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.     

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.     

Diagnostic value of CYFRA 21-1, CEA, CA 19-9, CA 15-3, and CA 125 assays in pleural effusions: analysis of 116 cases and review of the literature

Levels of tumor markers in pleural effusions may help to establish the diagnosis of pleural malignancy, but the precise diagnostic value of each marker remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic value of five common pleural fluid tumor markers, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cytokeratin fragment (CYFRA) 21-1, cancer antigen (CA) 15-3, CA 19-9, and CA 125, and to review the literature from the past 15 years. Pleural fluid samples were collected prospectively from 116 patients and assayed for CEA, CYFRA 21-1, CA 15-3, CA 19-9, and CA 125 levels. A MEDLINE search of the English-language literature from the past 15 years was also done. Effusions were classified as benign or malignant on the basis of their definitive pathologic or cytologic diagnoses. The levels of all pleural tumor markers were statistically significantly higher in the malignant group than in the benign group. The marker with the highest accuracy was CEA (85.3%); CA 15-3, CYFRA 21-1, and CA 19-9 had similar accuracies (75.2%, 72.4%, and 71.5%, respectively), and CA 125 had the lowest accuracy (40.5%). On univariate analysis, tumor-marker combinations did not result in a greater accuracy than that of CEA alone. On multivariate logistic regression, CA 15-3 and CYFRA 21-1 were significant predictors of malignancy. Among the nine reports in the literature comparing 11 different tumor markers, CEA, CA 15-3, and CYFRA 21-1 yielded the best results. We conclude that pleural fluid analysis should include CEA for the diagnosis of malignancy. CA 15-3 and CYFRA 21-1 may serve as alternative options.     

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。     

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.     

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。     

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.     

肿瘤标志物对癌性胸腔积液诊断的价值

目的探讨肿瘤标志物在癌性胸腔积液诊断中的价值。方法应用免疫放射分析法对108例癌性胸腔积液和90例良性胸腔积液的CYFRA21-1、CEA、NSE和CA153含量进行检测,并对结果进行比较分析。结果癌性胸腔积液中四种肿瘤标志物指标明显高于良性组(P<0.01),四项联检后的敏感性、特异性及准确性明显升高。结论肿瘤标志物CYFRA21-1、CEA、NSE和CA153四项联检在癌性胸腔积液的诊断中具有明确的意义。     

Diagnostic value of tumor markers for differentiating malignant and benign pleural effusions of Iranian patients

In order to evaluate the diagnostic yield of tumor markers in differentiating malignant and benign pleural effusions, we carried out a prospective study in a group of Iranian people. Pleural and serum levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 15-3 (CA15-3), neuron-specific enolase (NSE) and cancer antigen 125 (CA 125) were assayed prospectively in patients with pleural effusion (40 malignant and 37 benign). The highest sensitivity was obtained with a combination of CA 15-3 in serum, and CA 15-3 and CEA in pleural fluid (80%), also with combination of CA 15-3 in serum, and CA 15-3, NSE and CEA in pleural fluid (80%). The highest specificity was obtained with combination of CA 15-3 in serum, and CA 15-3 and NSE in pleural fluid (100%), and also with combination of CA 15-3 in serum, and CA 15-3, NSE and CEA in pleural fluid (100%).     

Evaluation of pleural CYFRA 21-1 and carcinoembryonic antigen in the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions.

CYFRA 21-1 assay, measuring cytokeratin 19 fragments, was compared with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assay, as an addition to cytological analysis for the diagnosis of malignant effusions. Both markers were determined with commercial enzyme immunoassays in pleural fluid from 196 patients. Cytological analysis and/or pleural biopsy confirmed the malignant origin of the effusion in 99 patients (76 carcinomas, nine pleural mesotheliomas and 14 non-epithelial malignancies). Effusions were confirmed as benign in 97 patients (33 cardiac failures, 39 infectious diseases--including 12 tuberculosis-- and 25 miscellaneous effusions). Both markers were significantly higher in malignant than in benign effusions. All the patients with non-epithelial malignancies presented CYFRA and CEA values lower than the 95% diagnostic specificity thresholds (100 and 6 ng ml(-1) respectively). The diagnostic sensitivity in the group of carcinomas and mesotheliomas was similar for CYFRA (58.8%) and CEA (64.7%). However, CEA had a significantly higher sensitivity in carcinomas (72.4% vs 55.3%), while CYFRA had a clearly higher sensitivity in mesotheliomas (89.9% vs 0%). Interestingly, 12 out of the 16 malignant effusions with a negative cytology were CEA and/or CYFRA positive. Regarding their high diagnostic sensitivity and their complementarity, CEA and CYFRA appear to be very useful for the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions when cytology is negative.     

