Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Value of Combined Detection of Serum CEA, CA72-4, CA19-9 and TSGF in the Diagnosis of Gastric Cancer

  • Yin, Li-Kui (Clinical Laboratory, Dong Ying People's Hospital) ;
  • Sun, Xue-Qing (Clinical Laboratory, Dong Ying People's Hospital) ;
  • Mou, Dong-Zhen (Department of Immune, Weifang Medical University)
  • Published : 2015.05.18
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: To explore whether combined detection of serum tumor markers (CEA, CA72-4, CA19-9 and TSGF) improve the sensitivity and accuracy in the diagnosis of gastric cancer (GC). Materials and Methods: An automatic chemiluminescence immune analyzer with matched kits were used to determine the levels of serum CEA, CA72-4, CA19-9 and TSGF in 45 patients with gastric cancer (GC group), 40 patients with gastric benign diseases (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 of serum CEA, CA72-4, CA19-9 and TSGF of the GC group were higher than those of the GBD group and healthy examined 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 4 indices was best, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.913 (95%CI 0.866~0.985), a sensitivity of 88.9% and a diagnostic accuracy of 90.4%. Conclusions: Combined detection of serum CEA, CA72-4, CA19-9 and TSGF increases the sensitivity and accuracy in diagnosis of GC, so it can be regarded as the important means for early diagnosis.

Keywords

References

  1. Choi AR, Park JC, Kim J, et al (2013). High level of preoperative carbohydrate antigen 19-9 is a poor survival predictor in gastric cancer. World J Gastroenterol, 19, 5302-8. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v19.i32.5302
  2. Chen XJ, Li N, Huang YD, et al (2014). Factors for postoperative gallstone occurrence in patients with gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 877-81. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.2.877
  3. Duraes C1, Almeida GM, Seruca R, et al (2014). Biomarkers for gastric cancer: prognostic, predictive or targets of therapy? Virchows Arch, 464, 367-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-013-1533-y
  4. Femandes LC, Kin SB, Matos D (2005). Cytokeratins and carcinombryonic antigen in diagnosis staging and prognosis of colorectal adenocarconoma. World J Gastroenterol, 11, 548-55.
  5. Fernandes LC, Kin SB, Matos D (2005). Cytokeratins and carcinoembrayonic antigen in diagnosis, staging and prognosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma. World J Gastroenterol, 11, 548-55.
  6. Gwak HK1, Lee JH, Park SG (2014). Preliminary evaluation of clinical utility of CYFRA 21-1, CA 72-4, NSE, CA19-9 and CEA in stomach cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 4933-8. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.12.4933
  7. He CZ, Zhang KH, Li Q, et al (2013). Combined use of AFP, CEA, CA125 and CAl9-9 improves the sensitivity for the diagnosis of gastric cancer. BMC Gastroenterol, 13, 87. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-13-87
  8. Han ES, Lee HH, Lee JS, et al (2014). At which stage of gastric cancer progression do levels of carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 increase? Application in advanced gastric cancer treatment. J Gastric Cancer, 14, 123-8. https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2014.14.2.123
  9. Jing JX, Wang Y, Xu XQ, et al (2014). Tumor markers for diagnosis, monitoring of recurrence and prognosis in patients with upper gastrointestinal tract cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 10267-72.
  10. Ji AJ, Liu SL, Ju WZ, et al (2014). Anti-proliferation effects and molecular mechanisms of action of tetramethypyrazine on human SGC-7901 gastric carcinoma cells. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 3581-6. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.8.3581
  11. Jung KW, Won YJ, Kong HJ, et al (2013). Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival and prevalence in 2010. Cancer Res and Treat, 45, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2013.45.1.1
  12. Li Y, Yang Y, Lu Y, et al (2014). Predictive value of CHFR and MLH1 methylation in human gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer, [Epub ahead of print].
  13. Lai H1, Jin Q, Lin Y, et al (2014). Combined use of lysyl oxidase, carcino-embryonic antigen, and carbohydrate antigens improves the sensitivity of biomarkers in predicting lymph node metastasis and peritoneal metastasis in gastric cancer. Tumour Biol, 35, 10547-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-014-2355-5
  14. Li XF, Liu AY, Li J (2015). Expression of MGMT, hMLH1 and XRCC1 in gastric cancer tissue and their clinical significance. J Int Transl Med, 3, 535-40.
  15. Liu J, Huang XE, Feng JF (2014). Further study on pemetrexed based chemotherapy in treating patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 6587-90. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.16.6587
  16. Mattar R, Alves de Andrade CR, DiFavero GM, et al (2002). Preoperative serum levels of CA72-4, CEA, CA19-9 and alpha-fetoprotein in patients with gastric cancer. Rev Hosp Clin Fac Med Sao Paulo, 57, 89-92.
  17. Pan Z, Pang L, Ding B, et al (2013). Gastric cancer staging with dual energy spectral CT imaging. PLoS One, 8, 53651. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053651
  18. Park K, Jang G, Baek S, et al (2014). Usefulness of combined PET/CT to assess regional lymph node involvement in gastric cancer. Tumori, 100, 201-6.
  19. Reiter W, Stieber P, Reuter C, et al (2000). Multivariate analysis of the prognostic value of CEA and CA 19-9 serum levels in colorectal cancer. Anticancer Res, 20, 5195-8.
  20. Robertson DM, Pruysers E (2007). Jobling T. Inhibin in diagnosis for ovarian cancer. Cancer Len, 249, 14-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2006.12.017
  21. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2013). Cancer statistics, 2013. CA: A Cancer J Clin, 63, 11-30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21166
  22. Tao XJ, Feng XH, Sun YF, et al (2012). Application of joint detection of CA 72-4, CA19-9, CA50 and CA242 in diagnosis of gastric cancer. Exp and Lab Med, 30, 169-71.
  23. Tian SB, Yu JC, Kang WM, et al (2014). Combined detection of CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242 and CA 50 in the diagnosis and prognosis of resectable gastric cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 15, 6295-300. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.15.6295
  24. Whiting J, Sano T, Saka M, et al (2006). Follow-up of gastric cancer: a review. Gastric Cancer, 9, 74-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-006-0360-0
  25. Xu GH, Li Y, Li Y (2014). Expressions of SEL 1L and C-erbB-2 in Gastric Cancer Tissues and Its Clinical Significance. J Int Transl Med, 2, 318-21.
  26. Yang AP, Liu J, Lei HY, et al (2014). CA72-4 combined with CEA, CA125 and CA19-9 improves the sensitivity for the early diagnosis of gastric cancer. Clin Chim Acta, 437, 183-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2014.07.034
  27. Yun L, Bin Z, Guangqi G, et al (2014). Clinical significance in combined detection of serum pepsinogen I, pepsinogen II and carbohydrate antigen 242 in gastric cancer. Hepatogastroenterology, 61, 255-8.

Cited by

  1. CdSe/ZnS Quantum Dot-Labeled Lateral Flow Strips for Rapid and Quantitative Detection of Gastric Cancer Carbohydrate Antigen 72-4 vol.11, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1186/s11671-016-1355-3