Comparative Assessment of Two Strategies for Interpreting Tumor Markers in Ascitic Effusions.
Adenosine Deaminase
/ metabolism
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Antigens, Tumor-Associated, Carbohydrate
/ metabolism
Ascitic Fluid
/ chemistry
Biomarkers, Tumor
/ analysis
C-Reactive Protein
/ metabolism
CA-19-9 Antigen
/ metabolism
Carcinoembryonic Antigen
/ metabolism
Diagnosis, Differential
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Mucin-1
/ metabolism
Neoplasms
/ blood
Neutrophils
/ pathology
Sensitivity and Specificity
Diagnosis
cancer
differential diagnosis
malignant ascites
tumour markers
Journal
In vivo (Athens, Greece)
ISSN: 1791-7549
Titre abrégé: In Vivo
Pays: Greece
ID NLM: 8806809
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
07
11
2019
revised:
19
11
2019
accepted:
26
11
2019
entrez:
1
3
2020
pubmed:
1
3
2020
medline:
24
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There are two strategies for the interpretation of tumor markers (TM) in fluid effusions: i) high cut-off and ii) fluid/serum ratio (F/S) and low cut-off. The objective of this study is to compare these two strategies and to determine whether diagnostic accuracy improves by the identification of possible false positives using Adenosine deaminase (ADA), C reactive protein (CRP) and % of polymorphonuclear cells (%PN). We studied 157 ascitic fluids, 74 of which were malignant. ADA, CRP and %PN were determined in ascitic fluid, and Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), Cancer antigen 72-4 (CA72-4), Cancer antigen CA19-9 and Cancer antigen 15-3 (CA15-3) in both fluid and serum. The strategy of high cut-off showed 59.5% sensitivity at 100% specificity. The F/S strategy showed 75.7% sensitivity at 95.2% specificity. Subclassifying cases with ADA, CRP and %PN negative showed 67.5% sensitivity at 100% specificity for high cut-off and for the F/S strategy was 81.7% sensitivity at 98.7% specificity. The strategy of F/S with negative ADA, CRP and %PN allow the best interpretation for TM in the ascitic fluid.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/AIM
OBJECTIVE
There are two strategies for the interpretation of tumor markers (TM) in fluid effusions: i) high cut-off and ii) fluid/serum ratio (F/S) and low cut-off. The objective of this study is to compare these two strategies and to determine whether diagnostic accuracy improves by the identification of possible false positives using Adenosine deaminase (ADA), C reactive protein (CRP) and % of polymorphonuclear cells (%PN).
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
We studied 157 ascitic fluids, 74 of which were malignant. ADA, CRP and %PN were determined in ascitic fluid, and Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), Cancer antigen 72-4 (CA72-4), Cancer antigen CA19-9 and Cancer antigen 15-3 (CA15-3) in both fluid and serum.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The strategy of high cut-off showed 59.5% sensitivity at 100% specificity. The F/S strategy showed 75.7% sensitivity at 95.2% specificity. Subclassifying cases with ADA, CRP and %PN negative showed 67.5% sensitivity at 100% specificity for high cut-off and for the F/S strategy was 81.7% sensitivity at 98.7% specificity.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The strategy of F/S with negative ADA, CRP and %PN allow the best interpretation for TM in the ascitic fluid.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32111775
pii: 34/2/715
doi: 10.21873/invivo.11829
pmc: PMC7157839
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antigens, Tumor-Associated, Carbohydrate
0
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
CA-19-9 Antigen
0
CA-72-4 antigen
0
Carcinoembryonic Antigen
0
MUC1 protein, human
0
Mucin-1
0
C-Reactive Protein
9007-41-4
Adenosine Deaminase
EC 3.5.4.4
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
715-722Informations de copyright
Copyright© 2020, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.
Références
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2011 Oct;49(10):1605-20
pubmed: 21892908
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014 May;79(1):102-7
pubmed: 24629577
Thorax. 2008 Jan;63(1):35-41
pubmed: 17573438
Respir Res. 2017 May 25;18(1):103
pubmed: 28545517
Ann Hepatol. 2014 May-Jun;13(3):357-63
pubmed: 24756011
Acta Gastroenterol Belg. 2014 Dec;77(4):418-24
pubmed: 25682632
Dig Dis Sci. 2017 Sep;62(9):2558-2568
pubmed: 28597106
J Natl Med Assoc. 1997 Feb;89(2):142-3
pubmed: 9046768
Neth J Med. 2016 Oct;74(8):330-335
pubmed: 27762220
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 May;210(5):1155-1163
pubmed: 29629798
J Clin Pathol. 2001 Nov;54(11):831-5
pubmed: 11684715
Respirology. 2008 Jun;13(4):518-27
pubmed: 18422869
J Natl Med Assoc. 2005 Feb;97(2):276-80
pubmed: 15712792
Dig Dis Sci. 2014 Oct;59(10):2588-93
pubmed: 24838501
Tumour Biol. 2004 Sep-Dec;25(5-6):276-81
pubmed: 15627892
Anticancer Res. 2015 Oct;35(10):5655-60
pubmed: 26408739
J Gastrointest Cancer. 2017 Mar;48(1):50-57
pubmed: 27614744
Br J Biomed Sci. 2018 Apr;75(2):71-75
pubmed: 29452544
Anticancer Res. 2019 Sep;39(9):5071-5076
pubmed: 31519617
Am J Clin Pathol. 2006 May;125(5):752-7
pubmed: 16707378
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1994 Jul-Aug;9(4):396-400
pubmed: 7948823
Diagn Cytopathol. 1999 Jun;20(6):350-7
pubmed: 10352907
Clin Biochem. 2013 Jun;46(9):814-8
pubmed: 23454392
J Hepatol. 2001 Feb;34(2):215-21
pubmed: 11281549
Tumour Biol. 2012 Oct;33(5):1661-8
pubmed: 22678976
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(2):719-22
pubmed: 25684514