Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Cancer 1/2017

Open Access 01.12.2017 | Research article

Diagnostic and prognostic value of CEA, CA19–9, AFP and CA125 for early gastric cancer

verfasst von: Fan Feng, Yangzi Tian, Guanghui Xu, Zhen Liu, Shushang Liu, Gaozan Zheng, Man Guo, Xiao Lian, Daiming Fan, Hongwei Zhang

Erschienen in: BMC Cancer | Ausgabe 1/2017

Abstract

Background

The diagnostic and prognostic significance of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate associated antigen 19–9 (CA19–9), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and cancer antigen 125 (CA125) in early gastric cancer have not been investigated yet. Thus, the present study aimed to explore the diagnostic and prognostic significance of the four tumor markers for early gastric cancer.

Methods

From September 2008 to March 2015, 587 early gastric cancer patients were given radical gastrectomy in our center. The clinicopathological characteristics were recorded. The association between levels of CEA and CA19–9 and clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of patients were analyzed.

Results

There were 444 men (75.6%) and 143 women (24.4%). The median age was 57 years (ranged 21–85). The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rate was 99.1%, 96.8% and 93.1%, respectively. The positive rate of CEA, CA19–9, AFP and CA125 was 4.3%, 4.8%, 1.5% and 1.9%, respectively. The positive rate of all markers combined was 10.4%. The associations between the clinicopathological features and levels of CEA and CA19–9 were analyzed. No significant association was found between CEA level and clinicopathological features. However, elevated CA19–9 level was correlated with female gender and presence of lymph node metastasis. Age > 60 years old, presence of lymph node metastasis and elevation of CEA level were independent risk factors for poor prognosis of early gastric cancer.

Conclusions

The positive rates of CEA, CA19–9, APF and CA125 were relatively low for early gastric cancer. Elevation of CA19–9 level was associated with female gender and presence of lymph node metastasis. Elevation of CEA level was an independent risk factor for the poor prognosis of early gastric cancer.
Abkürzungen
AFP
alpha-fetoprotein
CA125
cancer antigen 125
CA19–9
carbohydrate associated antigen 19–9
CEA
carcinoembryonic antigen
LNM
lymph node metastasis

Background

Gastric cancer is the fourth commonest malignancy and the second leading cause of tumor related death all over the world [1]. Early gastric cancer is a lesion only invading mucosa or submucosa, with or without lymph node metastasis (LNM) [2]. Early diagnosis of gastric cancer is critical for optimal treatment. The ratio of early gastric cancer at diagnosis is increasing with advanced techniques and screening programs [3]. As detection of serum tumor markers are more convenient than other approaches, they are widely applied in early diagnosis of gastric cancer [4]. Unfortunately, the optimal serum biomarker for the detection of early gastric cancer is still under investigation [5].
The prognosis of early gastric cancer is favorable after radical gastrectomy, with a 5-year overall survival rate exceed 97% [6]. A variety of factors have been recognized as prognostic factors for early gastric cancer, including tumor size, differentiation status, tumor depth, LNM and vessel involvement [7]. In addition, tumor markers including CEA [8], CA19–9 [9], and AFP [10] were demonstrated to be prognostic factors for gastric cancer. However, prognostic significance of these markers for early gastric cancer have not been investigated yet.
Given this situation, the present study aims to explore the diagnostic and prognostic significance of CEA, CA19–9, AFP and CA125 for early gastric cancer.

Methods

This study was carried out in the Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, the Fourth Military Medical University. From September 2008 to March 2015, 587 early gastric cancer patients with radical gastrectomy were enrolled in our present study. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Xijing Hospital, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients before surgery.
All patients were treated with proximal, distal or total D2 gastrectomy. The procedure was based on the Japanese Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines [11]. Tumor depth and LNM were defined by pathologists in the department of pathology according to the TNM classification.
Preoperative data including gender, age, tumor location, serum CEA, CA19–9, AFP and CA125 levels were recorded. Tumor size, differentiation status, tumor depth and LNM were collected based on pathology reports. Patients were followed up till November 2016 every 3 months.
The tumor markers were detected within 7 days before surgery. The cut off value of CEA, CA19–9, AFP and CA125 levels were 5 ng/ml, 27 U/ml, 8.1 ng/ml, 35 U/ml. The positive rates of tumor markers were defined as number of cases with elevated markers divided by total number of cases. The positive rates of combined markers were defined as number of cases with elevation in any of the markers divided by total number of cases.
Data were analyzed using SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Discrete variables were analyzed by Fisher’s exact test or Chi-square test. Significant prognostic factors for early gastric cancer patients identified by univariate analysis were further assessed with multivariate analysis using the Cox’s proportional hazards regression model. Survival curves for overall survival were obtained using the Kaplan-Meier method. The P value less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

