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.     

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.     

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。     

Tumor markers (CEA, CA 125, CYFRA 21-1, SCC and NSE) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer as an aid in histological diagnosis and prognosis. Comparison with the main clinical and pathological prognostic factors.

CEA, CA 125, SCC, CYFRA 21-1 and NSE were prospectively studied in 211 patients with non-small cell lung cancer and compared with clinical parameters (age, sex, Karnofsky Index, symptoms and smoking status), histopathological parameters (stage, histology, tumor size and nodal involvement), biological parameters (LDH and albumin) and the therapy used (surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy). Tumor marker sensitivity was CYFRA 21-1: 76%, CA 125: 55%, CEA: 52%, SCC: 33% and NSE: 22%. One of the tumor markers was abnormally high in 87% of the patients with locoregional disease and in 100% of the patients with metastases. Except for NSE, all tumor markers showed a clear relationship with tumor stage and histology and therefore enabled a better histological diagnosis. Abnormal CEA serum levels were mainly found in adenocarcinomas, CA 125 in large-cell lung cancers (LCLC) and adenocarcinomas and SCC in squamous tumors. Eighty-five percent of the patients with SCC levels >2 ng/ml had squamous tumors. Likewise, CA 125 levels <60 U/ml or CEA <10 ng/ml excluded adenocarcinoma or LCLC with a probability of 82 and 91%, respectively.     

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.     

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.     

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。     

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。     

喉癌患者血清中SCCAg、CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4和CYFRA21-1的检测及意义

目的 分析肿瘤标志物鳞状细胞癌相关抗原(SCCAg)、癌胚抗原(CEA)、糖类抗原19-9(CA19-9)、糖类抗原72-4(CA72-4)和细胞角化素蛋白19片段(CYFRA21-1)在喉癌患者血清中的表达及意义.方法 以接受手术治疗的喉癌患者112例为研究对象,设为观察组,另抽取50例健康体检者为对照组,比较两组患者血清中肿瘤标志物的水平.结果 观察组喉癌患者术前血清中的SCCAg、CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4、CYFRA21-1水平,均显著高于对照组和术后(P<0.05);高～中分化喉癌患者血清肿瘤标志物水平显著低于低分化者(P<0.05);TNM分期Ⅰ～Ⅱ期者血清肿瘤标志物水平显著低于Ⅲ～Ⅳ期者(P<0.05);血清肿瘤标志物SCCAg、CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4、CYFRA21-1中,CYFRA21-1敏感度最高,其次为SCCAg、CEA,CA19-9最低;CA19-9特异度最高,其次为CA72-4、CEA,CYFRA21-1最低;SCCAg+ CYFRA21-1两项联合检测与五项联合检测的敏感度均显著高于单项检测,特异度低于单项检测(P<0.05),五项联合检测的敏感度高于SCCAg+ CYFRA21-1两项联合检测,特异度低于两项联合检测,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 血清肿瘤标志物SCCAg、CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4、CYFRA21-1检测在喉癌患者的早期辅助诊断中具有一定的价值,其中CYFRA21-1和SCCAg的诊断价值最高.     

常用血清肿瘤标志物在可手术肺癌患者预后中的价值

目的 探讨血清CEA、CA125、CA199、NSE、CYFRA21-1和SCC-Ag水平在评估非小细胞肺癌根治手术后的预后价值,以期合理选择术前的检验指标。方法 收集1 851例行肺癌根治手术的患者术前血清肿瘤标志物的检验值、临床病理和随访信息,进行差异及生存分析。结果 CEA、CA125、CA199、CYFRA21-1和SCC-Ag的阳性率在不同病理分期中差异有统计学意义（P<0.001）,Ⅱ和Ⅲ期的患者阳性率明显高于Ⅰ期患者,而NSE差异无统计学意义（P=0.743）。CEA、CA125、CA199、CYFRA21-1阴性组患者的生存率显著高于阳性组（P<0.05）。NSE阴性的患者远期生存率劣于阳性组患者（P=0.033）。SCC-Ag阳性与阴性患者的远期生存率差异无统计学意义（P=0.072）。Cox回归比例风险模型分析发现CEA（HR=1.572, 95%CI: 1.117~2.214, P=0.010）、CA125（HR=2.464, 95%CI:1.610~3.772, P<0.001）和CYFRA21-1（HR=1.445, 95%CI: 1.044~2.000, P=0.027）是评价非小细胞肺癌手术预后的独立危险因素。结论 CEA、CA125和CYFRA21-1在评价非小细胞肺癌手术预后方面有良好的应用价值,而CA199、NSE和SCC-Ag等指标价值有限。     

