Recurrence After Gallbladder Cancer Resection: Prognostic Impact of CA19-9 and CEA Levels at Baseline and During Surveillance.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Diamantis I Tsilimigras, Odysseas P Chatzipanagiotou, Andrea Ruzzenente, Federico Aucejo, Hugo P Marques, Joao Bandovas, Tom Hugh, Nazim Bhimani, Shishir K Maithel, Minoru Kitago, Itaru Endo, Timothy M Pawlik
{"title":"Recurrence After Gallbladder Cancer Resection: Prognostic Impact of CA19-9 and CEA Levels at Baseline and During Surveillance.","authors":"Diamantis I Tsilimigras, Odysseas P Chatzipanagiotou, Andrea Ruzzenente, Federico Aucejo, Hugo P Marques, Joao Bandovas, Tom Hugh, Nazim Bhimani, Shishir K Maithel, Minoru Kitago, Itaru Endo, Timothy M Pawlik","doi":"10.1002/jso.70024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Baseline serum carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels may predict prognosis among patients undergoing resection for gallbladder cancer (GBC), yet the prognostic utility of the combination of the two markers has not been well established. In addition, the prognostic significance of elevated preoperative CA19-9 levels that normalize after GBC resection is currently unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients undergoing resection of GBC between 2002 and 2021 were identified using an international, multi-institutional database. The association of preoperative CA19-9 and CEA levels with recurrence-free survival (RFS) following GBC resection was assessed. The negative predictive value (NPV) of normal vs. normalized (high preoperative/low postoperative levels) CA19-9 levels relative to the development of recurrence within 1 year after GBC resection was evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 194 patients who underwent resection of GBC, median preoperative CA19-9 and CEA levels were 18.8 U/mL (IQR 7.0-88.0) and 2.2 ng/mL (IQR 1.3-3.8), respectively. A total of 92 (47.4%) and 67 (34.5%) patients had elevated CA19-9 (> 20 U/mL) and CEA (> 3 ng/mL) levels before GBC resection, respectively. Individuals with low CA19-9/low CEA had the most favorable 3-year RFS (74.5%) after GBC resection followed by individuals with either high CA19-9 (high CA19-9/low CEA: 41.6%) or high CEA (low CA19-9/high CEA: 60.9%) levels, whereas patients with high CA19-9/high CEA had the worst 3-year RFS (21.5%) following GBC resection (p < 0.001). Patients with normal preoperative CA19-9 levels had better 3-year RFS than patients with high preoperative CA19-9 levels that normalized after resection (74.6% vs. 51.4%, p = 0.03). While the NPV of normal preoperative CA19-9 levels relative to the development of recurrence within 1 year after GBC resection was 94.7%, the NPV of normalized CA19-9 decreased to 70% at 1-year post-resection.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Elevation of both preoperative CA19-9 and CEA levels portended poor prognosis following resection of GBC. Normalization of postoperative CA19-9 levels after GBC resection was still associated with elevated risk of recurrence. While preoperative tumor markers can accurately predict prognosis following resection for GBC, evaluation of traditional tumor markers may not be appropriate markers of occult recurrent disease in the postoperative setting. Better markers are needed to monitor for recurrence following resection of GBC.</p>","PeriodicalId":17111,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Surgical Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Surgical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.70024","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Baseline serum carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels may predict prognosis among patients undergoing resection for gallbladder cancer (GBC), yet the prognostic utility of the combination of the two markers has not been well established. In addition, the prognostic significance of elevated preoperative CA19-9 levels that normalize after GBC resection is currently unknown.

Methods: Patients undergoing resection of GBC between 2002 and 2021 were identified using an international, multi-institutional database. The association of preoperative CA19-9 and CEA levels with recurrence-free survival (RFS) following GBC resection was assessed. The negative predictive value (NPV) of normal vs. normalized (high preoperative/low postoperative levels) CA19-9 levels relative to the development of recurrence within 1 year after GBC resection was evaluated.

