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。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

血清肿瘤标志物联合检测在原发性肝癌诊断中的价值

目的探讨血清甲胎蛋白(AFP)、糖类抗原199(CA199)和癌胚抗原(CEA)联合检测在原发性肝癌诊断中的价值。方法选择2010年9月至2013年12月间收治的原发性肝癌患者60例作为观察组,选取同期健康体检者60例作为正常对照组,两组均进行了血清AFP、CA199和CEA检测,并进行了诊断判断。结果观察组患者的血清AFP、CA199和CEA含量明显高于对照组,阳性率也均明显高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。受试者工作特征曲线分析显示,CA199和CEA的诊断敏感度高,而AFP的诊断特异度高。联合检测显示,观察组的诊断阳性率为98.3%,而对照组的诊断阳性率为0。结论血清AFP、CA199和CEA联合检测能提高原发性肝癌检出率,有助于肝癌的早期诊断、疗效判断及随访预后。     

甲胎蛋白、癌胚抗原和糖链抗原19-9联合检测诊断消化系统恶性肿瘤的价值分析

目的 探讨甲胎蛋白(AFP)、癌胚抗原(CEA)和糖链抗原19-9(CA19-9)联合检测对消化系统恶性肿瘤的诊断价值.方法 回顾性分析300例消化系统恶性肿瘤患者和108例消化系统良性病变患者的临床资料,记录患者的血清AFP、CEA和CA19-9水平,评价其诊断效能.结果 肝癌患者的血清AFP、CEA和CA19-9水平均高于肝硬化患者,胃癌、胰腺癌和结直肠癌患者的血清CEA和CA19-9水平分别高于胃溃疡、胰腺炎和溃疡性结肠炎患者,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05).单项检测中,AFP对肝癌的诊断敏感度(78.5%)高于CEA和CA19-9(P<0.05);CA19-9对胰腺癌的诊断敏感度(78.2%)高于AFP和CEA(P<0.05).对于肝癌、胃癌、胰腺癌和结直肠癌,3项联合检测的敏感度均高于单项检测(P<0.05).结论 血清AFP、CEA和CA19-9联合检测对消化系统恶性肿瘤的早期诊断具有重要意义,可提高诊断的敏感度,且不会降低特异度.     

CA125、CA199、CEA和AFP检测在卵巢肿瘤诊断中的价值

目的：探讨血清CA125、CA199、癌胚抗原（CEA）和甲胎蛋白（AFP）的检测在卵巢肿瘤诊断中的价值。方法：采用化学发光法检测卵巢恶性肿瘤、良性肿瘤患者血清CA125、CA199、CEA及AFP水平。结果：卵巢恶性肿瘤患者血清CA125、CA199水平明显高于卵巢良性肿瘤患者（P〈0.01）,CEA和AFP值在卵巢恶性肿瘤与卵巢良性肿瘤患者间的差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论：CA125、CA199的检测有助于对卵巢恶性肿瘤诊断,而CEA及AFP的检测对卵巢恶性肿瘤的诊断无明显价值。     

胃癌患者血清CEA、AFP、CA724、CA125的检测联合病理学检查的临床诊断效果

目的 探讨胃癌患者血清癌胚抗原(CEA)、甲胎蛋白(AFP)、糖类抗原724(CA724)、糖类抗原125(CA125)的检测联合病理学检查的临床诊断效果.方法 收集胃癌患者69例为研究对象纳入胃癌组,选择同期良性病变组患者58例为良性病变组,另选同期行健康检查的健康受试者50例为对照组.对胃癌组、良性病变组患者和对照...     

血清AFP、CA125、CA199和CEA联合检测在原发性肝癌诊断中的价值

目的 通过联合检测血清AFP、CA125、CA199、CEA四种肿瘤标志物的含量,观察其对原发性肝癌(PHC)的诊断价值.方法 运用电化学发光免疫分析的方法,检测PHC组68例、良性肝病组50例及健康对照组58例血清中AFP、CA125、CA199、CEA的含量,分析各肿瘤标志物的灵敏度、特异性、准确度及联合检测的临床意义.结果 单独检测AFP、CA125、CA199、CEA对PHC的诊断阳性率分别为76.4%、35.3%、44.1%、29.4%;联合检测四种肿瘤标志物的阳性率为94.1%.结论 四种肿瘤标志物的联合检测有助于提高PHC患者的诊断阳性率.     

