Preoperative hCGbeta and CA 72-4 are prognostic factors in gastric cancer

In gastric cancer, the role of tumour markers in assessment of prognosis is unconfirmed. In our study, we evaluated the prognostic significance of serum tumour markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CA 19-9, CA 72-4, CA 242 and free beta subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCGbeta) in gastric cancer. Preoperative serum samples were obtained from 146 patients with gastric cancer, including 29 with stage I, 11 with stage II, 42 with stage III and 64 patients with stage IV cancer. Quantitation of CEA, CA 19-9, CA 72-4 and CA 242 in serum was performed with commercial assays. HCGbeta was measured with an in-house immunofluorometric assay based on monoclonal antibodies specific for the free beta-subunit of hCG. Survival analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier life-tables and log-rank test, and with multivariate Cox regression analysis. Disease-specific cumulative 2-year survival rate was 40%. Serum levels of CEA, CA 72-4, CA 242 and hCGbeta showed significant correlation with stage (p<0.027); for CA 19-9 the association was of borderline significance (p=0.056). Of the studied markers, CA 19-9, CA 72-4, CA 242 and hCGbeta were found to be prognostic factors in univariate analysis (p< 0.022). In multivariate analysis, stage had the statistically most significant association with prognosis followed by hCGbeta, tumour histology according to the Laurén classification and by CA 72-4. In gastric cancer, tumour markers hCGbeta and CA 72-4 are independent prognostic factors in addition to stage and histological type of the tumour.     

Serum HCG beta and CA 72-4 are stronger prognostic factors than CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 242 in pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVE: In pancreatic cancer, the extent of the spread of the disease is considered to be the strongest prognostic factor. In addition, tumor markers, particularly CA 19-9, may also provide prognostic information. In this study, we evaluated the prognostic value of serum tumor markers CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242, CA 72-4 and hCG beta in pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Preoperative serum samples were obtained from 160 patients with pancreatic cancer, including 10 with stage I, 25 with stage II, 24 with stage III and 101 patients with stage IV cancer. Quantitation of CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242, and CA 72-4 in serum was performed with commercial assays. HCG beta was measured with an in-house immunofluorometric assay based on monoclonal antibodies specific for the free beta-subunit of hCG. Survival analysis was performed with univariate Kaplan-Meier life-tables and log-rank test, and with multivariate Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the tumor markers studied, CA 19-9 was most frequently elevated. Overall 2-year survival was 10%. Stage, tumor location and size, curative resection, and CEA, CA 72-4 and hCG beta were all found to be prognostic factors (p < 0.026) in univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, each marker had independent prognostic value (p < 0.011) when analyzed individually but adjusting for stage. When all the covariates were included in the same model, the strongest prognostic factor was hCG beta followed by CA 72-4 and stage. The other clinical characteristics and serum tumor markers contributed insignificant prognostic information. CONCLUSIONS: All the tumor markers studied (CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242, CA 72-4, and hCG beta) had prognostic value in pancreatic cancer, and hCG beta, CA 72-4, and stage were the strongest independent prognostic factors in this study.     

肿瘤标志物的联合检测在大肠癌诊断中的应用

目的探讨血清CEA、CA50、CA19-9、CA72-4、CA242等5项肿瘤标志物联合检测在大肠癌诊断中的应用价值。方法采用放免技术测定67例大肠癌2、3例大肠良性肿瘤患者和55例体检正常者血清CEA、CA50、CA19-9、CA72-4、CA242水平。结果大肠癌患者血清CEA、CA50、CA19-9、CA72-4、CA242水平及阳性率明显高于正常对照组及大肠良性肿瘤组(P<0.01)。结论CEA、CA50、CA19-9、CA72-4、CA242对大肠癌的诊断有临床意义,联合检测可提高肿瘤标志物对大肠癌的诊断准确性。     

