False-positive findings for tumor markers after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Biomarker Panel for the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

A single tumor marker has a low diagnostic value in pancreatic cancer. Combinations of multiple biomarkers and unique analysis algorithms can be applied to overcome these limitations. This study sought to develop diagnostic algorithms using multiple biomarker panels and to validate their performance in the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We used blood samples from 180 PDAC patients and 573 healthy controls. Candidate markers consisted of 11 markers that are commonly expressed in various cancers and which have previously demonstrated increased expression in pancreatic cancer. Samples were divided into training and validation sets. Five linear or non-linear classification methods were used to determine the optimal model. Differences were identified in 10 out of the 11 markers tested. We identified 2047 combinations, all of which were applied to 5 separate algorithms. The new biomarker combination consisted of 6 markers (ApoA1, CA125, CA19-9, CEA, ApoA2, and TTR). The area under the curve, specificity, and sensitivity were 0.992, 95%, and 96%, respectively, in the training set. Meanwhile, the measures were 0.993, 96%, and 93% in the validation set. This study demonstrated the utility of multiple biomarker combinations in the early detection of PDAC. A diagnostic panel of 6 biomarkers was developed and validated. These algorithms will assist in the early diagnosis of PDAC.

Carbohydrate Antigen 19-9, Carcinoembryonic Antigen, and Carbohydrate Antigen 72-4 in Gastric Cancer: Is the Old Band Still Playing?

Background

Gastric cancer (GC) is characterized by aggressive behavior and a high mortality rate. The diagnosis of GC is challenging because the GC is often diagnosed in an advanced stage. The use of tumor markers is a putative way to improve the detection and treatment in patients with GC.

Summary

In this article, we review the significance of serum carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and CA 72-4 in GC. The results from different studies regarding the diagnostic and prognostic role of CA 19-9, CEA, and CA 72-4 in GC are encouraging, but inadequate sensitivity and specificity obstruct their use as standardized and unconditionally reliable markers in GC. New prospective clinical trials are mandatory for clarifying their value in GC.

Key Message

CA 19-9, CEA, and CA 72-4 should not be used for screening and early diagnosis in GC, whereas they are beneficial in the detection of late GC. CA 19-9, CEA, and CA 72-4 could be used as prognostic and monitoring tools in GC, and their combined measurement in shorter periods of time is the best method to increase sensitivity and specificity.

Practical Implications

Serum CA 19-9, CEA, and CA 72-4 are useful diagnostic and prognostic tumor markers in GC.

Utility of serum tumor markers as an aid in the differential diagnosis of patients with clinical suspicion of cancer and in patients with cancer of unknown primary site

Cancer may be diagnosed in advanced stages, when the patient has already developed metastasis, with symptoms that can be also observed in benign diseases. The objective of this study was to evaluate tumor marker sensitivity and specificity in the differential diagnosis of patients with suspected signs of cancer. We studied 2.711 consecutive patients admitted to the Internal Medicine Department of our hospital with suspected cancer; 1.240 patients had non-malignant processes and 1.471 had malignant disease. Determinations were considered positive for suspected malignancy when serum levels were carcinoembryonic antigen >15 ng/ml (>20 in patients with renal failure or liver disease), alpha fetoprotein >40 ng/ml (>80 ng/ml in patients with liver diseases), carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19.9 > 200 U/ml (>500 U/ml in patients with liver diseases or gamma glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) <150 UI/L or effusions; >1.000 U/ml in patients with jaundice or GGT > 150 UI/L), neuron-specific enolase >45 ng/ml (renal failure >50 ng/ml; samples with hemolysis were excluded), prostate-specific antigen > 30 ng/ml (excluding acute prostatitis), tumor-associated glycoprotein-72 >80 U/ml, cytokeratin 19 fragment 21-1 > 7.5 ng/ml (>19 ng/ml in patients with renal failure; >11 ng/ml in patients with liver cirrhosis or jaundice), >3.5 ng/ml for squamous cell carcinoma (excluding patients with renal failure or skin disorders), CA 15.3 >100 U/ml, and CA 125 >350 U/ml (>600 U/ml in patients with pleural effusion and >900 U/ml in those with ascites). There was a specificity of 97.6% in patients without malignancy, 67.4% of sensitivity in patients with malignancy, and 75.4% of sensitivity in the 1,280 patients with epithelial tumors (53.7% in patients with locally advanced tumors and 79.4% in patients with metastases). Sensitivity was 81.4% in patients with cancer of unknown primary site. Tumor markers were useful in the differential diagnosis between epithelial and non-epithelial tumors, brain masses (metastases vs. primary tumors), and between benign or malignant origin of different clinical situations such as wasting syndrome, effusions, liver or bone lesions, and effusions with a positive predictive value higher than 95%. Tumor markers are useful as an aid in the evaluation of the risk of cancer of these patients with suspected cancer and may be useful to reduce the hospitalization time, morbidity, and the number of diagnostic tests required for diagnosis.

