19-9??CA242 and CA125 in pancreatic carcinoma cases were significantly higher than those in the controls and benign pancreatic disease cases (P<0.05).We obtained sensitivities of 80.84%??72.50%??56.67%??56.12% and 45.31% for CA19-9??CA242??CA125??CA50 and CEA??respectively??and specificities of 76.80%??69.32%??72.96 %??65.33% and 57.40% for CA19-9??CA242??CA125??CA50 and CEA??respectively.Combined detection increased the sensitivity but reduced the specificity.The median survival time of the pancreatic cancer patients was 5.5 months.Patients with tumors located at pancreatic body??tail and the whole pancreas had less survival time than those with tumors located at pancreatic head and neck.Patients with higher levels of CA19-9??CA242 and CA125 had less survival time (P<0.05).Cox multivariate proportional hazards model showed that CA19-9 and CA242 were independent prognostic factors (P<0.05).Conclusion Early diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma depends on serum examinations of tumor marker.Combined detection increases the sensitivity and reduces the specificity of the markers.Patients with tumor located at the pancreatic body??pancreatic tail??and with higher levels of CA19-9??CA242 and CA125 may have less survival time.CA19-9 and CA242 are independent prognostic factors that may help to assess the prognosis of pancreatic carcinoma.     

Tumour markers CA 19-9 and CA 50 in digestive tract malignancies.

CA 19-9 and CA 50 are tumour marker tests measuring the same carbohydrate structure, sialosyl-fucosyl-lactotetraose--that is, the sialylated Lewis blood group antigen. In addition, the C50 antibody reacts with sialosyl-lactotetraose, which may be expressed in small amounts in some carcinomas. In this study we compared these tests in sera from patients with benign and malignant digestive tract diseases. The sensitivity of the markers for different cancers was also compared at several specificity levels with patients with benign diseases as reference groups. Both markers showed a high sensitivity for pancreatic cancer (77% for CA 19-9; 69% for CA 50) and biliary cancer (88%). The figures in colorectal cancer were almost as high as those reported for CEA; 16-21% elevated values in Dukes A and B tumours and 44-47% in Dukes C and D tumours. The sensitivity for gastric cancer was 48% for both markers. CA 50 had a higher sensitivity for liver cancer (55%) than CA 19-9 (9%), but the proportion of elevated values in benign liver diseases was also higher (33% versus 15%, respectively). Overall, there was good correlation between the CA 19-9 and CA 50 levels, and the difference in sensitivity and specificity was marginal. In clinical practice the greatest value of CA 19-9 and CA 50 is in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.     

Evaluation of a serologic marker, CA19-9, in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the utility of the serologic marker CA19-9 in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer in patients suspected of having a pancreatic disorder. DESIGN: Blinded study of frozen pedigreed serum samples collected at time of diagnostic evaluation with follow-up review at a mean of 8 years. SETTING: A general university teaching hospital serving both primary and referral patient populations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sera collected prospectively from 1978 to 1980 from 261 patients undergoing imaging studies of the pancreas (ultrasound, computed tomography, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) for a variety of symptoms were assayed for CA19-9 levels, and the results were compared with earlier determinations of other potential markers for pancreatic cancer. In 54 patients ultimately shown to have pancreatic cancer, the CA19-9 assay showed a sensitivity of 70% with a median value of 349 u/mL (normal less than 70 u/mL) and range, 7.3 to 2,859,964 u/mL, whereas specificity of the marker in this population was 87%. The positive predictive value was 59%, and the negative predictive value was 92%. Results of CA19-9 testing in the small group of patients with definitive staging information showed no difference in sensitivity between patients with local/regional disease (n = 6) and those with distant metastases (n = 14), 50% compared with 71% (P = 0.613). CONCLUSION: CA19-9 was found to be a more sensitive and specific marker of pancreatic cancer than other serologic markers and should be a useful test in the patient with suspected pancreatic disease.     

