Monitoring serum CEA in women with primary breast tumours positive for oestrogen receptor and with spread to lymph nodes

CEA Determination in the Follow-Up of Extracolorectal Neoplasms

CEA was initially described as a tumor and organ specific colorectal antigen, but later found by more sensitive methods in other tumors (stomach, pancreas, lung, breast) and in minor amounts in inflammatory, normal adult and fetal organs of the gastrointestinal tract. The main clinical application of CEA concerns its pretherapeutic and serial determination as circulating antigen in serum and other body fluids by means of CEA-specific, commercially available test kits. By clinical studies a significant correlation has been proven between the pretherapeutic serum CEA level and tumor stages and prognosis. Moreover, serial CEA level changes have been shown a valuable monitor following operation or during radio/chemotherapy anticipating and reflecting the clinical course of disease. In combination with newly established tumor markers, the main clinical indication for CEA determination in addition to colorectal cancer concerns monitoring of patients with stomach (+ CA 72-4), lung (+ NSE/SCC) and breast cancer (+ CA 15-3/MCA).

Prediction of outcome in locally advanced breast cancer by post-chemotherapy nodal status and baseline serum tumour markers

In spite of the apparent improvement in outcome in locally advanced breast cancer, the prognosis remains dismal in many patients. The aim of this study was to define prognostic subgroups within this heterogeneous entity. Between 1990 and 1999, 104 consecutive patients with locally advanced breast cancer were treated by a multimodality programme consisting of 4-6 courses of CAF induction chemotherapy followed by surgery, breast-conserving when feasible. In most cases, chemotherapy was then resumed, up to a total of eight courses, followed by locoregional radiation therapy. Patients with hormone receptor-positive tumours received tamoxifen (20 mg day(-1)) for 5 years. At a median follow-up of 57 months, the 5-year overall survival for the entire group and the disease-free survival for the 94 operated patients were 65% and 53%, respectively. Univariate analysis identified 10 prognostic factors of overall and disease-free survival, of which four retained significance on multivariate analysis: inflammatory breast cancer (P=0.0000, P=0.0004, respectively), baseline tumour markers (P=0.003 for both), post-chemotherapy number of involved nodes (P=0.003; P=0.017) and extracapsular spread (P=0.052; P=0.014). In conclusion, besides inflammatory features, baseline tumour markers and post-chemotherapy nodal status are strong predictors of outcome in locally advanced breast cancer.

Description of a Computer Program to Assess Cancer Antigen 15.3, Carcinoembryonic Antigen, and Tissue Polypeptide Antigen Information during Monitoring of Metastatic Breast Cancer

It is time-consuming to process and compare the clinical and marker information registered during monitoring of breast cancer patients. To facilitate the assessment, we developed a computer program for interpreting consecutive measurements. The intraindividual biological variation, the analytical precision profile, the cutoff limit, and the detection limit for each marker are entered and stored in the program. The assessment procedure for marker signals considers the analytical and biological variation of the applied markers. The software package contains a database that can store the interpretation of the measurements as evaluation codes together with patient demographics, information about treatment type, dates for treatment periods, control periods, and evaluation codes for clinical activity of disease. The consecutive concentrations for a patient are imported temporarily into the program from outside sources and presented graphically. Marker concentrations to be compared are selected with the computer mouse and the significance of the difference is calculated by the program. The program has an option for calculating the lead time of marker signals vs clinical information. The program facilitates the monitoring of individual breast cancer patients with tumor marker measurements. It may also be implemented in trials investigating the utility of potential new markers in breast cancer as well as in other malignancies.

Metastatic breast cancer

The unfortunate reality of metastatic breast cancer is that all treatment is palliative in nature. This is a disease that currently has no cure and for which therapy is directed towards accentuating survival and relieving symptoms. Current technology allows the prediction and detection of metastases earlier and with greater accuracy. These achievements need to be consolidated by the discovery of innovative therapies that can alter the inevitable outcome of this disease.

Tumor markers in breast cancer follow-up: a potentially useful parameter still awaiting definitive assessment. Forza Operativa Nazionale sul Carcinoma Mammario (FONCaM)

BACKGROUND

Although tumor markers are frequently used in the follow-up of patients with breast cancer, two points are still being debated: 1) their cost/effectiveness has been neither demonstrated nor disproved; 2) the reliability of the currently used dichotomous division into a positive/negative cut-off should be definitely validated. Dynamic criteria of interpretation based on serial serum samples would probably be more effective for early detection of relapse.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The aim of the present study was to compare the dichotomous cut-off based decision criteria to a dynamic serial sample based assessment of tumor markers. Since 1989, 794 patients have been followed in 11 institutions. CEA and CA15.3 were measured once a month for three months before every clinical examination. The present paper concerns the evaluation variability in 405 patients without evidence of disease in the first three institutions joining the study.