血清CEA、CA72-4及CA125联合诊断胃癌术后腹膜转移

目的:探讨血清CEA、CA72-4及CA125联合诊断胃癌术后腹膜转移的价值,为临床诊治提供参考。方法:以我院于2015年11月至2016年11月因胃癌术后在本院复查且相关临床资料齐全患者120例作为研究对象并进行回顾性分析,按照有无腹膜转移分为转移组（38例）和无转移组（82例）。对比两组患者的血清CEA、CA72-4及CA125变化及单项诊断效能,并采用ROC曲线法对比三种肿瘤标志物的诊断效能。结果:转移组患者的血清CEA、CA72-4及CA125水平均高于无转移组,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。三个单项指标比较,CA125灵敏度为73.3%,特异度为81.8%,均为三者最高,差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。联合诊断比较,CEA+CA72-4+CA125联合检测的灵敏度最高（91.7%）,但特异度最低（41.7%）,差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05)。结论:胃癌术后腹膜转移患者血清CEA、CA72-4及CA125均升高,且单项诊断CA125的灵敏度及特异度最高,而三项联合诊断的灵敏度最高,但特异度最低,值得临床参考。     

多肿瘤标志物蛋白芯片检测系统在肺癌诊断中的临床评价

目的:探讨应用多肿瘤标志物蛋白芯片检测系统对肺癌的诊断临床价值。方法:临床确诊的肺癌患者117例为肺癌组,非肺癌的其他肿瘤患者507例为对照组。用多肿瘤标志物蛋白芯片检测系统检测癌胚抗原(CEA)、甲胎蛋白(AFP)、癌抗原125(CA125)、癌抗原15-3(CA15-3)、糖链抗原19-9(CA19-9)、糖链抗原242(CA242)、铁蛋白(Ferr)等12种血清肿瘤标志物,临床评价血清肿瘤标志物的组间差异。结果:CEA,Ferr,CA153这三项指标为诊断肺癌的独立相关因素(P<0.05),其诊断肺癌的cut-off值分别为0.39,2.06,0.96。基于上述cut-off值水平,CEA诊断肺癌的敏感性、特异性、阳性预告值分别为80.34%,59.12%,31.54%;Ferr诊断肺癌的敏感性、特异性、阳性预告值分别为80.24%,60.32%,30.99%;CA153诊断肺癌的敏感性、特异性、阳性预告值分别为69.57%,53.29%,25.48%。比较三项指标ROC曲线下面积可见,CEA,Ferr对于鉴别肺癌准确性更高。结论:在众多肿瘤标记物中,CEA,Ferr,CA153水平的升高与肺癌发生独立相关,其中CEA与Ferr具有更高的诊断准确性。     

血清及胸腔积液中四种肿瘤标志物联合应用对良恶性肿瘤鉴别诊断价值的评估

目的探讨肿瘤标志物CEA、CA125、CA15-3及CA19-9联合应用对鉴别良性胸腔积液(BPE)和恶性胸腔积液(MPE)的价值。方法收集327例2013-01-01-2015-06-30在首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院(174例)和华中科技大学同济医学院附属协和医院呼吸与危重症医学科(153例)住院的胸腔积液(PE)患者,其中MPE患者119例,BPE患者208例。取PE标本及配对血清标本,应用化学发光法检测CEA、CA125、CA15-3及CA19-9在血清及PE中的浓度,应用二元Logistic回归模型和L1正则化(LASSO)方法将患者基本信息与PE、血清中4种肿瘤标志物CEA、CA125、CA15-3及CA19-9进行不同方式的联合,通过受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线分析和比较不同联合诊断模型的诊断价值。结果PE中CEA+CA15-3+CA19-9的联合模型对应ROC曲线下面积(AUC)值最大(0.90),血清中此联合模型对应的AUC值也是最佳(0.863),PE中的联合模型优于血清中的联合诊断模型,P=0.0125,综合预测能力最强。PE与血清肿瘤标志物浓度差值中CEA+CA15-3+CA19-9的联合模型对应的灵敏度最佳(80.2%),特异度为79.1%。基于LASSO变量选择方法的联合模型在PE中的特异度最佳(96%),此时灵敏度为73%,阳性似然比22。以上结果均P<0.001。PE中CEA+CA15-3+CA19-9的联合模型对应的AUC值(0.90)优于PE中CEA对应的AUC值(0.824),P<0.001。结论联合应用CEA、CA15-3及CA19-9在诊断效能、灵敏度、特异度、阳性似然比等方面优于其他组合,且优于PE中的CEA对BPE/MPE的鉴别诊断价值。     