The features of the entire cohort were summarized in Table 1. There were 444 men (75.6%) and 143 women (24.4%). The median age was 57 years (21–85 years). The median follow up time was 39 months (5–75 months). The total number of death during follow up was 25. The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rate was 99.1%, 96.8% and 93.1%, respectively (Fig. 1).
Table 1
Clinicopathological characteristics of early gastric cancer patients
Characteristics
No. of patients
Percent
Gender
 Male
444
75.6
 Female
143
24.4
Age
  ≤ 60
368
62.7
  > 60
219
37.3
Tumor location
 Upper third
102
17.4
 Middle third
100
17.0
 Lower third
385
65.6
Tumor size (cm)
  ≤ 2
365
62.2
  > 2
222
37.8
Pathological type
 Well differentiated
186
31.7
 Moderately differentiated
163
27.8
 Poorly differentiated
220
37.5
 Signet ring cell or Mucinous
18
3.0
Tumor depth
 T1a
255
43.4
 T1b
332
56.6
Lymph node metastasis
 N0
495
84.3
 N1
55
9.4
 N2
29
4.9
 N3
8
1.4
The positive rates of the four markers were summarized in Table 2. The positive rate of CEA, CA19–9, AFP and CA125 level were 4.3%, 4.8%, 1.5% and 1.9%, respectively. The highest positive rate was 8.2% for combination of two markers (CA19–9 and CEA), 9.4% for combination of three markers (CA19–9, CEA and AFP or CA19–9, CEA and CA125), and 10.4% for combination of all four markers.
Table 2
Positive rates of single and combined tumor markers in early gastric cancer patients
Tumor marker
 
CA19–9
AFP
CA125
CEA
25(4.3%)
48(8.2%)
31(5.3%)
35(6.0%)
CA19–9
28(4.8%)
 
37(6.3%)
33(5.6%)
AFP
9(1.5%)
  
20(3.4%)
CA125
11(1.9%)
   
CEA + CA19–9
  
55(9.4%)
55(9.4%)
CEA + AFP
   
41(7.0%)
CA19–9 + AFP
   
44(7.5%)
CEA + CA19–9 + AFP
   
61(10.4%)
Considering the extremely low positive rates of AFP and CA125, we only analyzed the correlation between level of CEA and CA19–9 and clinicopathological features. No association was found between CEA level and clinicopathological features (Table 3). However, elevation of CA19–9 level was correlated with female gender and presence of LNM (Table 4).
Table 3
Comparison of clinicopathological characteristics between two groups stratified by CEA level
Characteristics
CEA(−)
CEA(+)
P
Gender
 Male
422
22
0.161
 Female
140
3
 
Age
  ≤ 60
351
17
0.675
  > 60
211
8
 
Tumor location
 Upper third
99
3
0.744
 Middle third
95
5
 
 Lower third
368
17
 
Tumor size (cm)
  ≤ 2
346
19
0.205
  > 2
216
6
 
Pathological type
 Well differentiated
180
6
0.537
 Moderately differentiated
153
10
 
 Poorly differentiated
212
8
 
 Signet ring cell or Mucinous
17
1
 
Tumor depth
 T1a
245
9
0.539
 T1b
317
16
 
Lymph node metastasis
 N0
474
21
0.698
 N1
53
2
 
 N2
28
1
 
 N3
7
1
 
Table 4
Comparison of clinicopathological characteristics between two groups stratified by CA 19–9 level
Characteristics
CA19–9(−)
CA19–9(+)
P
Gender
 Male
428
16
0.025
 Female
131
12
 
Age
  ≤ 60
351
17
0.843
  > 60
208
11
 
Tumor location
 Upper third
95
7
0.543
 Middle third
96
4
 
 Lower third
368
17
 
Tumor size (cm)
  ≤ 2
345
20
0.327
  > 2
214
8
 
Pathological type
 Well differentiated
178
8
0.936
 Moderately differentiated
156
7
 
