DNA倍体联合肿瘤标志物在恶性胸腔积液初筛中的临床价值

目的:探讨DNA倍体联合肿瘤标志物检验恶性胸腔积液的临床价值.方法:70例胸腔积液患者,分为恶性组、良性组.采用全自动细胞分析仪对胸腔积液进行DNA倍体分析,并同时检测NSE、CYFRA21-1、CEA、CA199、SF.结果:恶性胸腔积液中DNA倍体和各肿瘤标志物(NSE、CYFRA21-1、CEA、CA199、SF)的灵敏度分别为80.00%、45.83%、76.67%、60.00%、26.67%、72.00%,特异性分别为82.50%、88.24%、70.97%、95.00%、100.00%、55.17%,准确性分别为82.43%、70.68%、73.77%、80.00%、68.11%、63.64%.组合模型中以DNA倍体串联CEA,DNA倍体并联铁蛋白诊断价值较高.结论:使用DNA细胞全自动检测分析仪对恶性胸腔积液进行DNA倍体测量具有很高的阳性率、灵敏度,如果联合胸腔积液肿瘤标志物中的CEA或SF可提高其临床诊断价值.     

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。     

六种肿瘤标志物在肺癌胸腔积液中的诊断价值

目的通过对胸腔积液和血清中6种肿瘤标志物的检测及胸腔积液脱落细胞学检查,探讨各指标在肺癌胸腔积液中的诊断价值。方法应用化学发光法和酶联免疫分析法测定50例肺癌和30例肺良性疾病患者的胸腔积液和血清中的癌胚抗原（CEA）、糖类抗原19—9（CA19—9）、鳞状细胞癌抗原（SCC）、神经元特异性烯醇化酶（NSE）、细胞角蛋白19片段（CYFRA21—1）、胃泌素前体释放肽（ProGRP）水平,同时对胸腔积液标本进行脱落细胞学检查,并根据受试者工作特性曲线（ROC）建立合理的临床判断临界值。结果肺癌患者胸腔积液中6种肿瘤标志物水平均高于肺良性疾病者,其中CEA、CA19-9、CYFRA21—1、ProGRP水平显著高于肺良性疾病组（P〈0．05）。胸腔积液CEA、血清CYFRA21—1及CEA含量在胸腔积液与血清中的比值（P／S）在各组中的ROC曲线下面积最大。结论胸腔积液CEA、血清CYFRA21—1及CEA的P／S值在鉴别良、恶性胸腔积液中有一定的辅助诊断价值,胸腔积液CEA的诊断价值最大。     

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。     

三种肿瘤标志物在诊断恶性胸腔积液中的临床意义

 目的　探讨血清、胸腔积液中肿瘤标志物癌胚抗原（CEA）、神经元特异性烯醇化酶（NSE）、细胞角蛋白19片段抗原21-1 （CYFRA21-1）检测对恶性胸腔积液诊断的临床意义。方法　采用酶联免疫检测64例恶性胸腔积液（恶性组）和40例良性胸腔积液（良性组）患者的胸腔积液和血清中CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1的水平,分析各指标单独及联合检测对恶性胸腔积液诊断的效能。结果　恶性组血清和胸腔积液CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1测定值分别为（19.92±3.18）和（53.10±16.04）、（41.71±10.23）和（69.13±19.34）、（18.92±8.67）和（32.48±12.11）ng／ml,均高于良性组（0.35±0.47）和（0.35±0.57）、（1.53±0.55）和（4.01±1.22）、（3.18±0.94）和（3.59±1.48）ng／ml,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论　CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1肿瘤标志物测定在鉴别良恶性胸腔积液中有一定的价值。     