RESULTS

In patients without evidence of disease, the coefficient of variation of all samples for every patient showed a median value of 19 for CEA and 21 for CA15.3. Variability was negatively associated with the antigen level and was most likely due to the analytical component. This was also confirmed by the significant difference in variability among the three institutions evaluated. The median value of the critical difference was 53% for CEA and 57% for CA15.3.

CONCLUSIONS

1) Individually tailored dynamic decision criteria are applicable in about 50% of the cases. 2) The problem of improving the precision of tumor marker assays in the low dose range must be urgently addressed to the manufacturers of tumor markers by the scientific community in order to apply individually tailored decision criteria for patients in whom the serum level of biological markers is low.

A novel method for monitoring high-risk breast cancer with tumor markers: CA 15.3 compared to CEA and TPA

BACKGROUND

An early and reliable diagnosis of metastatic spread has increased interest in serum tumor markers. This study investigated the ability of CA 15.3, CEA, and TPA to identify, predict, and exclude metastases in bone/viscera during adjuvant treatment and follow-up of high-risk breast cancer.

METHODS

Ninety females with high-risk breast cancer were included in the study. Response evaluation was based upon clinical examination, x-rays or histology and elaborated marker criteria.

RESULTS

During the marker monitoring period, metastases in four patients were confined to skin or lymph nodes, 21 developed metastases to bone/viscera, and 65 females had no evidence of metastases. CA 15.3, CEA, and TPA correctly classified 48%, 10%, and 19% of the patients with metastases in bone/viscera, and 100%, 94%, and 98% without. Following CA 15.3, CEA, and TPA recurrence, 100%, 33%, and 60% of the patients developed metastases in bone/viscera. Metastases in bone/viscera were excluded in 86%, 76%, and 79% of patients without CA 15.3, CEA, and TPA recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Only CA 15.3 gave reliable information about recurrence. Metastases in bone/viscera were identified in 10 of the 21 patients with CA 15.3. There was no false-positive CA 15.3 information on the 65 patients without clinical recurrence. The PVneg (86%) indicated that when CA 15.3 did not signal recurrence, metastases to bone/viscera were not likely.

The value of the tumor marker CA 15-3 in diagnosing and monitoring breast cancer. A comparative study with carcinoembryonic antigen

To estimate the utility of the tumor-associated antigen CA 15-3 in the diagnosis of patients with breast cancer, this tumor marker was measured preoperatively in 1342 patients. This group included 509 patients with malignant disease (134 breast cancer patients and 375 patients with other malignancies not involving the breast) and 833 patients with benign surgical diseases (95 patients with fibroadenoma of the breast and 738 patients with other benign diseases). The results were compared with those obtained for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in the diagnosis of breast cancer. The CA 15-3 level was above normal (25 U/ml) in 31% of the patients with breast cancer, in 22% of patients with other malignancies, and in 9% of patients with benign diseases. The CEA level was elevated in 26% of patients with breast cancer (more than 3 ng/ml). There was a good correlation of CA 15-3 levels with the tumor stage of breast cancer. Both CA 15-3 and CEA also were determined in 671 patients who had received initial curative surgery of breast cancer and who regularly attended our follow-up clinic. The CA 15-3 was found to be more sensitive than CEA in detecting recurrences of breast cancer. In the postcare period, carcinoma recurred in 205 patients. Of these, 73% had CA 15-3 concentrations above 25 U/ml; only 50% had CEA values above 3 ng/ml (P less than 0.0001). Although neither CA 15-3 nor CEA were sensitive enough for the screening and diagnosis of early breast cancer, CA 15-3 was significantly better than CEA in the detection of breast cancer metastases.

Breast cancers with extremely high oestrogen receptor protein status

Seventeen cases of primary and one case of metastatic breast cancer which expressed greater than 900 fmol oestrogen receptor sites per mg soluble protein were examined. All these patients were post-menopausal at the time of their presentation. These were a heterogeneous group of well-differentiated cellular breast carcinomas, comprising cases of invasive duct carcinoma with extensive tubular differentiation or with focal argyrophilia, tubulolobular carcinoma, lobular carcinoma of mixed type containing abundant intracytoplasmic lumina, papillary carcinoma and type B colloid carcinoma. There was very little tumour necrosis. Nodal metastasis, tumour size and host inflammatory response did not appear to show any relationship with oestrogen receptor status. The patients, apart from two who died from other causes, remain alive (Fisher's exact test, P less than 0.01). In contrast, 17 randomly selected cases of oestrogen receptor negative breast cancer in the same study period were focally necrotic, poorly-differentiated invasive duct carcinomas. Six patients died from metastatic disease, seven were alive and well, one was alive with metastatic disease, one was lost to follow-up and two died from diseases unrelated to breast cancer.