 Poorly differentiated
208
12
 
 Signet ring cell or Mucinous
17
1
 
Tumor depth
 T1a
243
12
1.000
 T1b
316
16
 
Lymph node metastasis
 N0
475
20
0.020
 N1
52
3
 
 N2
26
3
 
 N3
6
2
 
Prognostic factors for early gastric cancer patients were analyzed using univariate analysis (Table 5). The results showed that age, LNM and CEA level were prognostic factors for early gastric cancer. The variables used for adjustment in the multivariate analyses were age, LNM and CEA level. The results showed that age, LNM and CEA level were independent prognostic factors according to multivariate analysis (Table 6). The overall survival of early gastric cancer patients according to the levels of CEA and CA19–9 were shown in Figs. 2 and 3.
Table 5
Univariate analysis of prognostic factors for early gastric cancer
Prognostic factors
β
Hazard ratio (95% CI)
P value
Gender
0.105
1.110(0.443–2.783)
0.824
Age
1.195
3.304(1.425–7.661)
0.005
Tumor location
−0.283
0.754(0.478–1.189)
0.224
Tumor size
−0.687
0.503(0.201–1.260)
0.142
Pathological type
−0.388
0.679(0.431–1.067)
0.093
Tumor depth
0.736
2.088(0.831–5.241)
0.117
Lymph node metastasis
0.577
1.781(1.124–2.821)
0.014
CEA
1.404
4.070(1.208–13.713)
0.024
CA19–9
0.576
1.779(0.419–7.546)
0.435
AFP
−3.019
0.049(0.000–590,647.114)
0.717
CA125
0.740
2.095(0.283–15.490)
0.469
Table 6
Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for early gastric cancer
Prognostic factors
β
Hazard ratio (95% CI)
P value
Age
1.379
3.971(1.671–9.435)
0.002
Lymph node metastasis
0.682
1.978(1.248–3.136)
0.004
CEA
1.284
3.611(1.065–12.245)
0.039

Discussion

Serum tumor markers are widely applied in the diagnosis, treatment effect assessment and disease monitoring [12]. Up to date, a series of studies have explored the diagnostic and prognostic value of various serum tumor markers for gastric cancer [5]. However, no study has explored the diagnostic and prognostic value of serum tumor markers for early gastric cancer. Our present study found that the positive rates of serum CEA, CA19–9, APF and CA125 were relatively low for early gastric cancer. Elevation of CA19–9 level was correlated with female gender and presence of LNM. Elevation of CEA level was an independent risk factor for the poor prognosis of early gastric cancer.
The positive rates of the four markers for early gastric cancer varied widely. It was reported that the positive rate was 4.4%–15.4% for CEA [1315], 11.7% for CA19–9 [15], 2.5%–3.3% for AFP [16, 17] and 6.7% for CA125 [17]. In the present study, the positive rates of all four tumor markers were lower than previous reports. Even with the combination of four tumor markers, the positive rate was only 10.4%. This indicated that the diagnostic value of the four tumor markers was extremely low for early gastric cancer.
A strong correlation between elevated tumor markers and clinicopathological features has been reported previously. It was reported that serum CEA level was correlated with tumor depth, LNM [13] and liver metastasis [18]. Other studies have reported that CA19–9 level was correlated with tumor depth, LNM and tumor stage [19, 20]. However, the association between tumor markers and the clinicopathological features of early gastric cancer has not been investigated yet. In our present study, no association was found between CEA level and clinicopathological features. However, elevation of CA19–9 level was correlated with female gender and presence of LNM.
Early gastric cancer has a favorable outcome after radical gastrectomy. The preoperative tumor markers have been reported as valuable predictors for the prognosis of gastric cancer. A meta-analysis containing 14,651 gastric cancer patients demonstrated that serum CEA level was an independent prognostic factor for gastric cancer [8]. Another meta-analysis revealed that CEA protein and mRNA levels in peritoneal lavage were associated with peritoneal recurrence after radical gastrectomy [21]. A meta-analysis containing 11,408 gastric cancer patients showed that elevated serum CA19–9 level was correlated with poor prognosis [22]. Elevated AFP level was reported to be associated with liver metastasis and poor prognosis of gastric cancer [10, 23, 24]. Elevation of peritoneal lavage CA125 level was correlated with peritoneal dissemination and poor outcomes of gastric cancer [25]. However, the prognostic value of these tumor markers for early gastric cancer was unclear. In our study, considering the extremely low positive rate of AFP and CA125 level, only the prognostic significance of CEA and CA19–9 level were analyzed. The results showed that serum CEA level was an independent prognostic factor for early gastric cancer. However, serum CA19–9 level had no prognostic significance.
There are some limitations in our study. Firstly, we did not evaluate the predictive value of postoperative levels of serum tumor markers for recurrence patterns and prognosis of early gastric cancer. Secondly, the sample size was not large enough, and the positive rate of tumor markers was relatively low, which may result in bias during analysis. Thirdly, mortality was extremely low in early gastric cancer, which will influence the prognostic significance analysis of tumor markers.

