{"title":"胸膜CEA、CA-15-3、CYFRA 21-1、CA-19-9、CA-125鉴别良性和恶性胸腔积液:诊断癌症的生物标志物。","authors":"Farzaneh Fazli Khalaf, Mehrnaz Asadi Gharabaghi, Maryam Balibegloo, Hamidreza Davari, Samaneh Afshar, Behnaz Jahanbin","doi":"10.1177/03936155231158661","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>There is a need for a rapid, accurate, less-invasive approach to distinguishing malignant from benign pleural effusions. We investigated the diagnostic value of five pleural tumor markers in exudative pleural effusions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>By immunochemiluminescence assay, we measured pleural concentrations of tumor markers. We used the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to assess their diagnostic values.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 281 patients were enrolled. All tumor markers were significantly higher in malignant pleural effusions than benign ones. The area under the curve of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen (CA) 15-3, cytokeratin fragment 19 (CYFRA) 21-1, CA-19-9, and CA-125 were 0.81, 0.78, 0.75, 0.65, and 0.65, respectively. Combined markers of CEA + CA-15-3 and CEA + CA-15-3 + CYFRA 21-1 had a sensitivity of 87% and 94%, and specificity of 75% and 58%, respectively. We designed a diagnostic algorithm by combining pleural cytology with pleural tumor marker assay. CEA + CYFRA 21-1 + CA-19-9 + CA-15-3 was the best tumor markers panel detecting 96% of cytologically negative malignant pleural effusions, with a negative predictive value of 98%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although cytology is specific enough, it has less sensitivity in identifying malignant pleural fluids. As a result, the main gap is detecting malignant pleural effusions with negative cytology. CEA was the best single marker, followed by CA-15-3 and CYFRA 21-1. Through both cytology and suggested panels of tumor markers, malignant and benign pleural effusions could be truly diagnosed with an accuracy of about 98% without the need for more invasive procedures, except for the cohort with negative cytology and a positive tumor markers panel, which require more investigations.</p>","PeriodicalId":50334,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Biological Markers","volume":"38 2","pages":"81-88"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pleural CEA, CA-15-3, CYFRA 21-1, CA-19-9, CA-125 discriminating malignant from benign pleural effusions: Diagnostic cancer biomarkers.\",\"authors\":\"Farzaneh Fazli Khalaf, Mehrnaz Asadi Gharabaghi, Maryam Balibegloo, Hamidreza Davari, Samaneh Afshar, Behnaz Jahanbin\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03936155231158661\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>There is a need for a rapid, accurate, less-invasive approach to distinguishing malignant from benign pleural effusions. We investigated the diagnostic value of five pleural tumor markers in exudative pleural effusions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>By immunochemiluminescence assay, we measured pleural concentrations of tumor markers. We used the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to assess their diagnostic values.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 281 patients were enrolled. All tumor markers were significantly higher in malignant pleural effusions than benign ones. The area under the curve of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen (CA) 15-3, cytokeratin fragment 19 (CYFRA) 21-1, CA-19-9, and CA-125 were 0.81, 0.78, 0.75, 0.65, and 0.65, respectively. Combined markers of CEA + CA-15-3 and CEA + CA-15-3 + CYFRA 21-1 had a sensitivity of 87% and 94%, and specificity of 75% and 58%, respectively. We designed a diagnostic algorithm by combining pleural cytology with pleural tumor marker assay. CEA + CYFRA 21-1 + CA-19-9 + CA-15-3 was the best tumor markers panel detecting 96% of cytologically negative malignant pleural effusions, with a negative predictive value of 98%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although cytology is specific enough, it has less sensitivity in identifying malignant pleural fluids. As a result, the main gap is detecting malignant pleural effusions with negative cytology. CEA was the best single marker, followed by CA-15-3 and CYFRA 21-1. Through both cytology and suggested panels of tumor markers, malignant and benign pleural effusions could be truly diagnosed with an accuracy of about 98% without the need for more invasive procedures, except for the cohort with negative cytology and a positive tumor markers panel, which require more investigations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50334,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Biological Markers\",\"volume\":\"38 2\",\"pages\":\"81-88\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Biological Markers\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03936155231158661\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Biological Markers","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03936155231158661","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Pleural CEA, CA-15-3, CYFRA 21-1, CA-19-9, CA-125 discriminating malignant from benign pleural effusions: Diagnostic cancer biomarkers.
Introduction: There is a need for a rapid, accurate, less-invasive approach to distinguishing malignant from benign pleural effusions. We investigated the diagnostic value of five pleural tumor markers in exudative pleural effusions.
Methods: By immunochemiluminescence assay, we measured pleural concentrations of tumor markers. We used the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to assess their diagnostic values.
Results: A total of 281 patients were enrolled. All tumor markers were significantly higher in malignant pleural effusions than benign ones. The area under the curve of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen (CA) 15-3, cytokeratin fragment 19 (CYFRA) 21-1, CA-19-9, and CA-125 were 0.81, 0.78, 0.75, 0.65, and 0.65, respectively. Combined markers of CEA + CA-15-3 and CEA + CA-15-3 + CYFRA 21-1 had a sensitivity of 87% and 94%, and specificity of 75% and 58%, respectively. We designed a diagnostic algorithm by combining pleural cytology with pleural tumor marker assay. CEA + CYFRA 21-1 + CA-19-9 + CA-15-3 was the best tumor markers panel detecting 96% of cytologically negative malignant pleural effusions, with a negative predictive value of 98%.
Conclusions: Although cytology is specific enough, it has less sensitivity in identifying malignant pleural fluids. As a result, the main gap is detecting malignant pleural effusions with negative cytology. CEA was the best single marker, followed by CA-15-3 and CYFRA 21-1. Through both cytology and suggested panels of tumor markers, malignant and benign pleural effusions could be truly diagnosed with an accuracy of about 98% without the need for more invasive procedures, except for the cohort with negative cytology and a positive tumor markers panel, which require more investigations.
期刊介绍:
IJBM is an international, online only, peer-reviewed Journal, which publishes original research and critical reviews primarily focused on cancer biomarkers. IJBM targets advanced topics regarding the application of biomarkers in oncology and is dedicated to solid tumors in adult subjects. The clinical scenarios of interests are screening and early diagnosis of cancer, prognostic assessment, prediction of the response to and monitoring of treatment.