CA72-4 combined with CEA, CA125 and CAl9-9 improves the sensitivity for the early diagnosis of gastric cancer

Yang, An‐Gang; Li, Jun; Lei, Heyue; Zhang, Qunwei; Zhao, Lifu; Yang, Guangyu

doi:10.1016/j.cca.2014.07.034

Cited by 102 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Secondly, most previous CA72-4-related studies paid more attention to increasing the accuracy of GC diagnosis by combining with other tumor markers [13,14,15] and there was few study concentrating on the sole diagnostic value of CA72-4 in differentiating malignant diseases. As a result, the data of our research could help clinical doctors to determine whether it is necessary to detect CA72-4, thus saving healthcare costs and reduce anxiety.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

WITHDRAWN: Diagnostic performance of carbohydrate antigen 72-4 for gastrointestinal malignancy screening in Chinese patients: a prospective study

Wang¹,

Yu²,

Mao³

et al. 2017

Oncotarget

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Over the past decades, carbohydrate antigen 72-4 (CA72-4) was considered as a tumor marker that was elevated in normal people and patients with malignancies, including gastrointestinal malignancies, ovarian malignancies, endometrium malignancies, lung malignancies and so on. Besides, researches showed that elevated serum CA72-4 might predict digestive tumors, especially gastric tumors, although there was still neither sensitive nor specific tumor biomarker for gastric cancer.Aim: This study was aimed to evaluatethe diagnostic accuracy of CA72-4 in predicting malignancies, especially the gastric cancer.Result: The positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of CA72-4 for diagnosing gastric cancer were 69.7%, 95.9%, 1.70, and 0.97, respectively. In the Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis (ROC),the area under the curvewas 0.62 for discriminating patients with gastric cancer from those without.Conclusions: It is of little significance to perform CA72-4 testalone for predicting malignances, especially gastric cancer, in digestive disease patients.Methods: Four hundred and three patients underwent CA72-4 test after admission to the Department of Gastroenterology in Changhai Hospital, the Second Military Medical University, from June 1, 2015 to October 31, 2015. Data of age, sex, main symptoms and final diagnosis were summarized.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although there were many studies about CA72-4, most of them focused on improving the accuracy of diagnosis in malignances by combination of other tumor markers [13][14][15], none of which showed satisfying results. Besides, most previous studies concerned about the diagnostic role of CA72-4 in digestive malignances especially in GC [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

WITHDRAWN: Diagnostic performance of carbohydrate antigen 72-4 for gastrointestinal malignancy screening in Chinese patients: a prospective study

Wang¹,

Yu²,

Mao³

et al. 2017

Oncotarget

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, certain researchers have previously used combinations of markers, since they can improve the sensitivity for diagnosis of GC (10)(11)(12). Yang et al (13) demonstrated that the sensitivities of CA72-4, CEA, cancer antigen 125 (CA125) and CA19-9 for GC were 33.0, 25.5, 31.1 and 38.7%, respectively. However, the sensitivity of the four markers in combination increased to 66.0%.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences and correlation of serum CEA, CA19-9 and CA72-4 in gastric cancer

