血清CEA、CA19—9、CA724检测对老年胃癌病理、临床分期的意义

目的：探讨血清CEA、CA19—9、CA724对老年胃癌的临床应用价值。方法：采用ELISA方法对87例老年胃癌患者进行回顾性分析。结果：老年胃癌患者CEA、CA19—9、CA724阳性率分别为25％、21％、21％,联合检测阳性率为41％,其中TNMIV期患者CA19—9、CA724、联合检测阳性率明显高于TNMⅠ＋Ⅱ期患者。TNMⅢ＋Ⅳ期患者CA19—9、CA724检测值明显高于Ⅰ＋Ⅱ期患者。CEA、CA19—9、CA724阳性率、其值大小与胃癌病理类型、分化无关。结论：CEA、CA19—9、CA724可用于老年胃癌的诊断、病情判断,联合检测可提高诊断效率,但早期诊断价值有限。     

CEA、CA199、CA125、CA724联合检测对胃癌的临床诊断价值

目的 探讨肿瘤标记物CEA、CA199、CA125、CA724联合检测对胃癌的临床诊断价值.方法 选取126例胃癌患者,94例胃部良性病变患者,根据疾病类型分组,胃癌组(126例)和良性病变组(94例),另选50例健康体检患者作为对照组.应用全自动电化学发光免疫分析仪,测定不同临床分期患者血清肿瘤标志物含量水平.结果 胃癌组血清CEA、CA199、CA125、CA724水平明显高于良性病变组和对照组患者(P<0.05),良性病变组上述指标也高于对照组(P<0.05);Ⅲ、Ⅳ期胃癌患者血清CEA、CA199、CA125、CA724含量明显高于Ⅰ、Ⅱ期胃癌患者;胃癌患者CEA、CA199、CA125、CA724检测阳性率明显高于良性病变组和对照组(P<0.05),良性病变组上述指标的阳性率也高于对照组患者(P<0.05),联合检测为CEA、CA199、CA125、CA724四项指标共同检测,对3组的检测阳性率均高于单项检测阳性率(P<0.05).结论 与良性病变、对照组相比,血清CEA、CA199、CA125、CA724在胃癌中含量较高,且随着胃癌病情程度加深,上述指标血清含量增加.将4种肿瘤标志物联合检测比单一检测更具诊断价值.     

癌胚抗原糖链抗原CA199和CA724联合检测在胃癌诊断中的价值

目的分析血清癌胚抗原(CEA)、糖链抗原CA199和CA724联合检测在胃癌诊断中的价值。方法选取2011年2月到2013年2月间收治的、经临床检查确诊为胃癌的84例患者,胃良性病变者80例,另选取80例健康人作为对照组。采用电化学发光法检测患者血清中CEA、CA199和CA724含量,分析CEA+CA199、CEA+CA724、CA199+CA724及CEA+CA199+CA724等不同组合联合方式的胃癌诊断价值。结果胃癌组患者血清中CEA、CA199和CA724含量分别为(48.1±21.2)ng/ml、(98.4±12.2)U/ml和(39.8±19.6)U/ml,均明显高于胃良性病变组和对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。3项指标联合检测诊断胃癌的准确率为86.2%,特异度为88.9%,敏感度为84.1%,准确率和敏感度明显高于两种肿瘤标志物联合检测,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。3项指标不同组合方式联合检测的特异度无明显差异(P>0.05)。结论 CEA、CA199和CA724联合检测对胃癌诊断具有优越性,而对胃良性病变仅有一定的指导意义。     

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.     

血清CA125、CA19-9、CEA及SCC水平在子宫内膜癌患者中的诊断意义

目的：探讨血清CA125、CA19－9、CEA及SCC联合测定在子宫内膜癌患者中的诊断及对病情评估的意义。方法：测定107例子宫内膜癌患术前血清CA125、CA19－9、CEA及SCC水平，分析不同临床期别与4项标志物之间的关系。结果：4例肿瘤标志物中以血清CA125在子宫内膜患者中阳性率最高，达30．3％，联合测定阳性率升高，以CA125、CA19－9及CEA联合为最佳，阳性率可提高到48．5％，随着患者临床期别的增高，各项肿瘤标志物的中位数值及阳性率有升高趋势，Ⅱ-Ⅳ期患者显著高于Ⅰ期患者，血清CA125和（或）CA19－9≥40U/ml者，有50．3％的可能临床期别已达Ⅲ期。结论：子宫内膜癌患者术前联合测定CA125、CA19－9、CEA及SCC可协助正确诊断，有利于子解病情程度，制定合适的治疗方案。     

