Intensive post-operative follow-up of breast cancer patients with tumour markers: CEA, TPA or CA15.3 vs MCA and MCA-CA15.3 vs CEA-TPA-CA15.3 panel in the early detection of distant metastases

Background  

In breast cancer current guidelines do not recommend the routine use of serum tumour markers. Differently, we observed that CEA-TPA-CA15.3 (carcinoembryonic (CEA) tissue polypeptide (TPA) and cancer associated 115D8/DF3 (CA15.3) antigens) panel permits early detection and treatment for most relapsing patients. As high sensitivity and specificity and different cut-off values have been reported for mucin-like carcinoma associated antigen (MCA), we compared MCA with the above mentioned tumour markers and MCA-CA15.3 with the CEA-TPA-CA15.3 panel.     

Markers in breast cancer: Does CEA add to the detection by CA 15.3?

211 patients with various stages of breast cancer were studied by both the CA 15.3 and CEA markers to assess whether the latter may increase the screening sensitivity of the former. While both markers were equally specific, CA 15.3 was seen to be much more sensitive than CEA (p<0.0001). Also, the addition of the CEA did not add appreciably (7%) to positive detection by CA 15.3. There appears to be no advantage to including CEA in a marker panel to follow the course of breast carcinoma.     

Diagnostic relevance of plasma DNA and DNA integrity for breast cancer

Levels of ALU 115, ALU 247, DNA integrity ([1, 2]) and of the tumour markers CA 15–3 and CEA were analysed in the blood of 152 patients. Plasma levels of ALU 115 and ALU 247 were significantly higher in patients with locally confined (LBC; N?=?65), metastatic breast cancer (MBC; N?=?47), and benign diseases (N?=?12) than in healthy controls (p?<?0.001 for all comparisons). DNA integrity, CEA, and CA 15–3 were significantly higher in MBC than in benign controls and LBC but could not identify LBCs. The best discrimination of LBC from healthy controls was achieved by ALU 115 and ALU 247 (AUC 95.4 and 95.5 %) and of MBC from all control groups by CA 15–3 and CEA (AUC 83.2 and 79.1 %). Plasma DNA is valuable for the detection of LBC, while established tumour markers are most informative in MBC.     

Serum tumour markers as a diagnostic and prognostic tool in Libyan breast cancer

Results from studies on efficacy of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 15.3 (CA 15.3) and thymidine kinase (TK1) as diagnostic and prognostic tools for primary breast cancer (BC) have presented conflicting results, and usefulness of these markers for clinical use in BC remains unclear. The aim of this study is to evaluate potential of concentration of the sera CEA, CA15.3 and TK1 peptides?? use as markers in the diagnosis and prognosis of breast lesions of Libyan patients. Serum tumour markers were studied in 20 healthy subjects, 30 patient with benign lesion diseases and 50 patients with histologically confirmed BC diagnosed at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Misurata, Libya during the period 2005?C2009. The concentrations of the BC patients?? cutoff points used for diagnostic and prognostic sensitivity were 8.82?ng/ml, 35.57 U/ml and 32.57 U/mg/protein for CEA, CA15.3 and TK1, respectively. Increased CEA (>8.82?ng/ml), CA 15.3 (>35.57 U/ml) and TK1 (>32.57 U/mg/protein) concentrations were found in 62?%, 70?% and 78?% of the BC patients, respectively. For all three tumour markers, increased concentrations correlated increased tumour size and nodal involvement. Significantly higher serum TK1 levels were found in patients with advanced disease (p?<?0.0001) and TK1 levels also correlated with disease-specific survival (DSS, p?<?0.07). The combined data set of the three markers?? data from three markers increased the diagnostic sensitivity to 90?%. The serum marker analysis for CEA, CA 15.3, and S-TK1 concentrations is shown to be a useful tool for identification of malignant cases in our BC population and for the prognostic evaluation of patients with primary BC. Increased concentrations of the markers were also observed to be higher in patients with advanced tumours and indicative of the development of distant metastasis.     

A re-evaluation of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as a serum marker for breast cancer: a prospective longitudinal study.