Results: Among 194 patients who underwent resection of GBC, median preoperative CA19-9 and CEA levels were 18.8 U/mL (IQR 7.0-88.0) and 2.2 ng/mL (IQR 1.3-3.8), respectively. A total of 92 (47.4%) and 67 (34.5%) patients had elevated CA19-9 (> 20 U/mL) and CEA (> 3 ng/mL) levels before GBC resection, respectively. Individuals with low CA19-9/low CEA had the most favorable 3-year RFS (74.5%) after GBC resection followed by individuals with either high CA19-9 (high CA19-9/low CEA: 41.6%) or high CEA (low CA19-9/high CEA: 60.9%) levels, whereas patients with high CA19-9/high CEA had the worst 3-year RFS (21.5%) following GBC resection (p < 0.001). Patients with normal preoperative CA19-9 levels had better 3-year RFS than patients with high preoperative CA19-9 levels that normalized after resection (74.6% vs. 51.4%, p = 0.03). While the NPV of normal preoperative CA19-9 levels relative to the development of recurrence within 1 year after GBC resection was 94.7%, the NPV of normalized CA19-9 decreased to 70% at 1-year post-resection.

Conclusion: Elevation of both preoperative CA19-9 and CEA levels portended poor prognosis following resection of GBC. Normalization of postoperative CA19-9 levels after GBC resection was still associated with elevated risk of recurrence. While preoperative tumor markers can accurately predict prognosis following resection for GBC, evaluation of traditional tumor markers may not be appropriate markers of occult recurrent disease in the postoperative setting. Better markers are needed to monitor for recurrence following resection of GBC.

胆囊癌切除术后复发:基线和监测期间CA19-9和CEA水平对预后的影响
基线血清碳水化合物抗原(CA) 19-9和癌胚抗原(CEA)水平可以预测胆囊癌(GBC)切除术患者的预后,但这两种标志物联合使用的预后效用尚未得到很好的证实。此外,术前升高的CA19-9水平在GBC切除后恢复正常,其预后意义目前尚不清楚。方法:使用国际多机构数据库确定2002年至2021年间接受GBC切除术的患者。评估术前CA19-9和CEA水平与GBC切除术后无复发生存率(RFS)的关系。评估正常与归一化(术前高/术后低水平)CA19-9水平相对于GBC切除后1年内复发的阴性预测值(NPV)。结果:194例行GBC切除术的患者,术前CA19-9和CEA的中位水平分别为18.8 U/mL (IQR 7.0-88.0)和2.2 ng/mL (IQR 1.3-3.8)。共有92例(47.4%)和67例(34.5%)患者在GBC切除术前CA19-9 (> 20 U/mL)和CEA (> 3 ng/mL)水平升高。低CA19-9/低CEA患者在GBC切除术后的3年RFS最有利(74.5%),其次是高CA19-9(高CA19-9/低CEA: 41.6%)或高CEA(低CA19-9/高CEA: 60.9%)患者,而高CA19-9/高CEA患者在GBC切除术后的3年RFS最差(21.5%)(p结论:术前CA19-9和CEA水平升高预示GBC切除术后预后不良。GBC切除术后CA19-9水平正常化仍与复发风险升高相关。虽然术前肿瘤标志物可以准确预测GBC切除后的预后,但传统肿瘤标志物的评估可能不适合作为术后隐匿性复发疾病的标志物。需要更好的标志物来监测GBC切除术后的复发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
367
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Surgical Oncology offers peer-reviewed, original papers in the field of surgical oncology and broadly related surgical sciences, including reports on experimental and laboratory studies. As an international journal, the editors encourage participation from leading surgeons around the world. The JSO is the representative journal for the World Federation of Surgical Oncology Societies. Publishing 16 issues in 2 volumes each year, the journal accepts Research Articles, in-depth Reviews of timely interest, Letters to the Editor, and invited Editorials. Guest Editors from the JSO Editorial Board oversee multiple special Seminars issues each year. These Seminars include multifaceted Reviews on a particular topic or current issue in surgical oncology, which are invited from experts in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信