联合检测血清 CEA、CA50、CA19-9、CA125水平在胃癌诊断中的价值

目的：探讨联合检测血清癌胚抗原（CEA）、糖类抗原125（CA125）、糖类抗原50（CA50）、糖类抗原19-9（CA19-9）水平在胃癌诊断中的临床价值。方法采用放射免疫分析法检测56例经病理学确诊的胃癌患者和48例胃部良性疾病患者血清 CEA、CA50、CA19-9、CA125水平,并收集30例正常健康体检者作比较作为正常对照。结果胃癌患者术前血清 CEA、CA50、CA19-9、CA125水平明显高于胃部良性疾病患者及正常健康体检者（P 均＜005）;胃部良性疾病患者及正常健康体检者血清 EA、CA50、CA19-9、CA125水平比较差异均无统计学意义（P 均＞005）。胃癌患者术后3个月血清 CEA、CA50、CA19-9、CA125水平明显低于术前（P 均＜005）。联合检测 CEA、CA50、CA19-9、CA125的敏感性为875%,明显高于任一单项检测（P 均＜005）。复发胃癌患者血清CEA、CA50、CA19-9、CA125水平明显高于未复发患者（P 均＜005）。结论联合检测血清CEA、CA50、CA19-9、CA125水平可以提高胃癌患者诊断的敏感性,有助于胃癌的诊断、治疗方案选择及预后评估。     

胃癌患者血清CA72-4、CEA及CA19-9水平及其与临床病理特征的相关性

目的:探讨血清CA72-4、CEA及CA19-9水平与胃癌患者病理特征的相关性。方法:选择2011年6月-2013年3月收治的86例胃癌患者,56例胃良性肿瘤患者,60例普通胃病患者,比较三组患者CA72-4、CA19-9和CEA水平;CA72-4、CA19-9和CEA单项检测及联合检测胃癌患者的阳性率;CA72-4、CA19-9和CEA水平与胃癌病理特征的关系。结果:胃癌组患者血清CA72-4、CA19-9和CEA水平均高于胃良性肿瘤组患者（P＜0.05),胃癌良性组患者均高于对照组（P＜0.05);三种胃癌肿瘤标志物中CA72-4诊断胃癌的阳性率最高,肿瘤3项标志物的阳性检测率要显著高于单项CA72-4、CA19-9、CEA的阳性检出率（P＜0.05）;肿瘤越大、TNM分期越高,CA72-4、CA19-9和CEA水平越高。结论:采用CA72-4、CA19-9和CEA联合检测是诊断胃癌比较理想的组合。CA72-4、CA19-9和CEA水平的变化可以反应胃癌患者的病理特征。     

Scc-Ag、CA19-9、CEA联合测定对肺癌临床诊断的价值

目的评价血清鳞癌抗原(Scc-Ag)、癌糖类抗原(CA19-9)和癌胚抗原(CEA)水平的测定对肺癌临床诊断的价值.方法采用微粒子酶免疫法测定78例肺癌、45例良性肺病患者的血清Scc-Ag、CA19-9和CEA水平,评价3项指标联合应用的诊断价值.结果肺癌组患者血清Scc-Ag、CA19-9和CEA水平明显高于健康对照组和良性肺病组(P＜0.01),联合应用敏感性达70.5%.临床分期越晚,Scc-Ag、CA19-9和CEA水平和阳性率越高.Scc-Ag检测的阳性率以鳞癌最高(64.3%);CA19-9+CEA检测的阳性率以腺癌最高(71.1%).结论该3项肿瘤标志物联合检测可提高肺癌的诊断率,并对判断病情及病理类型有较大帮助,但对早期诊断帮助不大.     

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。     

大肠癌患者血清CEA、CA19-9、CA242联合测定的临床意义

目的探讨大肠癌患者血清CEA、CA19-9、CA242的检测对大肠癌诊断的临床应用价值。方法采用化学发光法对89例大肠癌患者血清CEA、CA19-9、CA242进行了检测。结果CEA、CA199、CA242联合检测阳性率为69.0%,明显高于各单项检测的阳性率(分别为53.6%、30.9%、51.2%,P<0、01),在Dukes A、B、C及D期中,3项肿瘤标志物含量及检测阳性率依次增高(P<0.05~0.01)。结论CEA、CA19-9、CA242可用于大肠癌的诊断、病情判断,联合检测可提高诊断阳性率及判断病情转归。     

CEA and CA 19-9 are Still Valuable Markers for the Prognosis of Colorectal and Gastric Cancer Patients