血清CEA、CA125及CA72-4在胃癌腹膜转移中的临床意义

背景与目的:胃癌腹膜转移多处于疾病终末期,但每种肿瘤标志物在胃癌腹膜转移中的临床意义仍不是很明确.该研究探讨血清肿瘤标志物CEA、CA125及CA72-4在胃癌腹膜转移中的诊断价值及其临床意义.方法:收集延边大学附属医院肿瘤科2008年1月—2013年12月间经影像学、手术和病理学等检查确诊、并接受静脉及腹腔灌注化疗的108例胃癌腹膜转移患者为研究对象,分别于确诊时、每次化疗前检测血清CEA、CA125及CA72-4,分析单独、2或3种肿瘤标志物同时检测在胃癌腹膜转移的诊断敏感性,并分析其与临床病理因素、化疗疗效及生存期之间的相关性.结果:在胃癌腹膜转移患者CEA、CA125和CA72-4的阳性率各为20.4%、46.3%和45.4%,联合CEA/CA125、CEA/CA72-4、CA125/CA72-4及CEA/CA125/CA72-4的阳性率分别为54.7%、52.8%、69.5%和79.6%,3种标志物联合检测明显优于单独检测(P<0.05).CEA、CA125和CA72-4水平均与ECOG分级存在相关性(P<0.05).CA125阳性与腹水有关(P<0.001).CA72-4阳性与卵巢转移相关(P<0.05).确诊时血清CEA、CA125和CA72-4阳性患者中位生存期短于CEA、CA125和CA72-4阴性的患者(P<0.05).在3周期化疗后3种肿瘤标志物较治疗前均下降,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).化疗后CA125下降与腹水量的减少有明显相关性(P<0.05).确诊时肿瘤标志物阳性患者经化疗3个周期后转为阴性的患者生存期明显延长(P<0.001).结论:联合检测血清CEA、CA125和CA72-4可明显提高胃癌腹膜转移的诊断率.     

Clinical Utility of Haptoglobin in Combination with CEA,NSE and CYFRA21-1 for Diagnosis of Lung Cancer

Purpose: To investigate the clinical value in lung cancer of a combination of four serum tumor markers,haptoglobin (Hp), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), neuron specific enolase (NSE) as well as the cytokeratin 19fragment (CYFRA21-1). Materials and Methods: Serum Hp (with immune-turbidimetric method), CEA, NSE,CYFRA21-1 (with chemiluminescence method) level were assessed in 193 patients with lung cancer, 87 patientswith benign lung disease and 150 healthy controls. Differences of expression were compared among groups,and joint effects of these tumor markers for the diagnosis of lung cancer were analyzed. Results: Serum tumormarker levels in patients with lung cancer were obviously higher than those with benign lung disease and normalcontrols (p<0.01). The sensitivities of Hp, CEA, NSE and CYFRA21-1 were 43.5%, 40.9%, 23.3% and 41.5%,with specificities of 90.7%, 99.2%, 97.9% and 97.9%. Four tumor markers combined together could produce apositive detection rate of 85.0%, significantly higher than that of any single test. With squamous carcinomas, thepositive detection rates with Hp and CYFRA21-1 were higher than that of other markers. In the adenocarcinomacase , the positive detection rate of CEA was higher than that of other markers. For small cell carcinomas, thepositive detection rate of NSE was highest. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCROC) ofHp in squamous carcinoma (0.805) was higher than in adenocarcinoma (0.664) and small cell carcinoma (0.665).Conclusions: Hp can be used as a new serum tumor marker for lung cancer. Combination detection of Hp, CEA,NSE and CYFRA21-1 could significantly improve the sensitivity and specificity in diagnosis of lung cancer, andcould be useful for pathological typing.     