PURPOSE: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is still a widely used test for monitoring breast cancer, although recent reports discourage its routine use because of low sensitivity. This is a prospective study evaluating the efficacy of CEA and CA 15.3 in monitoring breast cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Serum CEA and CA 15.3 were measured in 2191 patients with either benign (n = 738) or malignant (n = 1453) breast diseases. Five hundred and forty-nine patients were monitored during postsurgical follow-up for either a minimum of 5 years or until time of recurrence. Fifty-three patients with metastases were also monitored during chemotherapy. RESULTS: Elevated CEA and CA 15.3 levels were found in 16.7% and 33.0% of patients, respectively. CEA sensitivity rose to 41.3% and CA 15.3 sensitivity rose to 80.8% in metastatic patients. The adjunct of CEA increased the CA 15.3 sensitivity by 6% in the overall population and by only 2.1% for patients with metastases. During postsurgical follow-up, CEA was elevated in 38.0% and CA 15.3 in 70.2% of patients with recurrence. The combination of CEA and CA 15.3 increased the overall sensitivity by only 1.4%. Longitudinal monitoring of 53 metastatic patients undergoing chemotherapy demonstrated that, when positive, both CEA and CA 15.3 paralleled response to treatment, although CA 15.3 was a significantly more powerful marker for determining response to treatment. The cost effectiveness ratio of CEA was clearly less favorable than that of CA 15.3. CONCLUSIONS: CEA monitoring should be considered an expensive and inefficient method of follow-up evaluation for breast cancer patients, and it provides no additional value when used in combination with CA 15.3.     

Use of serial carcinoembryonic antigen and CA 15.3 assays in detecting relapses in breast cancer patients

Summary To evaluate the utility of CEA and CA 15.3 for early diagnosis of recurrence, serial serum determinations of both antigens were performed in 1023 patients (follow-up: 1–10 years, mean 6.2 years) with primary breast cancer (CA 15.3 in 533 cases) and no evidence of residual disease (NED) after radical treatment (radical mastectomy or simple mastectomy and radiotherapy). 246 patients developed metastases during follow-up.Results: CEA and CA 15.3 were elevated (> 10 ng/ml or > 60 U/ml, respectively) prior to diagnosis in 40% (98/246) and 41% (37/91) of the patients with recurrence, with a lead time of 4.9 ± 2.2 and 4.2 ± 2.3 months, respectively. When patients with locoregional recurrences were excluded, sensitivity improved to 46% (CEA) and 54% (CA 15.3), and to 64% with both tumor markers (CEA and/or CA 15.3). Higher levels of both CEA and CA 15.3 at diagnosis of recurrence, higher sensitivity in early diagnosis of relapse, and a higher lead time were found in ER+ (CEA) or PgR+ patients (CA 15.3) than in those that were negative for these receptors in the primary tumor (p < 0.001). Specificity of the tumor markers was 99% for both CEA (777 NED patients) and for CA 15.3 (444 NED patients), respectively. In conclusion, CEA and CA 15.3 are useful tools for early diagnosis of metastases, mainly in those patients with ER+ or PR+ tumors.     

Assessment of circulating tumor cells and serum markers for progression-free survival prediction in metastatic breast cancer: a prospective observational study

Introduction

Circulating tumor cells (CTC) have been recently proposed as a new dynamic blood marker whose positivity at baseline is a prognostic factor and whose changes under treatment are correlated with progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic breast cancer patients. However, serum marker levels are also used for the same purpose, and no clear comparison has been reported to date.

Methods

The IC 2006-04 enrolled prospectively 267 metastatic breast cancer patients treated by first line chemotherapy and confirmed that CTC levels are an independent prognostic factor for PFS and overall survival (OS). A secondary pre-planned endpoint was to compare prospectively the positivity rates and the value of CTC (CellSearch^®), of serum tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen 15.3 (CA 15-3), CYFRA 21-1), and of serum non-tumor markers (lactate deshydrogenase (LDH), alkaline phosphatase (ALP)) at baseline and under treatment for PFS prediction, independently from the other known prognostic factors, using univariate analyses and concordance indexes.

Results

A total of 90% of the patients had at least one elevated blood marker. Blood markers were correlated with poor performance status, high number of metastatic sites and with each other. In particular, CYFRA 21-1, a marker usually used in lung cancer, was elevated in 65% of patients. A total of 86% of patients had either CA 15-3 and/or CYFRA 21-1 elevated at baseline. Each serum marker was associated, when elevated at baseline, with a significantly shorter PFS. Serum marker changes during treatment, assessed either between baseline and week 3 or between baseline and weeks 6 to 9, were significantly associated with PFS, as reported for CTC. Concordance indexes comparison showed no clear superiority of any of the serum marker or CTC for PFS prediction.

Conclusions

For the purpose of PFS prediction by measuring blood marker changes during treatment, currently available blood-derived markers (CTC and serum markers) had globally similar performances. Besides CEA and CA 15-3, CYFRA 21-1 is commonly elevated in metastatic breast cancer and has a strong prognostic value.     

