[Diagnostic values of conventional tumor markers and their combination with chest CT for patients with stageⅠA lung cancer].

Q Peng, N Wu, Y Huang, S J Zhao, W Tang, M Liang, Y L Ran, T Xiao, L Yang, X Liang
{"title":"[Diagnostic values of conventional tumor markers and their combination with chest CT for patients with stageⅠA lung cancer].","authors":"Q Peng, N Wu, Y Huang, S J Zhao, W Tang, M Liang, Y L Ran, T Xiao, L Yang, X Liang","doi":"10.3760/cma.j.cn112152-20220208-00082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To investigate the diagnostic efficiency of conventional serum tumor markers and their combination with chest CT for stage ⅠA lung cancer. <b>Methods:</b> A total of 1 155 patients with stage ⅠA lung cancer and 200 patients with benign lung lesions (confirmed by surgery) treated at the Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences from January 2016 to October 2020 were retrospectively enrolled in this study. Six conventional serum tumor markers [carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125), squamous cell carcinoma associated antigen (SCCA), cytokeratin 19 fragment (CYFRA21-1), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), and gastrin-releasing peptide precursor (ProGRP)] and chest thin-slice CT were performed on all patients one month before surgery. Pathology was taken as the gold standard to analyze the difference of positivity rates of tumor markers between the lung cancer group and the benign group, the moderate/poor differentiation group and the well differentiation group, the adenocarcinoma group and the squamous cell carcinoma group, the lepidic and non-lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma groups, the solid nodule group and the subsolid nodule group based on thin-slice CT, and subgroups of ⅠA1 to ⅠA3 lung cancers. The diagnostic performance of tumor markers and tumor markers combined with chest CT was analyzed using the receiver operating characteristic curve. <b>Results:</b> The positivity rates of six serum tumor markers in the lung cancer group and the benign group were 2.32%-20.08% and 0-13.64%, respectively; only the SCCA positivity rate in the lung cancer group was higher than that in the benign group (10.81% and 0, <i>P</i>=0.022). There were no significant differences in the positivity rates of other serum tumor markers between the two groups (all <i>P</i>>0.05). The combined detection of six tumor markers showed that the positivity rate of the lung cancer group was higher than that of the benign group (40.93% and 18.18%, <i>P</i>=0.004), and the positivity rate of the adenocarcinoma group was lower than that of the squamous cell carcinoma group (35.66% and 47.41%, <i>P</i>=0.045). The positivity rates in the poorly differentiated group and moderately differentiated group were higher than that in the well differentiated group (46.48%, 43.75% and 22.73%, <i>P</i>=0.025). The positivity rate in the non-lepidic adenocarcinoma group was higher than that in lepidic adenocarcinoma group (39.51% and 21.74%, <i>P</i>=0.001). The positivity rate of subsolid nodules was lower than that of solid nodules (30.01% vs 58.71%, <i>P</i>=0.038), and the positivity rates of stageⅠA1, ⅠA2 and ⅠA3 lung cancers were 33.33%, 48.96% and 69.23%, respectively, showing an increasing trend (<i>P</i>=0.005). The sensitivity and specificity of the combined detection of six tumor markers in the diagnosis of stage ⅠA lung cancer were 74.00% and 56.30%, respectively, and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.541. The sensitivity and specificity of the combined detection of six serum tumor markers with CT in the diagnosis of stage ⅠA lung cancer were 83.0% and 78.3%, respectively, and the AUC was 0.721. <b>Conclusions:</b> For stage ⅠA lung cancer, the positivity rates of commonly used clinical tumor markers are generally low. The combined detection of six markers can increase the positivity rate. The positivity rate of markers tends to be higher in poorly differentiated lung cancer, squamous cell carcinoma, or solid nodules. Tumor markers combined with thin-slice CT showed limited improvement in diagnostic efficiency for early lung cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":39868,"journal":{"name":"中华肿瘤杂志","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华肿瘤杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112152-20220208-00082","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the diagnostic efficiency of conventional serum tumor markers and their combination with chest CT for stage ⅠA lung cancer. Methods: A total of 1 155 patients with stage ⅠA lung cancer and 200 patients with benign lung lesions (confirmed by surgery) treated at the Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences from January 2016 to October 2020 were retrospectively enrolled in this study. Six conventional serum tumor markers [carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125), squamous