检测肿瘤标志物ProGRP、NSE、CYFRA21-1、CEA对胸腔积液鉴别诊断价值的研究

背景与目的 恶性胸腔积液多由肺癌引起，肿瘤标志物检测对其鉴别诊断有一定临床价值。本研究的目的是探讨血清及胸腔积液胃泌素前体释放肽片断31—98（ProGRP）、神经元烯醇化酶（NSE）、细胞角蛋白19（cYFRA21—1）和癌胚抗原（CEA）单项或联合检测对肺癌所致恶性胸腔积液鉴别诊断与组织学分型的临床价值。方法 将肺癌所致的恶性胸腔积液患者按原发肿瘤类型分为小细胞肺癌（SCLC）组、肺腺癌组及肺鳞癌组，同时以良性胸腔积液组、健康对照组作为对照。评估胸腔积液ProGRP、NSE、CYFRA21—1和CEA单项及联合检测对各组恶性胸腔积液的诊断价值。结果 血清及胸腔积液ProGRP、NSE、CYFRA21—1、CEA在各恶性胸腔积液组的水平均明显高于对照组（P〈0．01）。SCLC组检测胸腔积液ProGRP的Youden指数和诊断准确性最高；肺腺癌和肺鳞癌组则以胸腔积液CEA＋CYFRA21—1联合检测（按平行试验）的Youden指数及诊断准确性最高。结论胸腔积液肿瘤标志物系列（ProGRP、NSE、CYFRA21—1、CEA）检查对恶性胸腔积液的鉴别诊断与组织学分型有很大的临床价值。胸腔积液ProGRP为SCLC所致恶性胸腔积液的最佳肿瘤标志物；胸腔积液cEA＋cYFRA21—1联合检测（按平行试验）为肺腺癌、肺鳞癌所致恶性胸腔积液较好的辅助诊断指标。     

胸水CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1检测对恶性胸腔积液的诊断价值

目的:探讨癌胚抗原(CEA)、神经特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)、细胞角质蛋白19片断(CYFRA21-1)联合检测对恶性胸腔积液的诊断价值.方法:采用放射免疫法测定176例病人胸腔积液中上述指标的含量.结果:62例恶性胸腔积液(肺癌)组的测定值显著高于70例非恶性胸腔积液组的测定值(P＜0.01).CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1在肺癌中的腺癌、小细胞癌、鳞癌的测定值最高,阳性率亦最高.两项联检NSCLC以CYFRA21-1、CEA阳性率较高,SCLC以NSE、CYFRA21-1阳性率较高.三项标志物联合检测诊断肺癌并恶性胸腔积液的敏感性显著高于单项检测和两项联检.结论:三者联检有助于恶性胸腔积液的诊断.在肺癌并恶性胸腔积液中,CEA对腺癌,NSE 对小细胞癌、CYFRA21-1对鳞癌有较高的敏感性.     

CEA、CYFRA21-1和ADA在恶性胸腔积液的诊断价值

目的　研究癌胚抗原(CEA)、细胞角质蛋白19(CYFRA211)和腺苷脱氨酶(ADA)对恶性胸腔积液的诊断意义。　方法　测定58例恶性胸腔积液及26例结核性胸腔积液的CEA、CYFRA211、ADA的水平。　结果　恶性组胸水CEA、CYFRA211水平均明显高于结核组(P<0001)。恶性组胸水ADA值明显低于结核组(P<0001)。胸水CEA对诊断恶性胸腔积液的敏感性为8103%,特异性为9615%。CYFRA211的敏感性为9655%,特异性为7308%。ADA的敏感性为8750%,特异性为9642%。　结论　联合检测胸水CEA、CYFRA211、ADA的水平,有助于恶性胸液的诊断     

肿瘤分子标志联合检测对胸腔积液鉴别诊断价值分析

目的:探讨癌胚抗原(CEA)、糖类抗原125(CA125)、细胞角蛋白片段19(CYFRA21-1)和神经元特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)联合检测在良恶性胸腔积液鉴别诊断中的价值。方法:电化学发光法检测56例恶性胸腔积液患者和78例良性胸腔积液患者的CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1和NSE的浓度和阳性表达率,比较其差异。结果:恶性组与良性组CEA(t=5.102)、CA125(t=4.294)、CYFRA21-1(t=3.602)和NSE(t=2.142)浓度进行比较,差异均有统计学意义,P值均<0.05。恶性组与良性组CEA(χ2=69.07)、CA125(χ2=67.34)、CYFRA21-1(χ2=73.99)和NSE(χ2=78.59)阳性率进行比较,差异有统计学意义,P值均<0.01。单项检测各种肿瘤分子标志诊断良恶性胸腔积液的敏感度和特异性以CEA最高,分别为33.93%(19/56)和97.44%(76/78)。联合检测较单项检测敏感度明显增高。2项检测以CEA和CYFRA21-1敏感性和特异性最高,分别为44.64%(25/56)和96.15%(75/78)。3项检测以CEA、CYFRA21-1和NSE联合检测敏感性和特异性最高,分别为51.79%(29/56)和91.03%(71/78)。CEA+CA125+CYFRA21-1+NSE 4项联合检测效果最佳,其敏感性高达53.57%(30/56),特异度达85.90%(67/78)。结论:胸腔积液CEA、CA125、CYFRA21-1和NSE联合检测在良恶性胸腔积液鉴别诊断中有重要意义。     