Circulating immunogenic cell death biomarkers HMGB1 and RAGE in breast cancer patients during neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients aims at preoperative reduction of tumor volume for better resection results and prognosis. As not all patients respond to neoadjuvant therapy, predictive biomarkers are needed for more efficient individual management. In prospectively collected sera of 51 consecutive locally confined breast cancer (LBC) patients receiving preoperative, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, value level kinetics of soluble high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), soluble receptor for advanced glycation end products (sRAGE) as well as the established breast cancer biomarkers CA 15–3 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) were investigated and correlated with therapy response objectified by pathological staging at surgery. In addition, biomarkers were measured in sera of 30 healthy controls (HC), 13 patients with benign breast diseases, and 28 metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. Pretherapeutic levels of soluble HMGB1 were decreased in MBC, while sRAGE was already decreased in LBC. In contrast, CA 15–3 and CEA were strongly elevated in MBC, but not in LBC. Combination of sRAGE and CA 15–3 enabled best discrimination of LBC from HC (AUC 78.2 %; sens 58 % at 95 % spec), while CA15-3 and CEA discriminated best between MBC and all controls (AUC 90.9 %; sens 70 % at 95 % spec). In LBC patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, nine patients achieved complete remission (CR), 29 achieved partial remission (PR), while 13 had no change of disease (NC). NC patients tended to have higher HMGB1 and lower sRAGE levels before therapy onset (p?=?0.056 and p?=?0.054), while CA 15–3 and CEA did not predict therapeutic outcome. Furthermore, kinetics of HMGB1 during therapy correlated with efficacy of the treatment (p?=?0.053). Markers of immunogenic cell death are valuable for the diagnosis of MBC and early estimation of response to neoadjuvant therapy in LBC patients.     

Comparison of TPS with CEA and CA 15.3 in follow-up of Chinese breast cancer patients

Serum levels of serum tissue polypeptide specific antigen (TPS) were compared with levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and CA 15.3 with regards to their clinical values in Chinese breast cancer patients. A total of 81 patients were recruited and followed-up prospectively for disease recurrence and death. The median of follow-up was 33.1 months. CEA and CA15.3 correlated with the prognostic factors associated with poor prognosis. CA15.3 was associated with disease-free survival and overall survival. Multivariate analyses showed that the pre-operational serum CA15.3 level was an independent prognostic factor for disease-free survival. However, TPS was associated with neither prognostic factors nor patient survival. In conclusion, TPS is not a good serum tumor marker for breast cancer of Chinese patients, compared with CEA and CA 15.3.     

Diagnostic value of mucin-like carcinoma-associated antigen (MCA) in breast cancer

The diagnostic value of mucin-like carcinoma-associated antigen (MCA) was compared to that of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and/or CA 15.3 in patients with breast cancer. A total of 368 patients with breast cancer were studied, of whom 253 were free of metastases, whereas 94 had either skeletal or visceral metastases or diffuse metastatic disease. The diagnostic sensitivity of MCA proved to be comparable to that of CA 15.3 and superior to that of CEA in patients with metastatic breast cancer. In contrast, the specificity of MCA was superior to that of CA 15.3. Finally, the diagnostic sensitivity of each of the tested tumour markers, i.e. MCA, CEA and CA 15.3, could be improved by their combined use. We conclude that MCA, either alone or in combination with CA 15.3 and CEA, can improve the monitoring of disease progression in patients with metastatic breast cancer.     

Value of CA 15.3 in breast cancer and comparison with CEA and TPA: A study of specificity in disease-free follow-up patients and sensitivity in patients at diagnosis of the first metastasis

Summary The specificity and sensitivity of a tumor marker (TM) are important in establishing its potential clinical utility for a specific type of neoplasm. CA 15.3 is a TM specific for breast cancer; it is defined by two monoclonal antibodies (DF3 and 115D8), whose specificity, in disease-free follow-up patients, and sensitivity, in patients at diagnosis of first metastasis, have been evaluated in the present study and compared with those of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA).Serum concentrations of all three TMs were quantified in 618 individuals: 80 healthy controls, 421 patients with local breast cancer who became free of disease following locoregional treatment, and 117 patients with disseminated disease at diagnosis of metastasis. Radioimmunoassay (RIA) was the method employed, and the cut-off values obtained were 30 U/ml for CA 15.3, 5 ng/ml for CEA, and 120 U/I for TPA. The results showed CA 15.3 and CEA specificities to be analogous (95.7 and 95.5%, respectively). TPA specificity (81.9%) was lower (p<0.001). During adjuvant therapy, CA 15.3 serum levels were seen to increase, followed by a normalization of concentration after terminating therapy. On the other hand, CA 15.3 and TPA sensitivities (64.1 and 67.5%, respectively) were greater than for CEA (44.4%, p<0.01).It is concluded that CA 15.3 is a useful TM for breast cancer, as it offers a greater sensitivity than CEA and a higher specificity than TPA. Combining CA 15.3 and CEA fails to increase CA 15.3 sensitivity, while combining CA 15.3 with TPA increases false-positives and so likewise offers no additional benefit.     

