CEA, CA 125, SCC, CYFRA 21-1 and NSE were prospectively studied in 211 patients with non-small cell lung cancer and compared with clinical parameters (age, sex, Karnofsky Index, symptoms and smoking status), histopathological parameters (stage, histology, tumor size and nodal involvement), biological parameters (LDH and albumin) and the therapy used (surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy). Tumor marker sensitivity was CYFRA 21-1: 76%, CA 125: 55%, CEA: 52%, SCC: 33% and NSE: 22%. One of the tumor markers was abnormally high in 87% of the patients with locoregional disease and in 100% of the patients with metastases. Except for NSE, all tumor markers showed a clear relationship with tumor stage and histology and therefore enabled a better histological diagnosis. Abnormal CEA serum levels were mainly found in adenocarcinomas, CA 125 in large-cell lung cancers (LCLC) and adenocarcinomas and SCC in squamous tumors. Eighty-five percent of the patients with SCC levels >2 ng/ml had squamous tumors. Likewise, CA 125 levels <60 U/ml or CEA <10 ng/ml excluded adenocarcinoma or LCLC with a probability of 82 and 91%, respectively.

BACKGROUND Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), a precursor of human epididymis protein, has been proposed as a tumor marker for ovarian cancer. We evaluated HE4 in comparison with cancer antigen 125 (CA 125) in healthy individuals and in patients with benign and malignant diseases. METHODS CA 125 and HE4 serum concentrations were determined in 101 healthy individuals, 535 patients with benign pathologies (292 with benign gynecologic diseases) and 423 patients with malignant diseases (127 with ovarian cancers). CA 125 and HE4 cutoffs were 35 kU/L and 140 pmol/L, respectively. RESULTS HE4 and CA 125 results were abnormal in 1.1% and 9.9% of healthy individuals and in 12.3% and 37% of patients with benign diseases, respectively. Renal failure was the most common cause of increased HE4 in patients with benign disease, who had significantly higher HE4 concentrations (P = 0.001) than patients with other benign diseases. HE4 showed a higher specificity than CA 125 in patients with benign gynecologic diseases, with abnormal concentrations in 1.3% and 33.2% of the patients, respectively. HE-4 concentrations were abnormal primarily in gynecologic cancer and lung cancer. By contrast, CA 125 was increased in many different nonovarian malignancies, including nonepithelial tumors. A significantly higher area under the ROC curve was obtained with HE4 than with CA 125 for differentiating benign from malignant diseases (0.755 vs 0.643) and in the differential diagnosis of gynecologic diseases (0.874 vs 0.722). CONCLUSIONS HE4 has significantly higher diagnostic specificity than CA 125, and the combination of CA 125 and HE4 improved the detection of ovarian cancer in all stages and histological types.

The aim of this study is to evaluate a new tumour marker, HE4, in comparison with CA 125 and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) in healthy women and in patients with benign and malignant gynaecological diseases. CA 125 and HE4 serum levels were determined in 66 healthy women, 285 patients with benign gynaecological diseases (68 endometriosis, 56 myomas, 137 ovarian cysts and 24 with other diseases), 33 patients with non-active gynaecological cancer and 143 with active gynaecological cancer (111 ovarian cancers). CA 125 and HE4 cut-offs were 35 U/mL and 150 pmol/L, respectively. ROMA algorithm cut-off was 13.1 and 27.7 for premenopausal or postmenopausal women, respectively. HE4, CA 125 and ROMA results were abnormal in 1.5%, 13.6% and 25.8% of healthy women and in 1.1%, 30.2% and 12.3% of patients with benign diseases, respectively. Among patients with cancer, HE4 (in contrast to CA 125) had significantly higher concentrations in ovarian cancer than in other malignancies (p < 0.001). Tumour marker sensitivity in ovarian cancer was 79.3% for HE4, 82.9% for CA 125 and 90.1% for ROMA. Both tumour markers, HE4 and CA 125 were related to tumour stage and histological type, with the lowest concentrations in mucinous tumours. A significantly higher area under the ROC curve was obtained with ROMA and HE4 than with CA 125 in the differential diagnosis of benign gynaecological diseases versus malignant ovarian cancer (0.952, 0.936 and 0.853, respectively). Data from our population indicate that ROMA algorithm might be further improved if it is used only in patients with normal HE4 and abnormal CA 125 serum levels (cancer risk for this profile is 44.4%). ROMA algorithm in HE4 positive had a similar sensitivity and only increases the specificity by 3.2% compared to HE4 alone.

In patients with ISR, repeat coronary stenting provided better initial angiographic results but failed to improve restenosis rate and clinical outcome when compared with BA. However, in patients with large vessels coronary stenting improved the long-term clinical and angiographic outcome.

Tumor marker serum levels were prospectively studied in 289 patients with suspected, but unconfirmed, lung cancer and in 513 patients with lung cancer [417 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients and 96 small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients]. In patients with benign disease, abnormal serum levels were found for the following tumor markers: CEA (in 6.6% of patients); CA 19.9 (6.2%); CA 125 (28.7%); NSE (0.7%); CYFRA (8.7%); TAG-72.3 (4.2%); SCC (3.5%), and CA 15.3 (3.5%). Excluding patients with renal failure or liver diseases, tumor marker specificity improved with abnormal levels in 0.5% for NSE, 0.9% for SCC, 2.8% for CEA, CA 15.3 and TAG-72.3, 3.8% for CA 19.9, 4.2% for CYFRA and 21.4% for CA 125. Excluding CA 125, one of the markers was abnormal in 15% of patients without malignancy. Tumor marker sensitivity was related to cancer histology and tumor extension. NSE had the highest sensitivity in SCLC and CYFRA and CEA in NSCLC. Significantly higher concentrations of CEA, SCC, CA 125, CA 15.3 and TAG-72.3 were found in NSCLC than in SCLC. Likewise, significantly higher CEA (p < 0.0001), TAG-72.3 (p < 0.001), CA 15.3 (p < 0.0001) and CA 125 (p < 0.01) were found in adenocarcinomas than in squamous tumors. Using a combination of 3 tumor markers (CEA, CYFRA 21-1 in all histologies, SCC in squamous tumors and CA 15.3 in adenocarcinomas), a high sensitivity may be achieved in all histological types. Tumor markers may be useful in the histological differentiation of NSCLC and SCLC. Using specific criteria for the differentiation of SCLC and NSCLC, the sensitivity was 84.2 and 68.8%, the specificity was 93.8 and 99.7%, the positive predictive value was 98.3 and 98.5% and the negative predictive value was 57.7 and 93.3%, respectively.