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.     

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。     

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.     

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。     

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.     

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.     

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。     

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。     

检测胸水中CEA、CA125、CA153及CA199对肺癌的诊断价值

目的　探讨检测胸水中癌胚抗原 (CEA)、癌抗原 12 5 (CA12 5 )、癌抗原 15 3 (CA15 3 )及癌抗原 199(CA199)在肺癌诊断中的应用价值。方法　采用化学发光法对 5 2例肺癌患者的胸水、血清及 5 0例非肺癌患者的胸水进行了免疫蛋白定量分析。结果　肺癌组胸水内 4项标志物水平均明显高于非肺癌组水平 (P <0 .0 1或P <0 .0 5 ) ;肺癌组胸水中 4项标志物水平明显高于血清中水平 (P <0 .0 1或P <0 .0 5 ) ;CEA与CA199联合检测其敏感性和特异性高达 96.2 %和 96.0 %。结论　检测胸水中CEA、CA12 5、CA15 3及CA199对肺癌的诊断具有重要的临床意义 ,其中CEA与CA199联合检测为最佳组合     

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.     

Diagnostic Significance of Cancer Antigen 125, Pancreatic Oncofetal Antigen, and Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Malignant and Tuberculous Pleural Effusions

Pleural fluid levels of cancer antigen 125 (CA 125), pancreaticoncofetal antigen (POA), and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)were determined in 56 patients with malignant pleural effusionand in 35 patients with tuberculous effusion. Malignant effusionshad significantly higher pleural fluid CA 125 and CEA levelsthan those of tuberculous origin (p < 0.005). No significantdifference in POA titers was found between the two kinds ofeffusion. Assays of CA 125 and CEA in pleural fluid may be usefulin separating malignant from tuberculous effusions. Concurrentmeasurement of CA 125 and CEA proved superior to determinationof CEA alone in discriminating between the two groups.     

New approaches in the diagnostic procedure of malignant pleural effusions

The content of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (Ca 19-9), carbohydrate antigen 15-3 (Ca 15-3) and the expression of LewisY related carbohydrate antigens in benign and malignant pleural effusion were determined. These included 35 malignant pleural effusions: 13 breast cancers, 12 lung cancers (6 squamous cell carcinomas, 5 adenocarcinomas and 1 microcytoma), 2 mesotheliomas, 1 epithelioma, 1 kidney cancer, 1 hepatocarcinoma, 1 colon carcinoma, 3 lymphomas, 1 osteosarcoma and 9 benign pleural effusions. We showed that pleural fluid content of CEA, Ca 19-9 and Ca 15-3 were higher in malignant than in benign effusions. However CEA levels in squamous lung cancers were very high in both serum and pleural fluids whereas its levels were only slightly above the cut-off in breast cancers and in lung adenocarcinomas. Serum and pleural fluid Ca 15-3 values were higher in breast and in lung cancers with the highest values in the patients with breast cancer. Furthermore, the LewisY related carbohydrate antigens, evaluated by the reactivity of the cell extracts to MAb B3, were expressed only in breast cancers. These data suggest that pleural fluid content of CEA, and Ca 15-3 associated with the immunoblotting of cell extracts with MAb B3 appear to be very useful to improve the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions.     

胸腔灌注化疗对肺癌合并胸腔积液患者血清Cyfra21-1、CA125、CEA、NSE的影响及意义

目的 观察胸腔灌注化疗对非小细胞肺癌合并恶性胸腔积液患者血清细胞角蛋白19片段（Cyfra21-1）、CA125、癌胚抗原（CEA）、神经元特异性烯醇化酶（NSE）的影响。方法 对70例非小细胞肺癌合并恶性胸腔积液患者,以中心静脉导管行胸腔闭式引流,排尽胸腔积液后给予胸腔灌注顺铂化疗,分别于灌注前后采用电化学发光免疫法检测患者血清Cyfra21-1、CA125、CEA、NSE水平的变化,采用WHO癌性渗出液疗效评定标准评价近期疗效,观察不良反应发生情况。结果 总有效率为75.70%,疾病控制率为85.71%,胸腔灌注后患者血清Cyfra21-1、CA125、CEA、NSE的水平均低于灌注前（P均〈0.001）。不良反应主要为胃肠道反应和骨髓抑制,均为Ⅰ~Ⅱ级,无肝肾功能损害。结论 胸腔灌注化疗治疗非小细胞肺癌合并胸腔积液可有效控制胸腔积液,并降低血清Cyfra21-1、CA125、CEA、NSE的水平,从而为胸腔灌注化疗的疗效提供可靠的实验室观察指标,预测患者对铂类药物的敏感性,有助于指导下一步的全身治疗。     

Tumor Markers in Serum and Ascites in the Diagnosis of Benign and Malignant Ascites