Midkine in plasma as a novel breast cancer marker

Midkine, a heparin-binding growth factor, is up-regulated in many types of cancer. The aim of this study was to measure plasma midkine levels in patients with breast cancer and to assess its clinical significance. We examined plasma midkine levels in 95 healthy volunteers, 11 patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 111 patients with primary invasive breast cancer without distant metastasis (PIBC), and 25 patients with distant metastatic breast cancer (MBC), using an automatic immunoasssay analyzer (TOSOH AIA system). In PIBC, we studied the correlation between plasma midkine levels and clinicopathological factors. Immunoreactive midkine was detectable in the plasma of healthy volunteers, and a cut-off level of 750 pg/mL was established. In breast cancer patients, plasma midkine levels were increased above normal values. These elevated levels of midkine were seen in one (9.1%) of 11 patients with DCIS, 36 (32.4%) of 111 patients with PIBC, and 16 (64.0%) of 25 patients with MBC. Increased levels of midkine were correlated with menopausal status ( P  = 0.0497) and nuclear grade ( P  = 0.0343) in PIBC. Cancer detection rates based on midkine levels were higher than those based on three conventional markers including CA15-3 ( P  < 0.0001), CEA ( P  = 0.0077), and NCCST-439 ( P  < 0.0001). Detection rates of breast cancer using a combination of two conventional tumor markers (CA15-3/CEA, CA15-3/NCCST-439, or CEA/NCCST-439) with midkine is significantly higher than those using combination of three conventional tumor markers. Midkine may be a useful novel tumor marker for detection of breast cancer, superior to conventional tumor markers. ( Cancer Sci 2009; 100: 1735–1739)     

Gastric Cancer: Tumor Markers as Predictive Factors for Preoperative Staging

Introduction

CEA, CA 19-9, and CA 72-4 are tumor markers commonly used for gastric neoplasms. The clinical importance of the preoperative serum levels of these tumor markers in gastric cancer (GC) is not well known. Even less is known about the predictive value of the preoperative serum levels of the ??-subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG??).

Aims and Methods

We designed a prospective study to evaluate the significance of the preoperative values of these tumor markers in GC. The serum levels that we considered as positive are as follows: CA 72-4, >4 U/ml; CEA, >5?ng/ml; CA 19-9, >37 U/ml; hCG??-free subunit, <5 mUI/ml. These levels were correlated by pathological stage, lymph node status, and histology.

Results

We studied 66 (42 male and 24 female) patients prospectively. Twenty-seven patients had stage I and stage II GCs, while 39 patients had stage III and stage IV GCs. Two patients tested positive for hCG??. The preoperative positivity rates of CA 72-4 in patients at the early stages (stages I and II) and in patients with advanced disease (stages III and IV) were 0 and 28 patients, respectively. The preoperative positivity rates of CEA/CA 19.9 were 0/5 and 7/12 patients in early stages and advanced disease, respectively. The serum levels of these markers were not correlated with the histological type or tumoral grade of GC.

Conclusion

The preoperative serum level of CA 72-4 has the best predictive value in indicating advanced disease in patients diagnosed with GC. A combination of these four markers is better in predicting this situation.     

c-erbB-2 oncoprotein, CEA, and CA 15.3 in patients with breast cancer: prognostic value

