Diagnostic Potential of Carcinoembryonic Antigen and Ferritine in Tuberculous and Malignant Pleural Effusion

Diagnostic value of carcinoembryonic antigen in malignant pleural effusion: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Conventional tests are not always helpful in making a diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion (MPE). Many studies have investigated the utility of pleural carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in the early diagnosis of MPE. The present meta-analysis determined the accuracy of CEA measurement in the diagnosis of MPE.

METHODS

A systematic review of English language studies was conducted and data on the accuracy of pleural CEA concentrations in the diagnosis of MPE were pooled using random effects models. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to summarize the overall test performance.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The summary estimates for CEA in the diagnosis of MPE were: sensitivity 0.54 (95% CI: 0.52-0.55), specificity 0.94 (95% CI: 0.93-0.95), positive likelihood ratio 9.52 (95% CI: 6.97-13.01), negative likelihood ratio 0.49 (95% CI: 0.44-0.54) and diagnostic odds ratio 22.5 (95% CI: 15.6-32.5). Analysis of a subset of 11 studies which examined the value of pleural CEA in ruling out a diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma found that the sensitivity and specificity of a CEA level exceeding cut-off values were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.93-0.99) and 0.60 (95% CI: 0.55-0.65), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Measurement of pleural CEA is likely to be a useful diagnostic tool for confirming MPE, and is also helpful in the differential diagnosis between malignant pleural mesothelioma and metastatic lung cancer. The results of CEA assays should be interpreted in parallel with clinical findings and the results of conventional tests.

Diagnostic value of CYFRA 21-1 tumor marker and CEA in pleural effusion due to mesothelioma

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to assess the clinical value of CYFRA 21-1 tumor marker and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as diagnostic tools that are complementary to cytology in the diagnosis of malignant mesotheliomas.

PATIENTS

We measured CEA and CYFRA 21-1 in the pleural effusions (PEs) and serum of 106 patients (benign lung disease, 34 patients; bronchogenic and metastatic carcinoma, 40 patients; mesothelioma, 32 patients).

METHODS

CEA and CYFRA 21--1 levels were determined by means of two commercial enzyme immunoassays.

RESULTS

The cutoff levels of CYFRA 21--1 and CEA in malignant PEs, selected on the basis of the best diagnostic efficacy, were 41.9 ng/mL and 5.0 ng/mL, respectively. In all neoplastic PEs, CYFRA 21--1 and CEA sensitivity was 78% and 30.6%, respectively, with a specificity of 80% and 91%, respectively. The sensitivity of CYFRA 21--1 and CEA in patients with mesothelioma was 87.5% and 3.1%, respectively. The results of the CYFRA 21--1 assay were positive in 17 of 19 cases of mesothelioma (89.5%) with a negative or uncertain cytology. The association of the tumor marker assay and the cytology allowed a correct diagnosis in 30 of 32 cases of mesothelioma (93.7%).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that CYFRA 21--1 would provide a useful parameter for the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant PE from mesothelioma when the result of cytology is negative or uncertain and the clinical context does not allow a more aggressive approach. Moreover, the association of CYFRA 21--1 with CEA could provide details for a differential diagnosis between mesotheliomas and carcinomas. In fact, an elevated CYFRA 21--1 level with a low CEA level is highly suggestive of mesothelioma, whereas high levels of CEA alone or high levels of both the markers suggest a diagnosis of malignant PE, excluding mesothelioma.