Evaluation of the diagnostic value of serum tumor markers,and fecal k‐ras and p53 gene mutations for pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic value for pancreatic cancer of four serum tumor markers, carbohydrate antigen (CA) 199, CA242, CA50 and carcino‐embryonic antigen (CEA), and fecal k‐ras and p53 gene mutations. METHODS: From February 2002 to March 2004, 136 patients were consecutively diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in the three participating medical centers. The diagnosis was confirmed by pathology in 53 patients, of whom five were excluded because they did not have measurement of serum tumor marker. The remaining 48 patients comprised the case group in the study. Ninety‐six patients with benign digestive diseases diagnosed during the same period were recruited as control subjects. They were matched by sex and age. In both groups, serum CA199, CA242, CA50 and CEA were measured by ELISA, and fecal k‐ras and p53 gene mutations were measured by PCR‐restriction fragment length polymorphism and PCR‐single strand conformational polymorphism, respectively. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and area under the curve (AUC) were used to compare their diagnostic value, as well as the sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio. Moreover, independent and sensitive tests from these non‐invasive approaches were selected to form a parallel test that may have further improved sensitivity for diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: The AUC of serum CA199 and CA242 were 0.821 (95%CI 0.725–0.917) and 0.821 (95%CI 0.723–0.919), respectively. The optimal diagnostic value of serum CA199 for pancreatic cancer was 93 U/mL, with a sensitivity of 73.7% and specificity of 91.4%. The positive likelihood ratio of CA199 was 8.57, and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.29. The optimal diagnostic value of serum CA242 was 25 U/mL, with a sensitivity of 71.1% and specificity of 93.5%. The positive likelihood ratio of CA242 was 10.94, and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.31. The sensitivity of fecal k‐ras gene mutation for diagnosis of pancreatic cancer was 77.4%, and the specificity was 81.2%. The positive and negative likelihood ratios of fecal k‐ras gene mutation were 4.12 and 0.28, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of fecal p53 gene mutation were 25.8% and 95.3%, respectively, and its positive and negative likelihood ratios were 5.49 and 0.78. The rate of fecal k‐ras mutation was higher in patients with benign pancreatic diseases (57.14%) than that of controls with non‐pancreatic disorders. The values of serum tumor markers and fecal k‐ras and p53 gene mutation rates were not significantly different in subgroups according to site or stage of pancreatic cancer. The sensitivity and specificity of the parallel test of serum CA199 and fecal k‐ras gene mutation were 94.06% and 74.22%, respectively, while the sensitivity and specificity of the parallel test of serum CA242 and fecal k‐ras were 93.47% and 75.92%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Serum CA199 and CA242 are valuable diagnostic tools for pancreatic cancer. The diagnostic value is further improved when they are combined with fecal k‐ras gene mutation measurement.     

The Influence of Cholestasis on CA 50 and CA 242 in Pancreatic Cancer and Benign Biliopancreatic Diseases

The tumour markers CA 50 and CA 242 were determined in serum from 70 cholestatic patients–35 with pancreatic cancer and 35 with benign biliopancreatic diseases. Both markers correlated (r = 0.37) with serum bilirubin in all patients. When the patients were subdivided into groups, the only correlation apparent was between CA 50 and bilirubin in patients with benign diseases (r = 0.40). The serum concentrations of both markers were much higher in patients with pancreatic cancer. Serial sampling before and after decompression of the cholestasis showed reduction of CA 50 and CA 242 concurrently with bilirubin and alkaline phosphatases in nine patients with benign disease but unchanged levels in six cancer patients. When the two markers were compared, sensitivity was superior for CA 50 (94% versus 73%), whereas specificity was better for CA242 (65% versus 34%), as was positive prediction (76% versus 59%), whereas negative prediction was higher for CA 50 (86% versus 61%). Higher cut-off levels yielded better specificity for CA 50 but not for CA 242. Both markers indicate pancreatic cancer irrespective of cholestasis, but moderate elevations occur in some patients with benign disorders.     

