Ratio of carcinoembryonic antigen in pleural fluid and serum for the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion.
carcinoembryonic antigen
malignant pleural fluid
pleural carcinosis
thoracocentesis
tumour markers
Journal
Therapeutic advances in medical oncology
ISSN: 1758-8340
Titre abrégé: Ther Adv Med Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101510808
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
28
03
2018
accepted:
05
04
2019
entrez:
18
6
2019
pubmed:
18
6
2019
medline:
18
6
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Tumour markers in pleural fluid and their diagnostic value are subject to debate. Although there are several studies on this topic, standardized cut-off values do not exist. In this study we investigated the potential of a ratio of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in pleural fluid and serum, serving as an individual marker for pleural cancer manifestation. A total of 201 consecutive patients with unclear pleural effusion were included in the study; 98 were diagnosed with malignant pleural effusion and 103 had an effusion due to other, benign reasons. CEA levels in pleural fluid and serum were measured. By using receiver operating characteristics analysis, at the cut-off of 1.0, the CEA ratio showed a specificity of 92% and sensitivity of 85%, with a positive predictive value of 91% and a negative predictive value of 87%. These results are higher than in previous investigations on different pleural tumour markers and their combination. The CEA ratio is a useful tool in predicting pleural carcinosis. Elevated results in cytology-negative patients should lead to further investigations, such as repeated cytological examination or thoracoscopy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Tumour markers in pleural fluid and their diagnostic value are subject to debate. Although there are several studies on this topic, standardized cut-off values do not exist. In this study we investigated the potential of a ratio of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in pleural fluid and serum, serving as an individual marker for pleural cancer manifestation.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 201 consecutive patients with unclear pleural effusion were included in the study; 98 were diagnosed with malignant pleural effusion and 103 had an effusion due to other, benign reasons. CEA levels in pleural fluid and serum were measured.
RESULTS
RESULTS
By using receiver operating characteristics analysis, at the cut-off of 1.0, the CEA ratio showed a specificity of 92% and sensitivity of 85%, with a positive predictive value of 91% and a negative predictive value of 87%. These results are higher than in previous investigations on different pleural tumour markers and their combination.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The CEA ratio is a useful tool in predicting pleural carcinosis. Elevated results in cytology-negative patients should lead to further investigations, such as repeated cytological examination or thoracoscopy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31205509
doi: 10.1177/1758835919850341
pii: 10.1177_1758835919850341
pmc: PMC6535745
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1758835919850341Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest in preparing this article.
Références
Br J Cancer. 1999 Nov;81(6):1059-65
pubmed: 10576665
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000 Nov;162(5):1987-2001
pubmed: 11069845
Lung Cancer. 2002 Apr;36(1):83-9
pubmed: 11891038
Chest. 2004 Dec;126(6):1757-63
pubmed: 15596670
Tumour Biol. 2004 Sep-Dec;25(5-6):276-81
pubmed: 15627892
Oncologist. 2005 Aug;10(7):501-7
pubmed: 16079317
Chest. 2005 Oct;128(4):2298-303
pubmed: 16236887
Thorax. 2008 Jan;63(1):35-41
pubmed: 17573438
Anticancer Res. 2007 Jul-Aug;27(4A):1921-4
pubmed: 17649796
Respirology. 2008 Jun;13(4):518-27
pubmed: 18422869
Med Arh. 2009;63(3):141-2
pubmed: 20088159
Eur J Med Res. 2009 Dec 7;14 Suppl 4:128-33
pubmed: 20156743
Clin Biochem. 2010 Sep;43(13-14):1051-5
pubmed: 20529669
Mod Pathol. 1991 May;4(3):320-4
pubmed: 2068057
Thorax. 2010 Aug;65 Suppl 2:ii32-40
pubmed: 20696691
Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Dec;31(6):723-33
pubmed: 21213204
Respir Med. 1990 Jan;84(1):23-6
pubmed: 2371417
Transl Res. 2015 Nov;166(5):432-9
pubmed: 25953662
Curr Oncol. 2015 Oct;22(5):e336-41
pubmed: 26628873
Chin Med J (Engl). 2016 Feb 5;129(3):253-8
pubmed: 26831224
J Carcinog. 2015 Nov 27;14:7
pubmed: 26900349
Clin Biochem. 2016 Nov;49(16-17):1227-1231
pubmed: 27521620
Eur Respir Rev. 2016 Sep;25(141):303-16
pubmed: 27581830
Respiration. 2017;94(1):62-69
pubmed: 28427079
J Thorac Dis. 2017 Dec;9(12):5220-5229
pubmed: 29312729
Pathology. 1986 Jul;18(3):328-9
pubmed: 3785982
Ann Intern Med. 1972 Oct;77(4):507-13
pubmed: 4642731
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 1984 Sep;14(3):321-7
pubmed: 6090732
Am J Surg. 1995 Jul;170(1):69-74
pubmed: 7793501
Lung. 1994;172(3):183-4
pubmed: 8201832
Eur J Cancer. 1993;29A(13):1806-9
pubmed: 8260229
Cancer. 1996 Aug 15;78(4):736-40
pubmed: 8756365
Eur Respir J. 1996 Jan;9(1):17-23
pubmed: 8834328
Chest. 1997 Mar;111(3):643-7
pubmed: 9118701
Clin Chim Acta. 1997 Sep 30;265(2):193-205
pubmed: 9385461
Br J Cancer. 1998;77(3):472-6
pubmed: 9472646