Objective: To evaluate the values of 4 tumor markers in serum and ascites and their ascites/serum ratios inthe identification and diagnosis of benign and malignant ascites. Materials and Methods: A total of 76 patientswere selected as subjects and divided into malignant ascites group (45 cases) and benign ascites group (31cases). Samples of ascites and serum of all hospitalized patients were collected before treatment. The levels ofcarcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), alpha fetoprotein (AFP), cancer antigen 125 (CA125) and carbohydrate antigen19-9 (CA19-9) were detected by chemiluminescence (CLIA) . Results: CEA, AFP and CA19-9 in both serumand ascites as well as CA125 in ascites were evidently higher in the malignant ascites group than in the benignascites group (P<0.01). Malignant ascites was associated with elevated ascites/serum ratios for AFP and CA125(P<0.01). The areas under receiver operating characteristic (AUROCs) of CEA and CA125 in ascites and theratios of ascites/serum of AFP, CEA, CA125 and CA19-9 were all >0.7, suggesting certain values, while those ofascites CA19-9 and serum CEA were 0.697 and 0.629 respectively, indicating low accuracy in the identificationand diagnosis of benign and malignant ascites. However, the AUROCs of the remaining indexes were <0.5, with novalue for identification and diagnosis. Compared with single index, the sensitivity of combined detection increasedsignificantly (P<0.05), in which the combined detection of CEA, CA19-9 and CA125 in ascites as well as the ratioof ascites/serum of CEA, CA19-9, CA125 and AFP had the highest sensitivity (98.4%) but with relevantly lowspecificity. Both sensitivity and specificity of combined detection should be comprehensively considered so asto choose the most appropriate index. Conclusions: Compared with single index, combined detection of tumormarkers in serum and ascites can significantly improve the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.     

CEA and CA 549 in serum and pleural fluid of patients with pleural effusion

BACKGROUND: The determination of the pleural fluid (PF) carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) concentration has proved helpful in the differentiation between pleural effusions (PE) of malignant and benign origin. The present study was designed to prospectively compare the utility of CEA with that of a recently introduced tumour marker, carbohydrate antigen 549 (CA 549). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 383 consecutive patients referred for thoracentesis (130 malignant and 253 benign), pleural and serum levels of CEA and CA 549 were, respectively, determined by enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and immunoradiometric assay (IRMA). RESULTS: CEA and CA 549 showed a high specificity for malignancy in serum (97 and 96%, respectively) and PF (98 and 99%). The serum sensitivity was 33% for CEA and 47% for CA 549 while in PF was 49 and 54%, respectively. The area under the curve of CA 549 (0.78) was significantly larger than that of CEA (0.66) in serum (P < 0.005) and in PF (0.83 and 0.75, respectively, P < 0.02) as well. CA 549 showed a higher sensitivity (P < 0.001) than CEA for ovarian tumours. In PF, the accuracy of the combination of both markers was higher than that of any individual marker, although the difference was only significant with respect to CEA (P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study show that a new tumour marker CA 549 is at least similar in terms of sensitivity and specificity to CEA in the evaluation of patients with PE of unknown cause.     

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。     

Requests for Tumor Marker Tests in Turkey Without Indications and Frequency of Elevation in Benign Conditions

Aims: To investigate the incidence of ordering tests for tumor markers which are used in cancer diagnosis,follow-up treatment and detection of recurrence, the rate of elevation in benign diseases and which clinicsorder them frequently. Materials and Method: Data for the tumor markers carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen 125 (CA 125), cancer antigen 15-3 (CA 15-3) and alphafetoprotein(AFP) that were ordered by all the clinics in our Hospital between 2010 and 2011 were screened.When excluding repeated orders the results of 3,416 patients were available. It has been determined that inwhich benign diseases were the tumor markers frequently ordered and which of these conditions had high levelsof them. Results: CA 19-9 was ordered for 1,858 patients 191 (10.3%) were malignant while 1667 (89.7%) wereordered in benign diseases. For CEA the total was 1,710, 226 (13.2%) malignant and 1484 (86.8%) benign, andfor CA 125 1267, 111 (8.8%) malignant and 1156 (91.2%) benign. AFP was ordered for 1687 cases, 80 (4.7%)malignant but 1607 (95.3%) benign. CA 15-3 was ordered 1449 times, 174 (12%) for malignant and 1275 (88%)for benign diseases. In all cases, considerable proportions were positive. Conclusions: It was shown that cliniciansfrequently order tumor markers for benign conditions. The findings of this study has shown that tumor markersare used widely without indications as cancer screening tests.     

CA125联合 CA19－9、CEA、CA72－4检测在上皮性卵巢癌诊断中的意义

目的：阐明联合检测糖类抗原（CA125、CA19－9、CA72－4）与癌胚抗原（CEA）在上皮性卵巢癌中的诊断意义。方法：对81例上皮性卵巢癌患者,81例良性卵巢肿瘤患者以及作为对照的80例健康体检者血清中的 CA125、CA19－9、CA72－4与 CEA 进行检测。采用 ROC 曲线及 AUC、Logistic 回归分析评估上述血清标记物对上皮性卵巢癌的诊断意义。结果：卵巢癌患者血清肿瘤标记物 CA125、CA19－9、CA72－4的水平与阳性率明显高于良性卵巢肿瘤以及对照组健康体检者（P ＜0．05）。ROC 曲线显示 CA125、CA19－9、CEA 与CA72－4曲线下面积分别为0．904±0．025、0．670±0．042、0．497±0．046 and 0．821±0．033。联合检测上述肿瘤标记物显示最高的敏感性（91．4％）与较好的特异性（83．9％）。与其他单一肿瘤标记物相比,CA125显示最高的敏感性与较好的特异性。结论：联合检测 CA125、CA19－9、CEA 与 CA72－4可以提高上皮性卵巢癌早期诊断的敏感性与准确性。