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。     

Clinical Observations on the Association Between Diagnosis of Lung Cancer and Serum Tumor Markers in Combination

Objective: To evaluate the association of a diagnosis of lung cancer and combined detection of serumcarcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrateantigen 19-9 (CA19-9), neuron specific enolase (NSE) as well asthe cytokeratin 19 fragment (CYFRA21-1). Methods: Serum CEA, CA19-9, NSE and CYFRA21-1 were assessedin 150 patients with lung cancer, 100 patients with benign lung disease and 100 normal control subjects, anddifferences of expression were compared in each group, and joint effects of these tumor markers in the diagnosisof lung cancer were analyzed. Results: Serum CEA, CA19-9, NSE and CYFRA21-1 in patients with lung cancerwere significantly higher than those with benign lung disease and normal controls (p<0.01). It is suggested thatthese four tumor markers combined together could produce a positive detection rate of 90.2%, significantlyhigher than that of any single test. Conclusion: Combination detection of CEA, CA19-9, NSE and CYFRA21-1could significantly improve the sensitivity and specificity in diagnosis of lung cancer, and could be important inearly detection.     

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.     

Evaluation of cytokeratin 19 fragment (CYFRA 21-1) as a tumor marker in malignant pleural effusion

BACKGROUND: The aim was to investigate the diagnostic utility of CYFRA 21-1 (cytokeratin 19 fragment) as a tumor marker in pleural effusion and evaluate the value of combining CYFRA 21-1 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assays as a diagnostic aid in the malignant pleural effusion. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-six patients (72 malignant and 54 benign pleural effusion) were included in this retrospective study. The effusion levels of CYFRA 21-1 and CEA were measured using radioimmunometric assay. RESULTS: The median values of CYFRA 21-1 in benign and malignant pleural effusion are 15 and 70 ng/ml, respectively. Using a cut-off value of 50 ng/ml, defined at 94% specificity, the diagnostic sensitivity of CYFRA 21-1 for non-small cell lung carcinoma (n = 61), squamous cell carcinoma (n = 21), adenocarcinoma (n = 40) and small cell lung cancer (n = 11) was 64, 71, 60 and 18%, respectively. Regardless of cell types, the diagnostic sensitivity of CYFRA 21-1 and CEA in malignant pleural effusion (n = 72) was 57 and 60%, respectively (cut-off value of 10 ng/ml in CEA assay). Combining CEA with CYFRA 21-1, the diagnostic sensitivity may increase up to 72%, which was defined at 89% specificity. CONCLUSION: CYFRA 21-1 assay may be a useful tumor marker for discriminating benign from malignant pleural effusion, especially in those of non-small cell lung cancer. The combined use of CEA and CYFRA 21-1 assay in the malignant effusion may increase the diagnostic yield compared with CEA or CYFRA 21-1 alone.     

CEA,AFP, CA125, CA153 and CA199 in Malignant Pleural Effusions Predict the Cause

Determination of the cause of malignant pleural effusions is important for treatment and management,especially in cases of unknown primaries. There are limited biomarkers available for prediction of the cause ofmalignant pleural effusion in clinical practice. Hence, we evaluated pleural levels of five tumor biomarkers (CEA,AFP, CA125, CA153 and CA199) in predicting the cause of malignant pleural effusion in a retrospective study.Kruskal-Wallis or Mann-Whitney U tests were carried out to compare levels of tumor markers in pleural effusionamong different forms of neoplasia - lung squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or small cell carcinoma,mesothelioma, breast cancer, lymphoma/leukemia and miscellaneous. Receiver operator characteristic analysiswas performed to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of biomarkers. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed significantdifferences in levels of pleural effusion CEA (P<0.01), AFP (P<0.01), CA153 (P<0.01) and CA199 (P<0.01), butnot CA125 (P>0.05), among the seven groups. Receiver operator characteristic analysis showed that, comparedwith other four tumor markers, CA153 was the best biomarker in diagnosing malignant pleural effusions of lungadenocarcinoma (area under curve (AUC): 0.838 (95%confidence interval: 0.787, 0.888); cut-off value: 10.2U/ml; sensitivity: 73.2% (64.4-80.8)%, specificity: 85.2% (77.8-90.8)%), lung squamous cell carcinoma (AUC:0.716 (0.652, 0.780); cut-off value: 14.2U/ml; sensitivity: 57.6% (50.7-64.3)%, specificity: 91.2% (76.3-98.0)%),and small-cell lung cancer (AUC: 0.812 (0.740, 0.884); cut-off value: 9.7U/ml; sensitivity: 61.5% (55.0-67.8)%,specificity: 94.1% (71.2-99.0)%); CEA was the best biomarker in diagnosing MPEs of mesothelioma (AUC:0.726 (0.593, 0.858); cut-off value: 1.43ng/ml; sensitivity: 83.7% (78.3-88.2)%, specificity: 61.1% (35.8-82.6)%)and lymphoma/leukemia (AUC: 0.923 (0.872, 0.974); cut-off value: 1.71ng/ml; sensitivity: 82.8% (77.4-87.3)%,specificity: 92.3% (63.9-98.7)%). Thus CA153 and CEA appear to be good biomarkers in diagnosing differentcauses of malignant pleural effusion. Our findings implied that the two tumor markers may improve the diagnosisand treatment for effusions of unknown primaries.     