Conclusions

The positive rates of CEA, CA19–9, APF and CA125 were relatively low for early gastric cancer. Elevation of CA19–9 level was associated with female gender and presence of lymph node metastasis. Elevation of CEA level was an independent risk factor for the poor prognosis of early gastric cancer.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Xingbin Hu for his help with the revision of manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported in part by grants from the National Natural Scientific Foundation of China [NO. 31100643, 31,570,907, 81,572,306, 81,502,403, XJZT12Z03]. The funding body had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing of this manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ information

Not further applicable.
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Xijing Hospital, and written informed consent was obtained from the patients in our center.
Not applicable.

Competing interests

There are no financial or other relations that could lead to a conflict of interest. Prof. Daiming Fan, one of co-authors in the present study, is a member of the editorial board of this journal.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(2):69–90.CrossRefPubMed Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(2):69–90.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Feng F, Sun L, Xu G, Cai L, Hong L, Yang J, et al. Is it reasonable to treat early gastric cancer with mucosal infiltration and well differentiation by endoscopic submucosal resection? J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19(12):2111–9.CrossRefPubMed Feng F, Sun L, Xu G, Cai L, Hong L, Yang J, et al. Is it reasonable to treat early gastric cancer with mucosal infiltration and well differentiation by endoscopic submucosal resection? J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19(12):2111–9.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhu L, Qin J, Wang J, Guo T, Wang Z, Yang J. Early gastric cancer. Current Advances of Endoscopic Diagnosis and Treatment Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2016;2016:9638041.PubMed Zhu L, Qin J, Wang J, Guo T, Wang Z, Yang J. Early gastric cancer. Current Advances of Endoscopic Diagnosis and Treatment Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2016;2016:9638041.PubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Tian SB, JC Y, Kang WM, Ma ZQ, Ye X, Cao ZJ, et al. Combined detection of CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242 and CA 50 in the diagnosis and prognosis of resectable gastric cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(15):6295–300.CrossRefPubMed Tian SB, JC Y, Kang WM, Ma ZQ, Ye X, Cao ZJ, et al. Combined detection of CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242 and CA 50 in the diagnosis and prognosis of resectable gastric cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(15):6295–300.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Jin Z, Jiang W, Wang L. Biomarkers for gastric cancer. Progression in early diagnosis and prognosis (review). Oncol Lett. 2015;9(4):1502–8.PubMedPubMedCentral Jin Z, Jiang W, Wang L. Biomarkers for gastric cancer. Progression in early diagnosis and prognosis (review). Oncol Lett. 2015;9(4):1502–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Pyo JH, Lee H, Min BH, Lee JH, Choi MG, Lee JH, et al. Long-term outcome of endoscopic resection vs. surgery for early gastric cancer: a non-inferiority-matched cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(2):240–9.CrossRefPubMed Pyo JH, Lee H, Min BH, Lee JH, Choi MG, Lee JH, et al. Long-term outcome of endoscopic resection vs. surgery for early gastric cancer: a non-inferiority-matched cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(2):240–9.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Huang B, Wang Z, Xing C, Sun Z, Zhao B, Long-term XH. Survival results and prognostic factors of early gastric cancer. EXP THER MED. 2011;2(6):1059–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Huang B, Wang Z, Xing C, Sun Z, Zhao B, Long-term XH. Survival results and prognostic factors of early gastric cancer. EXP THER MED. 2011;2(6):1059–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Deng K, Yang L, Hu B, Wu H, Zhu H, Tang C. The prognostic significance of pretreatment serum CEA levels in gastric cancer: a meta-analysis including 14651 patients. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e124151. Deng K, Yang L, Hu B, Wu H, Zhu H, Tang C. The prognostic significance of pretreatment serum CEA levels in gastric cancer: a meta-analysis including 14651 patients. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e124151.
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Xiao J, He X, Wang Z, Hu J, Sun F, Qi F, et al. Serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 and prognosis of patients with gastric cancer. Tumour Biol. 2014;35(2):1331–4.CrossRefPubMed Xiao J, He X, Wang Z, Hu J, Sun F, Qi F, et al. Serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 and prognosis of patients with gastric cancer. Tumour Biol. 2014;35(2):1331–4.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Liu X, Cheng Y, Sheng W, Lu H, Xu Y, Long Z, et al. Clinicopathologic features and prognostic factors in alpha-fetoprotein-producing gastric cancers: analysis of 104 cases. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102(3):249–55.CrossRefPubMed Liu X, Cheng Y, Sheng W, Lu H, Xu Y, Long Z, et al. Clinicopathologic features and prognostic factors in alpha-fetoprotein-producing gastric cancers: analysis of 104 cases. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102(3):249–55.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3). Gastric Cancer. 2011;14(2):113–23.CrossRef Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3). Gastric Cancer. 2011;14(2):113–23.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Rodriguez-Enriquez S, Pacheco-Velazquez SC, Gallardo-Perez JC, Marin-Hernandez A, Aguilar-Ponce JL, Ruiz-Garcia E, et al. Multi-biomarker pattern for tumor identification and prognosis. J Cell Biochem. 2011;112(10):2703–15.CrossRefPubMed Rodriguez-Enriquez S, Pacheco-Velazquez SC, Gallardo-Perez JC, Marin-Hernandez A, Aguilar-Ponce JL, Ruiz-Garcia E, et al. Multi-biomarker pattern for tumor identification and prognosis. J Cell Biochem. 2011;112(10):2703–15.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Park SH, Ku KB, Chung HY, Yu W. Prognostic significance of serum and tissue carcinoembryonic antigen in patients with gastric adenocarcinomas. Cancer Res Treat. 