血小板及其参数联合肿瘤标志物术前鉴别肝细胞癌及肝内胆管癌的临床价值

目的 探讨血小板(PLT)及其参数和甲胎蛋白(AFP)、糖类抗原199(CA199)、糖类抗原125(CA125)及癌胚抗原(CEA)在术前肝细胞癌(HCC)及肝内胆管癌(ICC)鉴别诊断中的价值.方法 回顾性分析兰州大学第二医院行手术治疗的肝癌患者274例,据术后病理将其分为HCC组229例和ICC组45例.比较两组...     

联合检测CA125 CA199和CEA对卵巢癌诊断价值的Meta分析

  目的  评价联合检测血清CA125、CA199、CEA在卵巢癌诊断中的价值。  方法  计算机检索Pubmed、CBMdisc、CNKI、维普等数据库, 收集关于卵巢癌诊断中联合检测CA125、CA199、CEA的文献。采用Meta-DiSc 14.0、Stata10.0进行Meta分析。  结果  按照统一的纳入标准和排除标准获得12篇文献。结果显示在卵巢癌诊断中, 联合检测CA 125、CA199、CEA的灵敏度(SE)、特异度(SP)、诊断比值比(DOR)、SROC曲线下面积(AUC)、Q指数分别为0.90(0.88~0.93)、0.83(0.80~0.86)、39.75(22.58~69.97)、0.953、0.895。单独检测CA125的SE、SP、DOR、AUC、Q指数分别为0.73(0.69~0.77)、0.88(0.86~0.91)、17.45(9.95~30.48)、0.804、0.739。两种检测方式的诊断效能比较差异有统计学意义(Z=4.859, P < 0.05)。  结论  卵巢癌的临床辅助诊断中, 与单独检测CA125比较, 联合检测CA125、CA199、CEA的判别能力较强、准确率较高, 可提高诊断效能。      

血清和腹水肿瘤标志物对良、恶性腹水的鉴别诊断价值

目的 探讨血清和腹水AFP、CEA、CA125、CA19-9对良、恶性腹水鉴别诊断的价值.方法 70例腹水患者根据病因分为良性组和恶性组,比较2组患者血清和腹水肿瘤标志物的水平.结果 恶性组血清和腹水中AFP、CEA、CA19-9水平均高于良性组(P均＜0.05).血清AFP、CEA、CA19-9联合检测的敏感性、特异性和准确性分别为61.90％、82.14％和70.00％,腹水AFP、CEA、CA19-9联合检测的敏感性、特异性和准确性分别为57.14％、88.46％和67.14％.结论 血清和腹水AFP、CEA、CA19-9的检测有助于良、恶性腹水的鉴别,血清或腹水AFP、CEA、CA19-9联合检测可提高恶性腹水诊断的敏感性和准确性.     

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。     

Normal bronchial mucus contains high levels of cancer-associated antigens, CA125, CA19-9, and carcinoembryonic antigen

The presence of cancer-associated antigens CA125, CA19-9, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in apparently normal respiratory system was demonstrated histochemically and immunochemically. Epithelial cells lining central airways (trachea, bronchi, and bronchioli) and respiratory glands were specifically stained by antibodies recognizing CA125, CA19-9, and CEA. Most, if not all, bronchial mucus obtained from patients without pulmonary diseases during general anesthesia contained remarkably high levels of CA125, CA19-9, and CEA ranging from 190 to 41,000 U/ml (594-4803 U/mg protein), 210 to 95,000 U/ml (294-197,917 U/mg protein), and 6 to 940 ng/ml (14-209 ng/mg protein), respectively, whereas serum antigen levels were normal in all cases examined. These results suggest that CA125, CA19-9, and CEA are synthesized and secreted by normal epithelial cells of central airways and/or respiratory glands and that these substances are not specific indicators of abnormal cellular activity.     