肿瘤标志物检测对良恶性胸腔积液鉴别诊断的价值

 目的　探讨胸腔积液及血清中糖类抗原（CA153）、神经元烯醇化酶（NSE）、癌胚抗原（CEA）检测对鉴别良恶性胸腔积液的意义。方法　采用化学发光免疫分析法,测定良恶性胸腔积液患者胸腔积液及血清中CA153、NSE、CEA含量,并进行比较分析。结果　恶性胸腔积液患者胸腔积液及血清中CA153、NSE、CEA均高于良性胸腔积液患者,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01）,恶性胸腔积液患者胸腔积液中CA153[（60.0±22.0）U／ml]、CEA水平[（60.5±20.2）ng／ml]明显高于同期血清中CA153、 CEA水平[（38.6±10.2）U／ml,（32.5±9.85）ng／ml]（P＜0.05）,两者间NSE比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论　联合检测胸腔积液及血清CEA、CA153、NSE,有助于提高良恶性胸腔积液的鉴别诊断。     

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.     

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 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.     

应用ROC曲线评价肿瘤标志物对恶性胸腔积液的诊断价值

目的：探讨癌胚抗原（CEA）、细胞角蛋白（CYRFA21—1）、神经元烯醇化酶（NSE）单独和联合检测在良、恶性胸腔积液中的鉴别诊断价值。方法：应用受试者工作曲线（ROC）对恶性31例及良性30例胸水的CEA、CYRFA21—1、NSE进行分析。结果：恶性胸水CEA、CYRFA21—1和NSE浓度较良性明显增高（P〈0．05）;CEA、NSE、CYRFA21—1单独检测AUC分别为0．831、0．747、0．900,灵敏度分别为67．7％、80．6％、74．2％,特异度分别为96．7％、73．3％、86．7％;NSE联合CEA、NSE联合CYRFA21—1、CEA联合CYRFA21—1检测的AUC分别为0．887、0．916、0．978,灵敏度分别为64．5％、74．2％、93．5％,特异度分别为100．0％、96．7％、90．0％;三项联合检测的AUC为0．985,灵敏度为96．8％,特异度为66．7％。结论：检测胸水中CEA、CYRFA21—1和NSE对良、恶性胸水鉴别均有诊断意义。三项联合检测对恶性胸水诊断准确性高于二项联合检测及单独检测。     

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.     

胸腔积液中肿瘤坏死因子、癌胚抗原和神经元特异性烯醇化酶的检测及诊断价值研究

目的探讨检测胸水中肿瘤坏死因子（TNF-α）、癌胚抗原（CEA）和神经元特异性烯醇化酶（NSE）对胸腔积液的诊断价值。方法采用电化学发光酶免疫分析法检测59例结核性胸水和48例肺癌性胸水患者胸水中TNF-α、CEA和NSE水平。结果结核性胸水中TNF-α水平显著高于肺癌性胸水（P〈0.05）。肺癌性胸水中CEA和NSE明显高于结核性胸水（P〈0.01）。肺腺癌胸水中CEA升高最明显,非小细胞肺癌胸水中NSE升高最显著。联合检测CEA及NSE,诊断敏感度92.0%,准确度86.3%。结论检测TNF-α、CEA和NSE对结核性胸水和肺癌性胸水的诊断及鉴别诊断有较高的临床价值,联合检测胸水CEA和NSE可提高肺癌诊断敏感度。     

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。