Zhang

Zhao

2015

Molecular and Clinical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The sensitivity of three biomarkers, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 and CA72-4, in combination has been identified to be greater than that of any of the biomarkers considered in isolation in cases of gastric cancer (GC). However, the fundamental cause underlying this phenomenon remains to be fully elucidated. In the present study, the differences and correlation of these three biomarkers were investigated in patients with GC in order to determine how the three biomarkers in combination work more effectively compared with any of the biomarkers considered alone. The serum levels of CEA, CA19-9 and CA72-4 of 216 patients with gastric adenocarcinoma were analyzed on admission to hospital. The differences in positive rates and the serum levels of CEA, CA19-9 and CA72-4 were analyzed using the χ 2 test and the non-parametric Wilcoxon two-sample test. Phi (f) correlation analysis was used to study the correlation among the expression (positive or not) levels of CEA, CA19-9 and CA72-4. The correlation among the serum levels of biomarkers was analyzed using Spearman's test. The results demonstrated that the combined positive rate of CEA, CA19-9 and CA72-4 was significantly higher compared with the individual CEA, CA19-9 and CA72-4 positive rates (44.91% vs. 22.69, 18.98 and 22.69%, respectively; all P<0.05). The positive rate of CA19-9 and CA72-4 in the extent of the primary tumor/involvement of regional lymph node/distant metastases (TNM)-III/IV stage subgroup was higher compared with that in the TNM-I/II subgroup (χ 2 =5.902, P=0.015; χ 2 =8.009, P=0.005), although not the positive rate of CEA (χ 2 =0.302, P= 0.583). A significant correlation was identified between the expression level of CEA and CA72-4 (f correlation coefficient=0.182; P=0.008) and between that of CA19-9 and CA72-4 (f correlation coefficient= 0.189; P= 0.006), although not between that of CEA and CA19-9 (f correlation coefficient=0.048; P=0.482) in the total number of patients with GC. A significant correlation was also identified between the serum levels of CEA and CA19-9, of CEA and CA72-4 and of CA19-9 and CA72-4 (Spearman's correlation coefficient=0.231, -0.271 and 0.167; P=0.001, P<0.0001 and P=0.014, respectively). The present study indicated that there was only a weak correlation between the positive rate of CEA and CA72-4 and between that of CA19-9 and CA72-4, and no correlation was identified between the positive rate of CEA and CA19-9, even if a correlation was identified between the serum levels of the biomarkers. The present study suggested that the evidence that the sensitivity of the three biomarkers in combination is greater than that of any of the biomarkers taken in isolation is due to less co-presentation of CEA, CA19-9 and CA72-4 in patients with GC.

show abstract

“…Serum biomarkers are easy to access and widely used for GC diagnoses such as CEA, CA19-9, CA72-4, etc. [14][15][16][17]. However, the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for a single biomarker is limited.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increased miR-25 expression in serum of gastric cancer patients is correlated with CA19-9 and acts as a potential diagnostic biomarker

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate miR-25 expression in serum of gastric cancer (GC) patients and whether it can be a potential biomarker for GC diagnosis.MethodsForty one pathology confirmed GC patients and 41 healthy controls were included in this study. 10 mL peripheral venous blood were collected from GC patients and healthy controls. miR-25 relative expression and CA19-9 level in serum of GC patients and healthy controls were measured by real-time reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of serum miR-25 and CA19-9 were calculated by STATA11.0 software.ResultsThe relative expression of miR-25 was 0.47±0.53 and 0.05±0.36 in serum of GC patients and healthy controls respectively with significant statistical difference (P<0.05). The serum level of CA19-9 for GC patients and healthy controls were 11.91±6.17 U/mL and 7.40±3.97 U/mL, indicating GC patients were much higher than those of healthy controls (P<0.05). The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 78.05% and 60.98% with the cut-off value of 0.32 for serum miR-25. Under this cut-off value, the area under the ROC curve was 0.75. For serum CA19-9, the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 70.73% and 56.10% with the cut-off value of 9.22 U/mL. Under this cut-off value, the area under the ROC curve was 0.73 with the 95% confidence interval of 0.62-0.84. Positive correlation was found between serum miR-25 relative expression and CA19-9 concentration of GC patients (r=0.75, P<0.05).ConclusionAccording to our present study, serum miR-25 was elevated in GC patients which may serve as a diagnostic biomarker for GC.

show abstract

CA72-4 combined with CEA, CA125 and CAl9-9 improves the sensitivity for the early diagnosis of gastric cancer

Cited by 102 publications

References 7 publications

WITHDRAWN: Diagnostic performance of carbohydrate antigen 72-4 for gastrointestinal malignancy screening in Chinese patients: a prospective study

WITHDRAWN: Diagnostic performance of carbohydrate antigen 72-4 for gastrointestinal malignancy screening in Chinese patients: a prospective study

Differences and correlation of serum CEA, CA19-9 and CA72-4 in gastric cancer

Increased miR-25 expression in serum of gastric cancer patients is correlated with CA19-9 and acts as a potential diagnostic biomarker

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About