多肿瘤标志物蛋白芯片检测系统在肺癌诊断中的临床评价

目的：探讨应用多肿瘤标志物蛋白芯片检测系统对肺癌的诊断临床价值。方法：临床确诊的肺癌患者117例为肺癌组,非肺癌的其他肿瘤患者507例为对照组。用多肿瘤标志物蛋白芯片检测系统检测癌胚抗原（CEA）、甲胎蛋白（AFP）、癌抗原125（CA125）、癌抗原15-3（CA15-3）、糖链抗原19-9（CA19-9）、糖链抗原242（CA242）、铁蛋白（Ferr）等12种血清肿瘤标志物,临床评价血清肿瘤标志物的组间差异。结果：CEA,Ferr,CA153这三项指标为诊断肺癌的独立相关因素（P〈0.05）,其诊断肺癌的cut-off值分别为0.39,2.06,0.96。基于上述cut-off值水平,CEA诊断肺癌的敏感性、特异性、阳性预告值分别为80.34%,59.12%,31.54%;Ferr诊断肺癌的敏感性、特异性、阳性预告值分别为80.24%,60.32%,30.99%;CA153诊断肺癌的敏感性、特异性、阳性预告值分别为69.57%,53.29%,25.48%。比较三项指标ROC曲线下面积可见,CEA,Ferr对于鉴别肺癌准确性更高。结论：在众多肿瘤标记物中,CEA,Ferr,CA153水平的升高与肺癌发生独立相关,其中CEA与Ferr具有更高的诊断准确性。     

血清CA125、CEA、AFP联合检测在卵巢恶性肿瘤诊断中的临床价值

目的 探讨血清CA125、CEA、AFP联合检测在卵巢恶性肿瘤诊断中的临床价值.方法 将卵巢恶性肿瘤患者86例作为研究对象,另选取同期于我院进行上述指标检测的卵巢良性肿瘤患者45例以及健康女性40例作为对照.观察卵巢恶性肿瘤患者血清CA125、CEA、AFP表达水平,并对不同分期、病理类型以及淋巴结转移情况患者情况进行比较,考察联合检测对比单项检测的阳性率.结果 卵巢癌组、卵巢良性肿瘤组患者以及健康体检女性CA125、CEA、AFP表达水平存在统计学差异(P＜0.05).不同临床分期卵巢癌患者CA125、CEA、AFP表达水平存在差异(P＜0.05).不同病理类型卵巢癌患者CA125及AFP表达水平存在差异,但CEA表达水平差异不明显(P＞0.05);有淋巴结转移的卵巢癌患者CA125、CEA、AFP表达量明显高于无淋巴结转移患者.3种标志物联合检测可提高阳性率(P＜0.05).结论 血清CA125、CEA、AFP对于卵巢恶性肿瘤具有诊断价值,联合检测可提高诊断阳性率,但同时也提高了假阳性率.     

CEA, CA 19-9, and CA 125 in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant pancreatic diseases with or without jaundice

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In this study, the value of the serum tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CA 19-9, and CA 125 was assessed in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant pancreatic diseases with and without obstructive jaundice. METHODS: Serum levels of CEA, CA 19-9, and CA 125 were measured by immunoradiometric assay before the treatment in 123 patients with pancreatic carcinoma and 58 patients with a benign pancreatic disease. RESULTS: The sensitivity of CEA, CA 19-9, and CA 125 in the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma was 39.0%, 81.3%, and 56.9%; and specificity was 91.4%, 75.9%, and 77.6%, respectively. Although there was no significant difference between the CA 19-9 positivity ratios of the jaundiced (84.3%) and nonjaundiced (73.5%) patient subgroups of the pancreatic carcinoma, this ratio was significantly higher in the jaundiced subgroup (64.7%) than the nonjaundiced subgroup (7.3%) of the benign pancreatic diseases (P < 0.001). The CEA and CA 125 positivity ratios of jaundiced and nonjaundiced subgroups of patients with benign and malignant pancreatic diseases were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: In the differential diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma from benign pancreatic diseases, CA 19-9 can be useful in the nonjaundiced patients, whereas CA 125 provides a limited contribution in jaundiced patients.