大肠癌患者血清肿瘤标志物含量测定与临床研究

目的评价血清肿瘤标志物(CEA、CA199和CA242)单项或多项联合检测对大肠癌患者的临床诊断价值,探讨其在病理分期、淋巴结转移、侵袭程度及肿瘤大体形态等临床特征方面的意义。方法应用酶联免疫法检测134例大肠癌患者和200名健康人血清中CEA、CA199和CA242含量。结果大肠癌患者血清3种肿瘤标志物含量明显高于健康人(均P<0.01);单项检测中,CEA和CA242的阳性率无差异,但均显著高于CA199;CEA+CA242联合检测和CEA+CA242+CA199联合检测的阳性率显著高于单项和CEA+CA199的联合及CA199+CA242的联合,但特异性低于单项检测。在dukesA、B、C及D期中,3项肿瘤标志物含量及检测的阳性率依次增高,总体水平差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05～0.01);淋巴结转移患者的3项标志物含量及CA199、CA242的阳性率均高于无淋巴结转移的患者;3项标志物含量随肿瘤侵袭程度的加深显著增高,但在组织病理分类和肿瘤大体形态中均无明显的差异。结论CEA、CA199及CA242肿瘤标志物联合检测可以提高大肠癌诊断的敏感度,并对临床分期、判断淋巴结转移、肿瘤侵袭程度、进而进行有效临床治疗,具有一定的指导意义。     

Applicative Value of Serum CA19-9, CEA,CA125 and CA242 in Diagnosis and Prognosis for Patients with Pancreatic Cancer Treated by Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy

Objective: To evaluate the application value of serum CA19-9, CEA, CA125 and CA242 in diagnosis andprognosis of pancreatic cancer cases treated with concurrent chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: 52patients with pancreatic cancer, 40 with benign pancreatic diseases and 40 healthy people were selected. Theelectrochemiluminescence immunoassay method was used for detecting levels of CA19-9, CEA and CA125, anda CanAg CA242 enzyme linked immunoassay kit for assessing the level of CA242. The Kaplan-Meier methodwas used for analyzing the prognostic factors of patients with pancreatic cancer. The Cox proportional hazardmodel was applied for analyzing the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidential interval (CI) for survival timeof patients with pancreatic cancer. Results: The levels of serum CA19-9, CEA, CA125 and CA242 in patientswith pancreatic cancer were significantly higher than those in patients with benign pancreatic diseases andhealthy people (P<0.001). The sensitivity of CA19-9 was the highest among these, followed by CA242, CA125and CEA. The specificity of CA242 is the highest, followed by CA125, CEA and CA19-9. The sensitivity andspecificity of joint detection of serum CA19-9, CEA, CA125and CA242 were 90.4% and 93.8%, obviouslyhigher than single detection of those markers in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. The median survival time of52 patients with pancreatic cancer was 10 months (95% CI7.389~12.611).. Patients with the increasing level ofserum CA19-9, CEA, CA125, CA242 had shorter survival times (P=0.047. 0.043, 0.0041, 0.029). COX regressionanalysis showed that CA19-9 was an independent prognostic factor for patients with pancreatic cancer (P=0.001,95%CI 2.591~38.243). Conclusions: The detection of serum tumor markers (CA19.9, CEA, CA125 and CA242)is conducive to the early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and joint detection of tumor markers helps improve thediagnostic efficiency. Moreover, CA19-9 is an independent prognostic factor for patients with pancreatic cancer.     

CEA, CA 242, CA 19-9, CA 72-4 and hCGbeta in the diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the utility of serum CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242, CA 72-4 and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG)beta in the follow-up of 102 surgically treated colorectal cancer patients, out of which 40 patients developed clinical recurrence. METHODS: In patients with recurrent disease, serum samples were obtained at the time of clinical recurrence, and in the disease-free group, they were obtained postoperatively. The combined use of the markers was evaluated with logistic regression analysis. The sensitivities of the different tumour markers at various specificity levels were compared by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: When the five tumour markers, Dukes stage and location of the primary tumour were evaluated together in the same model, only CEA provided significant diagnostic information (p < 0.0005) in addition to the location of the primary tumour (p = 0.003). The diagnostic information provided by the other serum tumour markers was insignificant, although CA 72-4 approached borderline significance (p = 0.053). ROC curves were constructed and the difference in the values of the area under the curve (AUC) between the different serum tumour markers was determined at the time of clinical recurrence. Of the individual markers, the highest AUC was observed for CEA (AUC = 0.931). The difference in AUC values between CEA and the other tumour markers was highly significant (p < or = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CEA had the highest diagnostic accuracy in detecting recurrent colorectal cancer. Inclusion of CA 19-9, CA 242, CA 72-4 or hCGbeta in the model did not improve the accuracy, although CA 72-4 approached borderline significance (p = 0.053). Thus, CEA seems to retain its position as the surveillance marker of choice for patients surgically treated for colorectal cancer.     