血清肿瘤标志物和肝功能指标联合检测在胰腺癌肝转移诊断中的价值

目的探讨肿瘤标志物和肝功能指标联合检测在胰腺癌肝转移早期诊断中的临床价值。方法选取125例胰腺癌患者,其中肝转移58例,无肝转移67例。检测患者血清肿瘤标志物和肝功能指标水平,并对结果进行分析。结果胰腺癌肝转移者血清中癌胚抗原（CEA）、糖类抗原19-9（CA19-9）、糖类抗原242（CA242）和乳酸脱氢酶（LDH）水平显著高于无肝转移者（P〈0.05）。ROC曲线分析显示CEA、CA19-9、CA242与LDH诊断肝转移的最佳上限为6.0μg/L、842 U/m l、64.48 U/L与220 U/L。CEA和LDH单独检测肝转移的敏感性为64.2%和51.9%,特异性为71.4%和74.2%。而CEA与LDH联合检测的敏感性和特异性为77.6%和93.5%。结论肿瘤标志物和肝功能指标联合检测特异性高,有助于胰腺癌肝转移的早期诊断。     

Clinical value of serum CA19-9 levels in evaluating resectability of pancreatic carcinoma

AIM： To evaluate the clinical value of serum CA19-9 levels in predicting the respectability of pancreatic carcinoma according to receiver operating characteristic （ROC） curve analysis.
METHODS： Serum CA19-9 levels were measured in 104 patients with pancreatic cancer which were possible to be resected according to the imaging. ROC curve was plotted for the CA19-9 levels. The point closest to the upper left-hand corner of the graph were chosen as the cut-off point. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of CA19-9 at this cut-off point were calculated.
RESULTS： Resectable pancreatic cancer was detected in 58 （55.77%） patients and unresectable pancreatic cancer was detected in 46 （44.23%） patients. The area under the ROC curve was 0.918 and 95% CI was 0.843-0.992. The CA19-9 level was 353.15 U/mL, and the sensitivity and specificity of CA19-9 at this cutoff point were 93.1% and 78.3%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive value was 84.38% and 90%, respectively.
CONCLUSION： Preoperative serum CA19-9 level is a useful marker for further evaluating the resectability of pancreatic cancer. Obviously increased serum levels of CA19-9 （〉 353.15 U/mL） can be regarded as an ancillary parameter for unresectable pancreatic cancer.     

CA 19-9 Assay in Differential Diagnosis of Pancreatic Carcinoma from Inflammatory Pancreatic Diseases

Levels of a new carbohydrate antigen CA 19-9, which is a monosialoganglioside identified by a monoclonal antibody raised against colorectal carcinoma cells, were compared to carcinoembryonic antigen and tissue polypeptide antigen assays in 250 sera from patients with different pancreatic diseases including acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer. All three tumoral markers were elevated at the onset of an acute pancreatic attack in a few patients. All but five patients with chronic pancreatitis displayed normal levels with each of the three markers; in two of these five cases an extraintestinal cancer was later discovered. CA 19-9 displayed higher sensitivity and predictive value of a negative result than the other two markers. The best operational characteristic of CA 19-9 was its high predictive value for a positive test which suggests a "ruling in" usage of it for pancreatic cancer diagnosis. CA 19-9 assay was of extreme value in disclosing both localized and metastatic pancreatic cancer while the other two markers were more often positive in the latter case. Of 71 cancer patients with positive markers, only four would have escaped a right diagnosis by assaying CA 19-9 alone.     