cell carcinoma associated antigen (SCCA), cytokeratin 19 fragment (CYFRA21-1), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), and gastrin-releasing peptide precursor (ProGRP)] and chest thin-slice CT were performed on all patients one month before surgery. Pathology was taken as the gold standard to analyze the difference of positivity rates of tumor markers between the lung cancer group and the benign group, the moderate/poor differentiation group and the well differentiation group, the adenocarcinoma group and the squamous cell carcinoma group, the lepidic and non-lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma groups, the solid nodule group and the subsolid nodule group based on thin-slice CT, and subgroups of ⅠA1 to ⅠA3 lung cancers. The diagnostic performance of tumor markers and tumor markers combined with chest CT was analyzed using the receiver operating characteristic curve. Results: The positivity rates of six serum tumor markers in the lung cancer group and the benign group were 2.32%-20.08% and 0-13.64%, respectively; only the SCCA positivity rate in the lung cancer group was higher than that in the benign group (10.81% and 0, P=0.022). There were no significant differences in the positivity rates of other serum tumor markers between the two groups (all P>0.05). The combined detection of six tumor markers showed that the positivity rate of the lung cancer group was higher than that of the benign group (40.93% and 18.18%, P=0.004), and the positivity rate of the adenocarcinoma group was lower than that of the squamous cell carcinoma group (35.66% and 47.41%, P=0.045). The positivity rates in the poorly differentiated group and moderately differentiated group were higher than that in the well differentiated group (46.48%, 43.75% and 22.73%, P=0.025). The positivity rate in the non-lepidic adenocarcinoma group was higher than that in lepidic adenocarcinoma group (39.51% and 21.74%, P=0.001). The positivity rate of subsolid nodules was lower than that of solid nodules (30.01% vs 58.71%, P=0.038), and the positivity rates of stageⅠA1, ⅠA2 and ⅠA3 lung cancers were 33.33%, 48.96% and 69.23%, respectively, showing an increasing trend (P=0.005). The sensitivity and specificity of the combined detection of six tumor markers in the diagnosis of stage ⅠA lung cancer were 74.00% and 56.30%, respectively, and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.541. The sensitivity and specificity of the combined detection of six serum tumor markers with CT in the diagnosis of stage ⅠA lung cancer were 83.0% and 78.3%, respectively, and the AUC was 0.721. Conclusions: For stage ⅠA lung cancer, the positivity rates of commonly used clinical tumor markers are generally low. The combined detection of six markers can increase the positivity rate. The positivity rate of markers tends to be higher in poorly differentiated lung cancer, squamous cell carcinoma, or solid nodules. Tumor markers combined with thin-slice CT showed limited improvement in diagnostic efficiency for early lung cancer.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[常规肿瘤标志物及其联合胸部CT对ⅠA期肺癌的诊断价值]。
目的:探讨常规血清肿瘤标志物及其联合胸部CT对ⅠA期肺癌的诊断价值。方法:回顾性分析2016年1月至2020年10月在中国医学科学院肿瘤医院治疗的1 155例ⅠA期肺癌患者和200例经手术证实的肺良性病变患者。术前1个月对所有患者进行6项常规血清肿瘤标志物[癌胚抗原(CEA)、碳水化合物抗原125 (CA125)、鳞状细胞癌相关抗原(SCCA)、细胞角蛋白19片段(CYFRA21-1)、神经元特异性烯醇酶(NSE)、胃泌素释放肽前体(ProGRP)]及胸部薄层CT检查。以病理学为金标准,分析肺癌组与良性组、中/差分化组与分化良好组、腺癌组与鳞状细胞癌组、鳞状显性与非鳞状显性显性腺癌组、实性结节组与亚实性结节组薄层CT、ⅠA1 ~ⅠA3肺癌亚组肿瘤标志物阳性率的差异。采用受者工作特征曲线分析肿瘤标志物及肿瘤标志物联合胸部CT的诊断效能。结果:肺癌组和良性组6种血清肿瘤标志物阳性率分别为2.32% ~ 20.08%和0 ~ 13.64%;仅肺癌组SCCA阳性率高于良性组(10.81%,P=0.022)。两组间其他血清肿瘤标志物阳性率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。6种肿瘤标志物联合检测结果显示,肺癌组阳性率高于良性组(40.93%和18.18%,P=0.004),腺癌组阳性率低于鳞状细胞癌组(35.66%和47.41%,P=0.045)。低分化组和中分化组的阳性率高于高分化组(46.48%、43.75%和22.73%,P=0.025)。非鳞状腺癌组的阳性率高于鳞状腺癌组(39.51%和21.74%,P=0.001)。亚实性结节阳性率低于实性结节阳性率(30.01% vs 58.71%, P=0.038),ⅠA1期、ⅠA2期、ⅠA3期肺癌阳性率分别为33.33%、48.96%、69.23%,呈上升趋势(P=0.005)。6种肿瘤标志物联合检测诊断ⅠA期肺癌的敏感性和特异性分别为74.00%和56.30%,曲线下面积(AUC)为0.541。6项血清肿瘤标志物与CT联合检测诊断ⅠA期肺癌的敏感性和特异性分别为83.0%和78.3%,AUC为0.721。结论:对于ⅠA期肺癌,临床常用肿瘤标志物的阳性率普遍较低。6种标记物联合检测可提高阳性率。在低分化肺癌、鳞状细胞癌或实性结节中,标记物的阳性率较高。肿瘤标志物联合薄层CT对早期肺癌的诊断效率提高有限。
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 去求助
来源期刊
中华肿瘤杂志
中华肿瘤杂志 Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10433
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
[International comparison and assessment of the quality of drug clinical trial implementation in China based on scientific regulatory system]. [A case of primary giant gastrointestinal stromal tumor of the liver]. [Chinese multidisciplinary expert consensus on the rational use of surufatinib in clinical practice(2024 edition)]. [Clinical predictive value of PD-1/PD-L1-induced electrocardiogram changes for cardiotoxicity]. [CT measurement of blood perfusion in hepatocellular carcinoma: from basic principle, measurement methods to clinical application].
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1