Serum tumor markers in colorectal cancer staging,grading, and follow-up

Early diagnosis of colorectal cancer, a frequent neoplasia in industrialized countries, permits curative surgery. In this study we assessed the clinical role of serum tumor markers determination in diagnosing, staging, and grading colorectal cancer; the role of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CA 19-9, tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA) and CA 72-4 in colorectal cancer follow-up was also assessed. In 114 patients with colorectal cancer, the oncofetal antigen CEA was compared with the membrane-associated glycoproteins CA 19-9, CA 242, and CA 72-4 and with the cytokeratins TPA, tissue polypeptide-specific antigen (TPS) and tissue polypeptide monoclonal antigen (TPM). Overall, the most sensitive indices were TPA and TPS (67% and 70%, respectively). Tumor stage influenced the levels of CEA, CA 19-9, and TPA, but not those of TPS, while tumor grade influenced CEA and TPS, but not CA 72-4, TPA, and TPM. TPA was the most sensitive index in identifying early or well-differentiated colorectal cancers. The sensitivity was enhanced when this marker was determined in combination with CEA, in diagnosing both advanced and early colorectal tumors. Seventy-seven patients were followed up after therapy for at least 18 months. CEA was the most sensitive index of recurrence (58%); however, this sensitivity is too low to consider tumor markers useful in colorectal cancer follow-up. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

CEA,CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 improve the diagnostic accuracy in gastrointestinal cancers

BACKGROUND: CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242 and CA 72-4 are commonly used tumour markers for gastrointestinal malignancies. The advantage of the concomitant use of these markers is under debate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Serum concentrations of the markers were measured at the time of diagnosis in 161 patients with benign and 125 with malignant gastrointestinal diseases. Concomitant use of the markers was evaluated in a logistic regression model. RESULTS: CA 19-9, CA 242 or CA 72-4 showed similar sensitivity of 44% for gastric cancer, whereas CEA was elevated in 25% of the cases. In patients with colorectal cancer, CEA was most frequently elevated (54%), followed by CA 242 (46%), CA 19-9 (36%) and CA 72-4 (25%). High CA 19-9 and CA 242 serum levels were frequent in patients with cholangiocarcinoma (86% and 68%, respectively) and pancreatic cancer (80% and 63%, respectively). In the benign disease group, serum CA 19-9 was most frequently elevated, i.e. in 24%, 25% and 38% of patients with pancreatic, biliary and liver disorders, respectively. The overall accuracy of CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242 and CA 72-4 was 66%, 71%, 71% and 66%, respectively (p > 0.18). When combined in a logistic regression model, CA 72-4, CA 19-9 and CEA provided independent diagnostic information, whereas CA 242 contributed with independent diagnostic information only on excluding CA 19-9. The probability of cancer for each patient, calculated with the model, was applied as a diagnostic test and was compared with the single markers by ROC-curve analysis. The AUC value of the probability index was significantly higher than the values of the different tumour markers. CONCLUSION: An algorithm based on the combination of CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 improved the diagnostic accuracy in gastrointestinal tract malignancies compared with these markers alone.     

Combined Detection of CEA,CA 19-9, CA 242 and CA 50 in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Resectable Gastric Cancer

Our aim was to investigate the value of combined detection of serum  carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9, CA 242 and CA 50 in diagnosis and assessment of prognosis in consecutive gastric cancer patients. Clinical data including preoperative serum CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242, and CA 50 values and information on clinical pathological factors were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were used to explore the relationship between tumor markers and survival. Positive rates of tumor markers CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242 and CA 50 in the diagnosis of gastric cancer were 17.7, 17.1, 20.4 and 13.8%, respectively, and the positive rate for all four markers combined was 36.6%. Patients with elevated preoperative serum concentrations of CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242 and CA 50, had late clinical tumor stageand significantly poorer overall survival. Five-year survival rates in patients with elevated CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242 and CA 50 were 28.1, 25.8, 27.0 and 24.1%, respectively, compared with 55.0, 55.4, 56.4 and 54.5% in patients with these markers at normal levels (p<0.01). In multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses, an elevated CA 242 level was determined to be an independent prognostic marker in gastric cancer patients. Combined detection of four tumor markers increased the positive rate for gastric cancer diagnosis. CA 242 showed higher diagnostic value and CA 50 showed lower diagnostic value. In resectable gastric carcinoma, preoperative CA 242 level was associated with disease stage, and was found to be a significant independent prognostic marker in gastric cancer patients.     