2008;40(1):16–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Park SH, Ku KB, Chung HY, Yu W. Prognostic significance of serum and tissue carcinoembryonic antigen in patients with gastric adenocarcinomas. Cancer Res Treat. 2008;40(1):16–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Wang W, Chen XL, Zhao SY, YH X, Zhang WH, Liu K, et al. Prognostic significance of preoperative serum CA125, CA19-9 and CEA in gastric carcinoma. Oncotarget. 2016;7(23):35423–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wang W, Chen XL, Zhao SY, YH X, Zhang WH, Liu K, et al. Prognostic significance of preoperative serum CA125, CA19-9 and CEA in gastric carcinoma. Oncotarget. 2016;7(23):35423–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Liang Y, Wang W, Fang C, Raj SS, Hu WM, Li QW, et al. Clinical significance and diagnostic value of serum CEA, CA19-9 and CA72-4 in patients with gastric cancer. Oncotarget. 2016;7(31):49565–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Liang Y, Wang W, Fang C, Raj SS, Hu WM, Li QW, et al. Clinical significance and diagnostic value of serum CEA, CA19-9 and CA72-4 in patients with gastric cancer. Oncotarget. 2016;7(31):49565–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Wang D, Li C, Xu Y, Xing Y, Qu L, Guo Y, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of alpha-fetoprotein positive gastric cancer in Chinese patients. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2015;8(6):6345–55.PubMedPubMedCentral Wang D, Li C, Xu Y, Xing Y, Qu L, Guo Y, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of alpha-fetoprotein positive gastric cancer in Chinese patients. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2015;8(6):6345–55.PubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Zurück zum Zitat He CZ, Zhang KH, Li Q, Liu XH, Hong Y, Lv NH. Combined use of AFP, CEA, CA125 and CAl9-9 improves the sensitivity for the diagnosis of gastric cancer. BMC Gastroenterol. 2013;13:87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral He CZ, Zhang KH, Li Q, Liu XH, Hong Y, Lv NH. Combined use of AFP, CEA, CA125 and CAl9-9 improves the sensitivity for the diagnosis of gastric cancer. BMC Gastroenterol. 2013;13:87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Ucar E, Semerci E, Ustun H, Yetim T, Huzmeli C, Gullu M. Prognostic value of preoperative CEA, CA 19-9, CA 72-4, and AFP levels in gastric cancer. Adv Ther. 2008;25(10):1075–84.CrossRefPubMed Ucar E, Semerci E, Ustun H, Yetim T, Huzmeli C, Gullu M. Prognostic value of preoperative CEA, CA 19-9, CA 72-4, and AFP levels in gastric cancer. Adv Ther. 2008;25(10):1075–84.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Sisik A, Kaya M, Bas G, Basak F, Alimoglu OCEA. CA 19-9 are still valuable markers for the prognosis of colorectal and gastric cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(7):4289–94.CrossRefPubMed Sisik A, Kaya M, Bas G, Basak F, Alimoglu OCEA. CA 19-9 are still valuable markers for the prognosis of colorectal and gastric cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(7):4289–94.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Kochi M, Fujii M, Kanamori N, Kaiga T, Kawakami T, Aizaki K, et al. Evaluation of serum CEA and CA19-9 levels as prognostic factors in patients with gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2000;3(4):177–86.CrossRefPubMed Kochi M, Fujii M, Kanamori N, Kaiga T, Kawakami T, Aizaki K, et al. Evaluation of serum CEA and CA19-9 levels as prognostic factors in patients with gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2000;3(4):177–86.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Xiao Y, Zhang J, He X, Ji J, Wang G. Diagnostic values of carcinoembryonic antigen in predicting peritoneal recurrence after curative resection of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Ir J Med Sci. 2014;183(4):557–64.CrossRefPubMed Xiao Y, Zhang J, He X, Ji J, Wang G. Diagnostic values of carcinoembryonic antigen in predicting peritoneal recurrence after curative resection of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Ir J Med Sci. 2014;183(4):557–64.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Song YX, Huang XZ, Gao P, Sun JX, Chen XW, Yang YC, et al. Clinicopathologic and prognostic value of serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 in gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Dis Markers 2015, 2015:549843. Song YX, Huang XZ, Gao P, Sun JX, Chen XW, Yang YC, et al. Clinicopathologic and prognostic value of serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 in gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Dis Markers 2015, 2015:549843.
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen Y, Qu H, Jian M, Sun G, He Q. High level of serum AFP is an independent negative prognostic factor in gastric cancer. Int J Biol Markers. 2015;30(4):e387–93.CrossRefPubMed Chen Y, Qu H, Jian M, Sun G, He Q. High level of serum AFP is an independent negative prognostic factor in gastric cancer. Int J Biol Markers. 2015;30(4):e387–93.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Zuo C, An JQ. Analysis on clinical characteristics and prognosis of patients with serum alpha-fetoprotein-positive gastric cancer. Minerva Med. 2015;106(4):185–91.PubMed Zuo C, An JQ. Analysis on clinical characteristics and prognosis of patients with serum alpha-fetoprotein-positive gastric cancer. Minerva Med. 2015;106(4):185–91.PubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Yamamoto M, Baba H, Toh Y, Okamura T, Maehara Y. Peritoneal lavage CEA/CA125 is a prognostic factor for gastric cancer patients. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2007;133(7):471–6.CrossRefPubMed Yamamoto M, Baba H, Toh Y, Okamura T, Maehara Y. Peritoneal lavage CEA/CA125 is a prognostic factor for gastric cancer patients. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2007;133(7):471–6.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Diagnostic and prognostic value of CEA, CA19–9, AFP and CA125 for early gastric cancer
verfasst von
Fan Feng
Yangzi Tian
Guanghui Xu
Zhen Liu
Shushang Liu
Gaozan Zheng
Man Guo
Xiao Lian
Daiming Fan
Hongwei Zhang
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2017
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Cancer / Ausgabe 1/2017
Elektronische ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3738-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2017