血清肿瘤标志物CEA、CA19-9和CA72-4在胃癌术后监测中的意义

目的研究血清肿瘤标志物CEA、CA19—9和CA72—4在胃癌术后复发、转移监测中的意义。方法采用电化学发光法检测228例手术后胃癌患者血清CEA、CA19—9和CA72—4含量;并结合临床及随访资料进行分析。结果胃癌术后复发、转移患者CEA、CA19—9和CA72—4的含量和阳性率均显著高于未发生复发、转移患者。术后复发、转移的胃癌患者血清CEA、CA19—9和CA72—4检测灵敏度和特异度分别为46．2％和94．7％,52．3％和97．4％,47．1％和90．6％。结论血清CEA、CA19—9和CA72-4升高与胃癌复发、转移密切相关,在术后随访过程中检测血清肿瘤标志物有助于早期诊断胃癌复发、转移。     

5种肿瘤标志物联合检测在口腔鳞状细胞癌中的诊断价值

目的:通过检测血清肿瘤标志物（SCC-Ag、CYFRA21-1、CEA、CA125、NSE）探讨联合检测对口腔鳞状细胞癌(oral squamous cell carcinoma,OSCC)的临床诊断意义及诊断效能。方法:收集2015年1月至2018年1月就诊于新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院口腔颌面外科的OSCC患者60例,非OSCC恶性肿瘤患者60例,同期健康体检者60例作为正常组,均抽取空腹外周血2 ml,检测SCC-Ag、CYFRA21-1、CEA、CA125、NSE浓度。结果:OSCC患者的5种血清肿瘤标志物水平与非OSCC恶性肿瘤组、正常组比较差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。将CEA、CA125、SCC-Ag、CYFRA21-1、NSE联合检测后敏感性、特异性、准确性、阳性预测值均显著提高。结论:SCC-Ag、CYFRA21-1、CEA、CA125、NSE 5种肿瘤标志物在OSCC中联合检测可以显著提高诊断效能;5种肿瘤标志物的血清表达量在OSCC的临床诊断中具有一定的价值。     

血清肿瘤标志物CEA、CA19-9和CA72-4在胃癌术后监测中的意义

目的 研究血清肿瘤标志物CEA、CA19-9和CA72-4在胃癌术后复发、转移监测中的意义.方法 采用电化学发光法检测228例手术后胃癌患者血清CEA、CA19-9和CA72-4含量;并结合临床及随访资料进行分析.结果 胃癌术后复发、转移患者CEA、CA19-9和CA72-4的含量和阳性率均显著高于未发生复发、转移患者.术后复发、转移的胃癌患者血清CEA、CA19-9和CA72-4检测灵敏度和特异度分别为46.2%和94.7%,52.3%和97.4%,47.1%和90.6%.结论 血清CEA、CA19-9和CA72-4升高与胃癌复发、转移密切相关,在术后随访过程中检测血清肿瘤标志物有助于早期诊断胃癌复发、转移.     

血清NSE TSGF CA125 CYFRA21-1联合检测对肺癌的诊断价值

目的探讨血清NSE，CYFRA21-1，CA125，和TSGF联合检测对肺癌的诊断价值。方法应用ELISA技术，测定74例肺癌患者、40例肺良性疾病患者和20例体检正常者血清NSE、CYFRA21-1、CA125、TSGF的水平。结果肺癌组的4种标志物NSE、CYFRA21-1、CA125、TSGF的水平及检测阳性率均明显高于良性肺病及正常对照组（P〈0．01）。鳞癌、腺癌和小细胞肺癌分别以NSE、CYFRA21-1、CA125、TSGF升幅较为明显。NSE、CYFRA21-1、CA125、TSGF的灵敏度分别为47．3％、54．0％、59．46％、55．4％。但4种联合检测的灵敏度为91．89％，明显优于1种血清肿瘤标志物的单项测定。结论血清NSE、CYFRA21-1、CA125、TSGF联合检测提高肺癌的阳性检出率和检测特异性，对肺癌的早期诊断、疗效监测、预后判断有重要意义。     