The diagnostic value of a new tumor marker, c-erbB-2, was studied in the sera of 50 healthy subjects, 58 patients with benign breast diseases, and 413 patients with breast cancer (186 locoregional, 185 with advanced disease, and 42 with no evidence of disease). Using 15 U/ml as the cut-off, no healthy subjects or patients with benign diseases and only 2.4% of no evidence of disease patients had elevated serum levels. Abnormal c-erbB-2 levels were found in 29% (101/370) of the patients with breast carcinoma (locoregional 9%, metastases 45.4%). CEA (cut-off 5 U/ml) and CA 15.3 (cut-off 35 U/ml) sensitivity was 18% and 16% in patients with locoregional disease and 61% and 70% in those patients with advanced disease, respectively. A trend toward higher serum levels of all three tumor markers in patients with nodal involvement or greater tumor size was found, but was statistically significant only with CEA (p < 0.01). By contrast, c-erbB-2 was related to steroid receptors, in both locoregional and metastatic tumors. When the prognostic value of these markers was evaluated, patients with abnormally high presurgical CEA and c-erbB-2 had a worse prognosis than those patients with normal values, in both node-negative (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001, respectively) and node-positive patients (p < 0.556 and p < 0.001, respectively). By contrast, no relationship was found between CA 15.3 values and prognosis. Multivariate analysis showed that CEA and c-erbB-2 were also prognostic factors. The correlation between serum and tissue levels of c-erbB-2 was studied in the tumors of 161 patients. Significantly higher c-erbB-2 serum levels were found in patients with overexpression in tissue by immunohistochemistry, in both locoregional and advanced disease (p=0.0001). Serum concentrations in patients with advanced disease were related to the site of recurrence, with significantly higher values in patients with metastases (mainly in those with liver metastases) than in those with locoregional recurrence. In summary, c-erbB-2 serum levels seem to be a useful tumor marker in the prognosis of patients with breast cancer. Using all three tumor markers, sensitivity was 35% in patients with locoregional breast cancer and 88% in patients with recurrence.     

糖类抗原15-3、癌胚抗原、环氧合酶-2联合检测在乳腺癌诊断中的应用

 目的　探讨糖类抗原15-3（CA15-3）、癌胚抗原（CEA）、环氧合酶-2（COX-2）联合检测对乳腺癌早期诊断的应用价值。方法　选择经影像学和病理学诊断为乳腺癌患者53例,同时选择同期良性乳腺病患者61例及同期健康体检者68名,采用电化学发光技术与酶联免疫吸附法（ELISA）分别检测血清CA15-3、CEA、COX-2水平。结果　乳腺癌组CA15-3、CEA、COX-2血清水平分别为（34.67±13.20）U／ml、（7.38±3.87）ng／ml、（43.25±10.87）ng／ml,与良性乳腺病组和健康对照组血清含量比较差异具有统计学意义（均P＜0.01）;CA15-3、CEA、COX-2联合检测将各项指标单独检测的阳性检出率提高至84.9 %（45／53）,其敏感度提高至84.9 %,准确度提高至91.2 %。结论　三项肿瘤标志物联合应用能弥补单项肿瘤标志物临床应用的不足,对提高乳腺癌阳性检出率具有一定意义。     

Serum levels of LDH,CEA, and CA19-9 have prognostic roles on survival in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine-based chemotherapy

Purpose

Serum LDH, CEA, and CA19-9 levels are important tumor markers in pancreatic cancer. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical significance of serum LDH, CEA, and CA19-9 levels in metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) receiving gemcitabine-based chemotherapy.

Materials and methods

In this retrospective study, we analyzed the outcome of 196 MPC patients who are treated with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in our clinic.

Results

Positivity rates of serum LDH, CEA, and CA19-9 were 22, 40, and 83 %, respectively. Likewise, the rates of very high serum levels of tumor markers were correlated with these positivity rates (9 % for LDH, 30 % for CEA, and 55 % for CA19-9). The serum LDH levels were significantly higher in older patients (p = 0.05) and also in the patients with large tumors (p = 0.05), hepatic metastasis (p = 0.01), hypoalbuminemia (p = 0.01), and unresponsive to chemotherapy (p = 0.04). However, no correlation was found between both serum CEA and CA19-9 levels and possible prognostic factors (p > 0.05). The significant relationships were found between the serum levels of CEA and CA19-9 (r _s = 0.24, p = 0.004), and serum LDH and CEA (r _s = 0.193, p = 0.02). But, there was no correlation between serum LDH and CA19-9 levels (p = 0.39). One-year overall survival rate was 12.8 % (95 % CI 8–18). Increased serum levels of all the tumor markers significantly had adverse affect on survival (p = 0.001 for LDH, p = 0.002 for CEA, and p = 0.007 for CA19-9). However, no difference was observed in between high levels and very high levels of serum markers for all tumor markers (p > 0.05). Patients with normal serum levels of all three tumor markers had better outcome than others (p = 0.002) and those with normal serum LDH and CEA levels (whatever CA19-9) levels had associated with better survival compared with other possible alternatives (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Serum levels of LDH, CEA, and CA19-9 had significant affect on survival in MPC patients.     