Low efficacy of serum levels of CA 19-9 in prediction of malignant diseases in asymptomatic population in Taiwan

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Serum levels of carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 have long been employed as a biomarker in diagnosing pancreatic cancer in symptomatic patients. We assessed the clinical usefulness of serum CA 19-9 in screening pancreatic cancer and other malignancies in individuals without symptoms. METHODOLOGY: The study enrolled 5,343 consecutive asymptomatic individuals who completed a health check-up comprising serum CA 19-9, chest film, abdominal ultrasonography, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy. The sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive rate of CA 19-9 in detecting cancers were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 385 patients (7.2%) with CA 19-9 higher than 37 U/mL. Two patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer had CA 19-9 levels of 46,885 U/mL and 88.4 U/mL, respectively. Thirteen among 58 patients with other cancers had CA 19-9 levels higher than 37 U/mL. If the cut-off value of CA 19-9 was set at 37 U/mL, the sensitivity and specificity for pancreatic cancer and other cancers were 100% and 92.8%, as well as 22.4% and 92.9%, respectively. However, the positive predictive rates for pancreatic cancer and other cancers were as low as 0.5% and 3.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy of CA 19-9 in predicting either pancreatic cancer or other cancers in the asymptomatic population is low.     

The diagnostic importance of CEA and CA 19-9 for the early diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma

BACKGROUND/AIMS: CA 19-9 and CEA were evaluated for their specificity and sensitivity in the early diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma. METHODOLOGY: This prospective study included 40 patients with pancreatic carcinoma. A control group of 60 patients were divided into two subgroups as upper gastrointestinal system malignancies and benign pancreatic disorders. CEA and CA 19-9 levels were measured in all the patients. RESULTS: When the reference value of CA 19-9 was accepted as 74 U/mL, the specificity was 100% when pancreatic carcinoma was compared with benign disorders of the pancreas, but it's specificity for upper gastrointestinal malignancies was 60-90%. When the reference value of CEA was increased, the sensitivity had been decreased but the specificity had been increased when compared with the control group. If the reference value of CEA was accepted as 5 ng/mL, the specificity was 100% when pancreatic carcinoma was compared with acute or chronic pancreatitis, but it is less specific for the differential diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma from the upper gastrointestinal malignancies. CONCLUSIONS: With the progression of the pancreatic carcinoma, serum CEA level and the specificity of CEA were elevated similar to that of CA 19-9. However, the elevation of CEA specificity when compared with the control group was lower than the specificity of the CA 19-9 and the sensitivity of CA 19-9 was superior to that of CEA for pancreatic carcinoma. The level of CA 19-9 was increased with the development of early pancreatic cancer and this elevation steadily continued with the progression of the cancer.     

A clinical evaluation of monoclonal (CA19-9, CA50, CA12-5) and polyclonal (CEA, TPA) antibody-defined antigens for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer

We measured in 193 patients, admitted to our wards for symptoms and signs suggestive of pancreatic or digestive malignancy, the serum levels of five tumor-associated antigens (CA 19-9, CA 50, CA 125, TPA, CEA) and we evaluated their diagnostic accuracy both when used alone and in combination. For CA 19-9 and CA 50 a sensitivity for pancreatic cancer as high as 92 and 88%, respectively, and specificity of 91.8% were found. A lower sensitivity vs. pancreatic cancer was found for the other tumor markers, and vs. the other digestive and nondigestive malignancies for all tumor markers (apart for CA 19-9 and CA 50 vs. biliary carcinomas). As for the combined assays, the best figures were found vs. pancreatic cancer for CA 19-9 plus CA 50, CA 50 plus CEA, CA 50 plus CA 125; a sensitivity by far worse vs. the other gastrointestinal cancers was found for all the possible combinations. We conclude that in selected symptomatic patients some tumor-marker determinations can be useful in identifying those with a high probability of harboring a pancreatic cancer, to be further studied or operated upon. The clinical relevance of this in patients already symptomatic is at present unclear.     