The relationships between perioperative CEA, CA 19-9, and CA 72-4 and recurrence in gastric cancer patients after curative radical gastrectomy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The correlation between perioperative CEA, CA 19-9, and CA 72-4 and recurrence of gastric cancer has not been clarified. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationships between perioperative CEA, CA 19-9, and CA 72-4 and recurrence of gastric cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the relationships between the tumor markers CEA, CA 19-9, and CA 72-4 and recurrence of gastric cancer.

RESULTS

In patients with early gastric cancer, the recurrence sensitivity of postoperative CEA, CA 19-9, and CA 72-4 was 40.0, 5.6, and 2.8%, respectively. And in patients with advanced gastric cancer, the recurrence sensitivity of postoperative CEA, CA 19-9, and CA 72-4 was 100.0, 68.2, and 51.3%, respectively. Multivariate analyses showed that an increase in postoperative CEA in early gastric cancer was an independent prognostic factor of recurrence. In patients with advanced gastric cancer, age >60 years, stage III, and postoperative CEA increase and CA 72-4 increase were independent prognostic factors of recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with advanced gastric cancer, CEA, CA 19-9, and CA 72-4 are considered useful for follow-up tests. Although, CEA is considered useful for follow-up test for patients with early gastric cancer, but CA19-9 and CA72-4 are less useful due to their low sensitivity.

Carcinoembryonic antigen concentrations in patients with acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), one of the most widely used tumor markers, has been recently associated with carotid atherosclerosis. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether CEA concentrations have a role in coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

Serum CEA concentrations were evaluated in 89 patients, including 50 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (Group I, 44 with acute myocardial infarction, six with unstable angina, 38 males, 65 ± 2 years) and 39 patients with stable CAD (Group II, 33 males, 66 ± 3 years). In addition, 33 subjects (16 males, 62 ± 2 years) were also included as a control group (Group III).

RESULTS

ACS was significantly associated with increased mean CEA concentrations (3.1 ± 0.3 vs. 1.75 ± 0.1 and 1.7 ± 0.2 ng/mL in Groups I, II and III, respectively, p < 0.001). Increased CEA concentrations remained an independent determinant for ACS (OR=3.1, 95% CI=1.2-7.9, p < 0.05) after correcting for other significant risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

CEA might represent a potential new candidate biomarker for the prediction of risk associated with ACS.

The clinical significance of ascitic fluid CEA in advanced gastric cancer with ascites

BACKGROUND

This study was carried out to evaluate the clinical significance of ascitic fluid carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in advanced gastric cancer patients with ascites.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From November 2001 to February 2008, 119 gastric cancer patients with concurrent ascites who were clinically diagnosed with carcinomatosis, were retrospectively reviewed with regard to ascitic fluid cytology and clinicopathological parameters. Serum CEA (sCEA) and ascitic fluid CEA (aCEA) were measured using a chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay.

RESULTS

The patients' median age was 50 years (range 23-80 years). The median value of aCEA was significantly higher than sCEA [130.5 ng/ml (range 0.2-12.211 ng/ml) vs. 2.1 ng/ml (range 0.02-8.152 ng/ml), p < 0.001]. Sixty-five patients (54.6%) had positive ascitic fluid cytology. The median overall survival of all patients was 3.0 months (95% CI 2.0-4.0 months). The patients with low aCEA (<5 ng/ml) had a significantly longer overall survival compared to patients with high aCEA (>or=5 ng/ml) (7.4 months vs. 2.3 months, p = 0.003). However, we found no difference in overall survival according to ascitic fluid cytology (median, 3.0 months vs. 2.5 months, p = 0.530). Multivariate analysis also demonstrated that aCEA levels of more than 5 ng/ml were associated with poor prognosis (HR = 2.88; 95% CI 1.45-5.74; p = 0.003), while sCEA levels were not associated with poor prognosis (HR = 1.15; 95% CI 0.67-2.03; p = 0.622).

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that aCEA levels can be used as a prognostic marker for advanced gastric cancer patients with ascites.