Combined Detection of CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242 and CA 50 in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Resectable Gastric Cancer

Tian, Shu-bo; Yu, Jian-chun; Kang, Weiming; Ma, Zhiqiang; Ye, Xin; Cao, Zhanjiang; Yan, Chao

doi:10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.15.6295

Cited by 47 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(31 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whatever Combination of multiple markers can improve overall detection sensitivity. Tian et al indicated CEA, CA19-9, CA24-2 and CA50 maybe better combinations in improving diagnostic accuracy of GC (Tian et al, 2014). In the present study, we found the most sensitive combinations of tumor markers were CEA+CA199+CA242+SCC in EC; while CEA+CA199+CA242+CA724 proved to be a better evaluation indicator to cardiac cancer and GC.…”

Section: 10267 Tumor Markers For Diagnosis Monitoring Of Recurrencesupporting

confidence: 61%

“…Similar to the findings, CEA, CA19-9, CA24-2 and CA72-4 had high positive rates in cardiac carcinoma and GC (Oremek et al, 2003), and SCC had high positive rate in EC (Shimada et al, 2003). Did not found relationship between either CEA or CA19-9 positivity and histopathology type, but they analyzed the levels of CA24-2 in GC, finding that serum CA24-2 has superior value in GC (Tian et al, 2014). The preoperative serum CEA and CA19-9 has been reported as a prognostic factor in GC (Choi et al, 2006;Xiao et al, 2014).…”

Section: 10267 Tumor Markers For Diagnosis Monitoring Of Recurrencementioning

confidence: 57%

“…Other study reported that no correlation exists between CEA, CA19-9 and tumor stage (Hee et al, 2014). Tian et al found elevated levels of CEA, CA19-9 and CA24-2 were associated with advanced tumor stage (Tian et al, 2014). Abdullah et al showed no significant correlation between CEA, CA19-9 and advanced stages, however, the high levels of CA19-9 suggested a more advanced tumor stage (Abdullah et al, 2013).…”

Section: 10267 Tumor Markers For Diagnosis Monitoring Of Recurrencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Tumor Markers for Diagnosis, Monitoring of Recurrence and Prognosis in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer

Jing

Wang²,

Xu³

et al. 2015

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: 10267 Tumor Markers For Diagnosis Monitoring Of Recurrencesupporting

confidence: 61%

Section: 10267 Tumor Markers For Diagnosis Monitoring Of Recurrencementioning

confidence: 57%

Section: 10267 Tumor Markers For Diagnosis Monitoring Of Recurrencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tumor Markers for Diagnosis, Monitoring of Recurrence and Prognosis in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer

Jing

Wang²,

Xu³

et al. 2015

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In a systematic review, Shimada et al (9) revealed that the positive rate of serum CEA was significantly correlated with the TNM stage. Tian et al (27) demonstrated that there were significant differences in the positive rate of serum CEA between Table III. Comparison of the serum levels of CEA, CA19-9 and CA72-4 with respect to different clinicopathological features in patients with gastric carcinoma.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

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

Combined Detection of CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242 and CA 50 in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Resectable Gastric Cancer

Cited by 47 publications

References 29 publications

Tumor Markers for Diagnosis, Monitoring of Recurrence and Prognosis in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer

Tumor Markers for Diagnosis, Monitoring of Recurrence and Prognosis in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer

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