大肠癌血清CEA，CA19-9和CA242联合检测及其临床应用

 目的 评价CEA，CA19-9及CA242联合检测对大肠癌患者的临床诊断价值。方法 应用酶联免疫法对术前150例，其中术后70例大肠癌患者和200名健康人血清CEA，CA19-9及CA242含量进行测定。结果 大肠癌患者血清3项标志物含量明显高于健康人（均P＜0.01）；单项和联合检测的阳性率及特异性总体比较差异均有统计学意义（均P＜0.01）；其中CEA、CA242 检测的阳性率显著高于CA19-9， CEA+CA242与3项联合检测的阳性率均显著高于单项或其他两项联合检测的阳性率；CEA特异性高于CA242；3项联合检测的特异性明显低于单项检测。3个年龄段大肠癌患者CEA血清水平差异显著，年龄越大CEA水平越高（P＜0.05）。在Dukes 分期中，3项标志物含量及检测的阳性率依次增高（P＜0.05～0.01）。淋巴结转移患者的3项标志物含量及CA19-9，CA242的阳性率均高于无淋巴结转移的患者。3项标志物含量随肿瘤侵袭程度的加深显著增高，但在组织病理分类和肿瘤大体形态中均无明显的差异。Dukes A+B期大肠癌术后3项标志物含量显著降低（P＜0.01），而C+D期改变不明显。结论 3项标志物的检测有助于大肠癌的临床辅助诊断，联合检测可以提高诊断的阳性率；3项标志物检测对大肠癌临床分期、淋巴结转移及肿瘤侵犯程度评估，尤其CA19-9和CA242比用于术前诊断更有意义，对指导临床医师合理手术有一定的帮助；术后检测有助于观察疗效，评价治疗效果。     

大肠癌血清CEA,CA19-9和CA242联合检测及其临床意义

目的评价CEA，CA19-9及CA242联合检测对大肠癌患者的临床诊断价值。方法应用酶联免疫法对150例术前大肠癌患者及其中70例术后患者和200名健康人血清CEA，CA19-9及CA242含量进行测定。结果大肠癌患者血清3项标志物含量明显高于健康人（均P〈0．01）；单项和联合检测的阳性率及特异性总体比较差异均有统计学意义（均P〈0．01）；其中CEA、CA242检测的阳性率显著高于CA19-9；CEA＋CA242与3项联合检测的阳性率均显著高于单项或其他两项联合检测的阳性率；CEA特异性高于CA242；3项联合检测的特异性明显低于单项检测。3个年龄段大肠癌患者CEA血清水平差异显著，年龄越大CEA水平越高（P〈0．05）。在Dukes分期中，3项标志物含量及检测的阳性率依次增高（P〈0．05～0．01）。淋巴结转移患者的3项标志物含量及CA19-9，CA242的阳性率均高于无淋巴结转移的患者。3项标志物含量随肿瘤侵袭程度的增加显著增高，但在组织病理分类和肿瘤大体形态中均差异无统计学意义。Dukes A＋B期大肠癌术后3项标志物含量显著降低（P〈0．01），而C＋D期改变不明显。结论3项标志物的检测有助于大肠癌的临床辅助诊断，联合检测可以提高诊断的阳性率；3项标志物检测对大肠癌临床分期、淋巴结转移及肿瘤侵犯程度评估，尤其CA19-9和CA242比用于术前诊断更有意义，对指导临床医师合理手术有一定的帮助；术后检测有助于观察疗效，评价治疗效果。     

Clinical utility of biochemical markers in colorectal cancer: European Group on Tumour Markers (EGTM) guidelines

In recent years, numerous serum and cell/tissue-based markers have been described for colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of this article was to provide guidelines for the routine clinical use of some of these markers. Lack of sensitivity and specificity preclude the use of any available serum markers such as carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CA 19-9, CA 242, CA 72-4, tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA) or tissue polypeptide-specific antigen (TPS) for the early detection of CRC. However, preoperative measurement of CEA is desirable as this may give independent prognostic information, help with surgical management and provide a baseline level for subsequent determinations. For patients with stage 2 (Dukes' B) and 3 (Dukes' C) disease who may be candidates for liver resection, CEA levels should be measured every 2-3 months for at least 3 years after diagnosis. For monitoring treatment of advanced disease, CEA should also be tested every 2-3 months. Insufficient evidence is presently available to recommend the routine use of other serum markers for monitoring purposes. Similarly, the new cell and tissue-based markers (e.g, ras, P53) cannot yet be recommended for routine clinical use.     