Value of Combined Detection of Serum CEA,CA72-4, CA19-9 and TSGF in the Diagnosis of Gastric Cancer

Background: To explore whether combined detection of serum tumor markers (CEA, CA72-4, CA19-9 andTSGF) improve the sensitivity and accuracy in the diagnosis of gastric cancer (GC). Materials and Methods: Anautomatic chemiluminescence immune analyzer with matched kits were used to determine the levels of serumCEA, CA72-4, CA19-9 and TSGF in 45 patients with gastric cancer (GC group), 40 patients with gastric benigndiseases (GBD group) hospitalized in the same period and 30 healthy people undergoing a physical examination.The values of those 4 tumor markers in the diagnosis of gastric cancer was analyzed. Results: The levels ofserum CEA, CA72-4, CA19-9 and TSGF of the GC group were higher than those of the GBD group and healthyexamined people and the differences were significant (P<0.001). The area under receiver operating characteristic(ROC) curves for single detection of CEA, CA72-4, CA19-9 and TSGF in the diagnosis of GC was 0.833, 0.805,0.810 and 0.839, respectively. The optimal cutoff values for these 4 indices were 2.36 ng/mL, 3.06 U/mL, 5.72 U/mL and 60.7 U/mL, respectively. With combined detection of tumor markers, the diagnostic power of those 4indices was best, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.913 (95%CI 0.866~0.985), a sensitivity of 88.9% anda diagnostic accuracy of 90.4%. Conclusions: Combined detection of serum CEA, CA72-4, CA19-9 and TSGFincreases the sensitivity and accuracy in diagnosis of GC, so it can be regarded as the important means for earlydiagnosis.     

CA-125、CYFRA21-1、NSE在肺癌临床诊断中的应用及评价

目的:探讨糖类抗原-125（CA-125）、细胞角蛋白19片段(CYFRA21-1)、神经特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)及其联合检测在肺癌临床诊断中的价值。方法:应用电化学发光法检测145例肺癌患者、80例肺良性病变患者及60例健康体检者血清中三种标志物的水平并进行统计学分析。结果:NSE、CYFRA21-1、CA-125三项标志物水平均高于肺良性病组及对照组,CA-125+CYFRA21-1联合对腺癌的敏感性较高,NSE+CYFRA21-1或者NSE+CA-125+CYFRA21-1联合对鳞癌的敏感性高达80%以上,差异具有统计学意义。结论:CA-125、CYFRA21-1、NSE对肺癌的诊断有一定的临床价值,特别是联合应用意义更大。     

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.     

血清NSE、CYFRA21-1、CEA联合检测对肺癌临床诊断的价值

[目的]探讨血清神经元特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)、细胞角蛋白19片(CYFRA21-1)、癌胚抗原(CEA)水平在各种病理类型肺癌诊断中的价值.[方法]测定68例肺癌(腺癌24例、鳞癌34例、小细胞癌10例)患者NSE、CYFRA21-1、CEA水平,并与16例肺结核、22例肺部感染患者比较.[结果] NSE、CYFRA21-1、CEA分别在小细胞肺癌组(SCLC)、鳞癌组、腺癌组中最高,NSE和CEA与其他组均有显著性差异(P＜0.01);CYFRA21-1在腺癌组其次,鳞癌组与腺癌组之间有差异((P＜0.05),与其他组相比有显著差异(P＜0.01),但腺癌组与其他组无差异(P＞0.05);单项检测中CYFRA21-1、CEA的敏感度及准确度均高于NSE(P＜0.01).三项联合检测敏感度最高,而两两联合、CYFRA21-1与CEA之间均无差异.三项联合和CYFRA21-1 CEA两两联合的准确度高于其他,NSE CYFRA21-1、NSE CEA两两联合、CYFRA21-1和CEA之间均无差异.不论单项还是联合检测特异度均无差异(P＜0.05).[结论]血清NSE、CYFRA21-1、CEA对肺癌诊断有较高的临床参考价值,并有助于肺癌的病理类型评估.三项联合检测可提高检测肺癌的敏感度和准确度,并不降低特异度,特别为临床无法做病理学检查的患者的诊断提供依据.