BMC Cancer 1/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

25.04.2024 Nierenkarzinom Nachrichten

Nun gibt es auch Resultate zum Gesamtüberleben: Eine adjuvante Pembrolizumab-Therapie konnte in einer Phase-3-Studie das Leben von Menschen mit Nierenzellkarzinom deutlich verlängern. Die Sterberate war im Vergleich zu Placebo um 38% geringer.

Alectinib verbessert krankheitsfreies Überleben bei ALK-positivem NSCLC

25.04.2024 NSCLC Nachrichten

Das Risiko für Rezidiv oder Tod von Patienten und Patientinnen mit reseziertem ALK-positivem NSCLC ist unter einer adjuvanten Therapie mit dem Tyrosinkinase-Inhibitor Alectinib signifikant geringer als unter platinbasierter Chemotherapie.

Bei Senioren mit Prostatakarzinom auf Anämie achten!

24.04.2024 DGIM 2024 Nachrichten

Patienten, die zur Behandlung ihres Prostatakarzinoms eine Androgendeprivationstherapie erhalten, entwickeln nicht selten eine Anämie. Wer ältere Patienten internistisch mitbetreut, sollte auf diese Nebenwirkung achten.

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Müssen sich Schwangere einer Krebstherapie unterziehen, rufen Immuncheckpointinhibitoren offenbar nicht mehr unerwünschte Wirkungen hervor als andere Mittel gegen Krebs.

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.