Background: The purpose of this study was to assess the predictive effect of preoperative CEA and CA 19-9levels on the prognosis of colorectal and gastric cancer patients. Materials and Methods: CEA and CA 19-9 wereevaluated preoperatively in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer (n=116) and gastric cancer (n=49).Patients with CEA levels <5 ng/mL were classified as CEA Group 1, 5-30 ng/mL as CEA Group 2 and >30 ng/mL were classified as CEA Group 3. Similarly the patients with a CA 19-9 level <35 U/mL were classified as CA19-9 Group 1, with 35-100 U/mL as Group 2 and with >100 U/mL as Group and 3. TNM stages and histologicgrades were noted according to histopathological reports. Patients with a TNM grade 0 or 1 were classified asGroup A, TNM grade 2 patients constituted Group B and TNM grade 3 and 4 patients constituted Group C.Demographic characteristics, tumor locations and blood types of the patients were all recorded and these datawere compared with the preoperative CEA and CA19-9 values. Results: A significant correlation between CA19-9 levels (>100 U/mL) and TNM stage (in advanced stages) was determined. We also determined a significantcorrelation between TNM stages and positive vlaues for both CEA and CA 19-9 in colorectal and gastric cancerpatients. In comparison between CEA and CA 19-9 levels and age, gender, tumor location, ABO blood group,and tumor histologic grade, no significant correlation was found. Conclusions: Positive levels of both CEA andCA 19-9 can be considered to indicate an advanced stage in colorectal and gastric cancer patients.     

The prognostic significance of preoperative serum CA 19-9 in patients with resectable gastric carcinoma: comparison with CEA

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In this study, the prognostic value of pre-operative serum levels of tumor markers CA 19-9 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in gastric carcinoma which has been a controversial matter was investigated. METHODS: Preoperative serum CA 19-9 (cut-off value 37 U/ml) and CEA (cut-off value 5 ng/ml) levels were measured in 168 patients with resectable gastric carcinoma. The correlation between tumor marker levels and clinicopathological features and overall survival was studied. RESULTS: CA 19-9 and CEA positivity rates were 31.5 and 17.8% respectively. In CA 19-9 positive patients, the ratio of males, tumors exceeding subserosa and advanced stage tumors (stages III and IV) was significantly higher (P = 0.052, P = 0.0005 and P= 0.029, respectively). A weak correlation was found with CA 19-9 positivity and tumor location; however, no correlation existed between CA 19-9 positivity and age, tumor size, histologic type, lymph node, hepatic and peritoneal metastasis. The proportion of tumors extending beyond subserosa and with lymph node metastasis was significantly higher in CEA positive patients (P = 0.011 and P = 0.045, respectively). No correlation was found between CEA positivity and gender, age, tumor location, tumor size, and hepatic and peritoneal metastasis; however, a weak correlation existed between CEA positivity and histologic type and tumor stage. Overall survival was significantly poorer in CA 19-9 and CEA positive patients (log-rank test, P = 0.014, P = 0.003, respectively). However, the Cox proportional hazards regression analysis did not show independent prognostic value for both tumor markers. CONCLUSIONS: In resectable gastric carcinoma, preoperative serum CA 19-9 and CEA levels may indicate stage of the disease, but neither has an independent prognostic value.     

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.     

四项肿瘤标志测定对肺癌诊断和病情评估的临床价值

 目的: 评价血清CEA 、CA50 、CA19-9 和CA125水平对肺癌诊断和病情评估的临床价值。方法: 测定了62例肺癌患者血清CEA 、CA50 、CA19-9 和CA125水平, 并观察了其中58例患者血清该四项肿瘤标志水平在不同TNM分期以及治疗前后的变化。结果: 肺癌组患者CEA 、CA50和CA19-9 水平明显高于正常对照组和良性肺病组。CA125 血清水平在肺癌组和良性肺病组之间无显著差异。TNM临床分期越晚, CEA 、CA50 、CA19-9 和CA125水平越高。手术治疗和化疗有效的患者, 该四项肿瘤标志水平降低, 病情进展和肿瘤转移患者则升高。结论: 该四项肿瘤标志在肺癌的诊断(除外CA125), 病情监测和疗效判断方面可为临床提供有价值的资料。     

联合检测术前与术后CEA CA19-9 CA72-4对不同分期胃癌根治术后复发的预测价值

  目的   探讨联合检测术前、术后CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4等肿瘤标志物对不同分期胃癌根治术后复发的预测价值。   方法   回顾性分析北京大学肿瘤医院2002年1月至2007年3月收治的564例胃癌患者的临床资料及血清肿瘤标志物情况。所有患者均未行新辅助治疗,术前、术后均联合检测CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4等肿瘤标志物。分析CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4等肿瘤标志物与胃癌复发的关系。   结果   在Ⅰ、Ⅱ期胃癌患者中,CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4术前阳性的患者术后复发率分别为50.0%、24.1%、22.6%,而术后阳性的患者复发率分别为42.9%、21.7%、14.3%。在Ⅲ期胃癌患者中,CEA、CA19-9、CA72-4术前阳性的患者术后复发率分别为50.0%、55.2%、47.6%,而术后阳性的患者术后复发率分别为75.0%、66.7%、66.7%。多因素分析表明术前CEA增高是Ⅰ、Ⅱ期胃癌复发的独立影响因素,术后CA72-4增高是Ⅲ期胃癌复发的独立影响因素。   结论   对于Ⅰ、Ⅱ期胃癌,术前CEA水平是预测复发较好的因子;对于Ⅲ期胃癌,术后CA72-4水平的预测性较好。      

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。     

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。