肿瘤标志物在结肠癌诊疗中的应用

目的探讨肿瘤标志物单项检测或联检在结肠癌诊断、随访、预后及疗效观察中的应用。方法用电化学发光方法检测结肠癌105例、良性肠道疾病30例、健康对照40例血浆中CEA、CA19—9、CA72-4、CA242的含量。结果结肠癌患者CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4、CA242的含量明显大于良性肠道疾病患者和健康对照组（P〈0．01）。63例结肠癌根治术后肿瘤标志物明显下降（P〈0．01）。结论肿瘤标志物可用于结肠癌的诊断、预后、疗效观察、复发和早期转移诊断。     

Tumor Markers for Diagnosis,Monitoring of Recurrence and Prognosis in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer

To evaluate the value of combined detection of serum CEA, CA19-9, CA24-2, AFP, CA72-4, SCC, TPA andTPS for the clinical diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal tract (GIT) cancer and to analyze the efficacy of thesetumor markers (TMs) in evaluating curative effects and prognosis. A total of 573 patients with upper GIT cancerbetween January 2004 and December 2007 were enrolled in this study. Serum levels of CEA, CA19-9, CA24-2,AFP, CA72-4, SCC, TPA and TPS were examined preoperatively and every 3 months postoperatively by ELISA.The sensitivity of CEA, CA19-9, CA24-2, AFP, CA72-4, SCC, TPA and TPS were 26.8%, 36.2%, 42.9%, 2.84%,25.4%, 34.6%, 34.2% and 30.9%, respectively. The combined detection of CEA+CA199+CA242+CA724 hadhigher sensitivity and specificity in gastric cancer (GC) and cardiac cancer, while CEA+CA199+CA242+SCCwas the best combination of diagnosis for esophageal cancer (EC). Elevation of preoperative CEA, CA19-9 andCA24-2, SCC and CA72-4 was significantly associated with pathological types (p<0.05) and TNM staging (p<0.05).Correlation analysis showed that CA24-2 was significantly correlated with CA19-9 (r=0.810, p<0.001). The levelsof CEA, CA19-9, CA24-2, CA72-4 and SCC decreased obviously 3 months after operations. When metastasisand recurrence occurred, the levels of TMs significantly increased. On multivariate analysis, high preoperativeCA72-4, CA24-2 and SCC served as prognostic factors for cardiac carcinoma, GC and EC, respectively. combineddetection of CEA+CA199+CA242+SCC proved to be the most economic and practical strategy in diagnosis of EC;CEA+CA199+CA242+CA724 proved to be a better evaluation indicator for cardiac cancer and GC. CEA andCA19-9, CA24-2, CA72-4 and SCC, examined postoperatively during follow-up, were useful to find early tumorrecurrence and metastasis, and evaluate prognosis. AFP, TPA and TPS have no significant value in diagnosis ofpatients with upper GIT cancer.     

术前CEA、CA19-9和CA50的表达水平与结直肠癌临床病理特点的相关性研究--附1 340例病例分析

目的分析手术前血清CEA、CA19-9和CA50在结直肠癌患者中的表达情况,研究其在不同肿瘤临床分期中的表达差异,及其与临床病理学特点的相关性。方法回顾分析2000年1月~2004年9月于肿瘤医院接受治疗的结直肠肿瘤病例1340例,术前采用放射免疫法测定血清CEA、CA19-9和CA50水平,术后综合术前影像学检查、术中探查结果和术后组织病理学检测进行临床分期,应用SPSS12.0统计软件进行相关性分析。结果在1340例患者中,有59例为外院手术后复发或者转移的患者,另外的1281例患者均为初治病例。其中结直肠癌患者1327例。CEA、CA19-9和CA50检测阳性率分别为25.9%、22.3%和22.8%,同手术性质(根治性/姑息性)和脉管侵犯等临床病理指标相关。CEA、CA19-9和CA50在不同肿瘤分期中表达差异显著,主要在D期患者和复发转移患者中出现高阳性率。CEA在粘液腺癌和腺癌组织中表达差异显著。三个指标的表达和患者性别无关。结论CEA、CA19-9及CA50和肿瘤的临床分期密切相关,其阳性表达提示合并淋巴结或者脏器转移可能,是预后不良指标。     

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。     

Estimating the probability of cancer with several tumor markers in patients with colorectal disease