Diagnostic Value of Neuron-Specific Enolase (NSE) and Cancer Antigen 15-3 (CA 15-3) in the Diagnosis of Pleural Effusions

Introduction: Pleural effusion diagnosis plays an important role in determining treatment strategies. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic capacity of tumor markers CA 15-3 and NSE solely or in combination in differentiating the nature of pleural fluid. Methods and Materials: In this cross-sectional study we evaluated 93 patients with pleural effusions (44 malignant and 49 benign). NSE and CA 15-3 serum and pleural levels were measured simultaneously using immunoenzyme assay kits. Diagnosis was established on the basis of cytological study. Results: Sensitivity and specificity of CA 15-3 serum and pleural level measurement were 70.4%, 49.0%, and 79.5% and 49.0%, respectively. Serum NSE levels had 75.0% sensitivity and 69.4% specificity while the respective pleural figures were 75.0% and 73.5%. The combination of NSE and CA 15-3 serum and pleural levels had the highest sensitivity (93.2%), although combined serum levels had the lowest sensitivity (47.7%). With an accuracy of 74.2%, pleural levels of NSE had the highest diagnostic potential. Conclusion: Measuring NSE and CA 15-3 tumor markers is a suitable approach to distinguish the nature of pleural effusions, with NSE pleural levels demonstrating the highest diagnostic accuracy.     

CT影像学特征与肿瘤特异性标志物联合诊断肺癌的价值

目的:探讨CT影像学特征与肿瘤特异性标志物联合诊断肺癌的价值。方法:选取我院于2016年3月至2017年9月收治的老年肺癌患者97例作为观察组;选取我院于2016年3月至2017年9月健康体检者68例作为对照组。老年肺癌患者均采用SIEMENS双源CT（Definition Flash）胸部扫描。取患者血清标本,采用电化学发光法测定血清特异性标志物水平变化,包括癌胚抗原（CEA）、神经元特异烯醇化酶（NSE）、癌抗原19-9（CA19-9）、细胞角蛋白21-1（CYFRA21-1）。结果:观察组血清CEA、NSE、CA19-9和CYFRA21-1含量高于对照组,且有统计学差异（P<0.05）;周围型肺癌组和中央型肺癌组血清CEA、NSE、CA19-9和CYFRA21-1含量变化无统计学差异（P>0.05）;CT扫描与血清肿瘤特异性标志物联合诊断灵敏度和特异度高于CT扫描及血清肿瘤特异性标志物。结论:CT影像学特征与肿瘤特异性标志物联合诊断肺癌的灵敏度和特异度高,值得临床研究。     

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 72-4 radioimmunoassay in the diagnosis of malignant effusions. Comparison of various tumor markers

We evaluated the utility of the CA 72-4, CEA, CA 125, CA 19-9 and CA 15-3 radioimmunoassays for the detection of tumor-associated antigens (TAAs) in effusions of malignant vs. benign origin. Fluids were obtained from 51 patients with adenocarcinomas, 27 with non-epithelial malignancies, and 68 with benign disorders. The CA 72-4 radioimmunoassay (cut-off value 8.5 U/ml) detected the TAG-72 antigen in 51% of adenocarcinoma patients' effusions, while only 1 of 68 benign specimens had an elevated TAG-72 level. Similarly, CEA levels above 5 ng/ml were found in 55% of the fluids from patients with adenocarcinoma and 3.2% of effusions from patients with benign disease. CA 19-9 (cut-off value 37 U/ml) exhibited a lower degree of sensitivity, with positive values in 23.5% of the effusions due to adenocarcinomas and in 4.5% of the effusions due to benign disease. At a cut-off value of 29 U/ml, CA 15-3 was positive in 49% of fluids from patients with adenocarcinoma and in 3.0% of the benign fluids. The CA 125 RIA failed to show any specificity using the established cut-off value of 35 U/ml, with approximately 80% of all the effusions giving positive results. The specificity of the assay was increased by using a cut-off value of 3000 U/ml, but with a substantial loss in sensitivity (23.5%). Using a combination of the CA 72-4 and CEA RIAs the sensitivity for malignant effusions was increased to 73.5%. No additional improvement in the overall sensitivity was observed when using the CA 72-4 assay in combination with assays for the other markers, except in the case of 1 effusion. We conclude that the CA 72-4 RIA, possibly in combination with other assays such as CEA, may be useful in distinguishing between adenocarcinomatous and benign effusions.