Combined measurement of serum sialyl Lewis X with serum CA15-3 in breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND: Serum CA15-3 has been one of the most reliable tumor markers used in monitoring breast cancer patients; however, its sensitivity in detecting metastases is limited. To increase its sensitivity, the combined measurement of other tumor markers with CA15-3 was investigated. METHODS: Serum CA15-3, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and sialyl Lewis X (CSLEX) were simultaneously measured in a prospective series of 455 postoperative breast cancer patients with or without metastasis. The diagnostic parameters sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy for detecting metastases were compared. The correlation of values between pairs of tumor markers was analyzed. The efficacy of combined measurement of two different tumor markers was also evaluated. RESULTS: The sensitivity for detecting metastases was 61.5, 56.9 and 52.3%; specificity was 97.2, 93.6 and 96.2%; PPV was 78.4, 59.7 and 69.4%; NPV was 93.8, 92.9 and 92.4%; and accuracy was 92.1, 88.8 and 89.9% for CA15-3, CEA and CSLEX, respectively. The values for CA15-3 were significantly correlated with those for CEA (P < 0.001) but not those for CSLEX. The combined measurement of CSLEX and CA15-3 increased the sensitivity by 17.0% but that of CEA and CA15-3 increased the sensitivity by only 10.8%. All diagnostic parameters for the combined measurement of CSLEX and CA15-3 were higher than those for the combined measurement of CEA and CA15-3. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that CSLEX may be more useful than CEA in combination with CA15-3 in monitoring breast cancer patients. The results of this study suggest that CSLEX may be more useful than CEA in combination with CA15-3 in monitoring breast cancer patients.     

Isoenzymes of alkaline and acid phosphatases as bones metastasis marker in breast cancer patients

Bone alkaline phosphatase (B-ALP) and tartrate resistant acid phosphatase (TR-ACP) are markers of osteoblastic and osteoclastic activities respectively. During a period of up to two years, these isoenzymes have been assayed in the sera of 191 breast cancer patients; 80 had bone metastases (BM). In BM bearing patients, B-ALP activity was 261 IU/l and 63 IU/l for patients without BM; TR-ACP was respectively 6.6 and 3.3 IU/l. Specificity and sensitivity were calculated according to several criteria. These isoenzyme serum levels were well correlated with those of two breast cancer markers (CEA and CA15.3) and radiograph.     

术前CEA和CA15-3对乳腺癌的临床应用价值

目的:探讨术前CEA和CA15-3对乳腺癌早期诊断的价值及其与临床病理因素的相关性。方法:回顾性分析2000年-2005年1028例乳腺癌患者的CEA、CA15-3水平以及与临床病理因素的关系。结果:CEA、CA15-3联合检测、CA15-3及CEA单独检测对乳腺癌的早期诊断敏感性均低,分别为20.9%、15.3%、9.5%;CA15-3和CEA联合检测在肝、骨和肺转移的阳性率则分别为86.7%、90.9%、45.5%(P=0.030),CA15-3、CEA单独检测对转移病灶的敏感性无差异(P均>0.05)。CEA、CA15-3单独检测及CEA、CA15-3联合检测的阳性率与乳腺癌的临床分期、T分期、N分期呈正相关性,(P均<0.001)。CEA单独检测的阳性率与年龄>45岁、绝经后、ER阴性、PR阴性、Her2阳性有显著相关性(P均<0.05);除CEA、CA15-3联合检测的阳性率与Her2阳性呈正相关,联合检测及CA15-3单独检测与其他因素无相关性。结论:术前CEA和CA15-3对乳腺癌的早期诊断缺乏敏感性,但可作为预测预后的重要指标。     

CA15-3和CEA对术后乳腺癌病人随访的临床意义

[目的]探讨肿瘤标记物CA15-3和CEA对术后乳腺癌病人随访的临床意义.[方法]采用放射免疫分析法(RIA)分别测定88例术后乳腺癌病人血清CA15-3、CEA的值.[结果]CA15-3对判断有、无肿瘤负荷(局部复发或远处转移)无显著性差异(P＞0.1),CEA有显著性差异(P＜0.001).两指标联合检测对判别是局部复发,还是远处转移均无显著性差异(P＞0.1).[结论] CEA可作为术后病人常规随访指标,而不推荐常规检查CA15-3.