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare serum tumor markers, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CA 19-9, CA 242, CA 72-4 and hCGbeta, and their value in the diagnosis of malignant colorectal disease. METHODS: The serum concentrations of the markers were measured in 204 patients with colorectal cancer and in 104 inpatients with benign colorectal disease. The combined use of the markers was evaluated with a logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: When all five markers were evaluated in the same model, only CEA and CA 72-4 provided significant diagnostic information (p < 0.001), indicating that their combination improves the accuracy. The probability of cancer for each patient was calculated entering CEA and CA 72-4 in the logistic regression model. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were constructed, and the difference in the area under the curve (AUC) values was determined between the markers and the calculated probability of cancer. Of the individual markers, the highest AUC was observed for CEA (AUC = 0.746). The difference in the AUC between CEA and CA 72-4 (AUC = 0.716) was insignificant (p = 0.492), but between CEA and the other three markers it was significant (p < 0.015). The calculated probability of cancer index, based on a combination of CEA and CA 72-4, had a significantly higher AUC (AUC = 0.804) than CEA alone (AUC = 0.746; p = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic value of CA 72-4 was additive to that of CEA in colorectal cancer, and both markers contributed with significant diagnostic information. As a diagnostic test, the probability of cancer calculated with logistic regression provided higher accuracy than any of the markers alone, implying that it might be a useful diagnostic tool.     

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.     

Comparison of Serum Assays for TAG-72, CA19-9 and CEA in Gastrointestinal Carcinoma Patients

Tumor-associated glycoprotein (TAG-72) has been shown to beexpressed in a wide variety of epithelial malignant tissues.We have investigated serum levles of TAG-72 antigen in patientswith gastrointestinal cancer with a solid phase radioimmunometricassay (RIA), CA72-4, utiliz ing murine monoclonal antibodiesCC49 and B72.3 which recognize the TAG-72 antigen. Elevatedlevels of serum TAG-72 antigen were found in 48% of 56 gastriccarcinoma patients and 67% of 45 colorectal carcinoma patients.The serum concentrations of TAG-72 were compared to those ofCA19-9 and CEA. The positive rates of CA19-9 in gastric carcinomaand colorectal carcinoma patients were 29% and 54%, and thoseof CEA were 52% and 60%, respectively. Elevated serum levelsof TAG-72, CA19-9 and CEA were observed in 7%, 14% and 24%,respectively, of patients with benign disease, thus indicatinga preferential expression of TAG-72, compared to CA19-9 andCEA, in gastrointestinal carcinoma patients versus in patientswith benign disorder. A cocktail of CA72-4, CA19-9 and CEA RIAsincreased positive rates to 68% in sera of gastric cancer patientsand 84% in sera of colorectal cancer patients. Combination assays using CA72-4, CEA and CA19-9 RIM for patients with benigngastrointestinal disorder, however, also increased the positiverate to 31%. These results indicate that CA72-4, CA19-9 andCEA RIA may be complementary in detecting circulating tumor-associatedantigens. It must be emphasized, however, that interpretationof the data provided by the combination serum as says requirescareful consideration.     

Prognostic significance of CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 preoperative serum levels in gastric carcinoma.

The prognostic value of preoperative serum levels of CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 tumor markers was investigated in 153 patients resected for gastric cancer. The positivity rates for CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 were 20.9, 34.6 and 28.1%, respectively. Multiple logistic regression analysis for positive levels of tumor markers indicates that CEA positivity is significantly related to the depth of invasion (p < 0.005) and the presence of distant metastasis (p < 0. 05), CA 19-9 positivity is related to nodal involvement (p < 0.05) and the depth of invasion (p < 0.05), whereas CA 72-4 positivity is influenced by tumor size (p < 0.005) and noncurative surgery (p < 0. 05). Positive levels of each tumor marker were associated with a worse prognosis if compared with negative cases using univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis of curatively resected cases identified depth in gastric wall (p < 0.0001), nodal status (p < 0. 0005), and tumor location in the upper third (p < 0.05) as significant prognostic variables; CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 serum positivity did not reach statistical significance. However, when the positivity of the three markers was associated, a p value < 0.05 was observed. The analysis of survival curves stratified by tumor stage revealed that marker positivity significantly affects survival in stages I, II and IV (p < 0.05). The combined assay of CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 preoperative serum levels provides additional prognostic information in patients resected for gastric cancer; patients with preoperative positivity for one of these tumor markers should be considered at high risk of recurrence even in early stages of gastric carcinoma.