糖链抗原联合检测对肺癌合并胸腔积液的诊断价值

目的 联合检测胸腔积液中糖链抗原CA72-4、CA242、CEA的水平,探讨其对肺癌合并胸腔积液的诊断价值.方法 采用酶联免疫吸附试验法对39例肺癌合并胸腔积液患者和35例良性疾病合并胸腔积液患者的胸腔积液进行CA72-4、CA242、CEA 3项联合检测.根据ROC曲线选择肿瘤标志物的界值,以敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值及准确率比较其在不同类型胸腔积液中的表达情况.结果 肺癌患者胸腔积液中3项肿瘤标志物的平均水平明显高于良性疾病患者(P<0.05).CA72-4、CA242、CEA的ROC曲线下面积分别为0.703、0.727、0.804.CA72-4对肺癌性胸腔积液诊断的敏感性和特异性分别为64.1%、71.4 0A.CA242对肺癌性胸腔积液诊断的敏感性和特异性分别为59.0%、80.0%.各项肿瘤标志物联合检测时,CA72-4+CEA和CA72-4+CA242+CEA对肺癌合并胸腔积液诊断的敏感性和特异性相同,分别为89.7%、94.3%.均高于其他联合.结论 检测胸腔积液中糖链抗原CA72-4、CA242、CEA的水平对肺癌合并胸腔积液的诊断有一定价值;多项肿瘤标志物联合检测时,敏感性和特异性均较单项检测时高;最佳联合检测为CA72-4+CEA.     

术前血清CEA、CA19-9、CA50联合检测在结直肠癌肝转移预测中的应用

目的研究术前血清CEA、CA19-9、CA50联合检测在结直肠癌肝转移预测中的应用价值。 方法选择2015年1月至2017年1月在中国医学科学院肿瘤医院接受手术治疗的结直肠癌患者316例为研究对象,其中结直肠癌伴有肝转移的患者158例作为实验组,并按照性别、年龄等匹配结直肠癌不伴有肝转移的患者158例作为对照组。对所有患者的术前血清癌胚抗原（CEA）、糖类抗原19-9（CA19-9）以及糖类抗原50（CA50）进行检测,采用单因素及多因素分析以上肿瘤标志物单独或联合检测在结直肠癌肝转移中的预测价值。 结果单因素及多因素分析结果表明,术前血清CEA、CA19-9、CA50升高与结直肠癌发生肝转移显著相关（P<0.05）,CEA、CA19-9、CA50单独预测结直肠癌肝转移的敏感度分别为62.7%、57.4%、67.1%;特异度分别为58.2%、53.5%、56.6%。CEA、CA19-9、CA50联合诊断预测直肠癌肝转移的敏感度和特异度分别为74.3%、76.3%。 结论术前血清CEA、CA19-9、CA50升高是结直肠癌肝转移的独立预测因素,但三者单独预测结直肠癌肝转移的敏感度和特异度均较低。三者联合检测对于预测结直肠癌肝转移的敏感度和特异度均较高,可以作为结直肠癌肝转移的预测模型。     

Novel serum tumor marker, RCASl, in pancreatic diseases

AIM: As tumor markers for pancreatic carcinoma, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 have been used, but the sensitivity and specificity are not enough for the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma. METHODS: A novel serum tumor marker, RCAS1, was compared with two conventional serum tumor markers, CEA (highly specific for pancreatic cancer) and CA 19-9 (highly sensitive for pancreatic cancer), in 48 patients with pancreatic exocrine tumors. RESULTS: When the diagnosis of benign or malignant conditions was examined by one tumor marker, the sensitivity of RCAS1 alone (55%) was higher than that of CEA alone (27%) and the specificity of RCAS1 alone (92%) was greater than that of CA19-9 alone (78%). When examined by a combination of two markers, the sensitivity of a combination of RCAS1 and CA19-9 (95%) was superior to those of CA19-9 alone (78%), RCAS1 alone (55%, P = 0.002), CEA alone (27%) (P<0.001), RCAS1 and CEA (59%) and CA19-9 and CEA (82%). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the combination of RCAS1 and CA19-9 is highly sensitive for pancreatic carcinoma.