Value of combined serum CEA, CA72-4, and CA19-9 marker detection in diagnosis of colorectal cancer.

Carbohydrate antigen 19–9 Carbohydrate antigen 72–4 Carcinoembryonic antigen Colorectal cancer Tumor markers

Journal

Techniques in coloproctology

ISSN: 1128-045X

Titre abrégé: Tech Coloproctol

Pays: Italy

ID NLM: 9613614

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 Feb 2024

Historique:

received: 10 05 2023

accepted: 18 10 2023

medline: 15 2 2024

pubmed: 15 2 2024

entrez: 15 2 2024

Statut: epublish

Résumé

The aim of this study was to examine whether the combination of serum tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA], carbohydrate antigen [CA]72-4, CA19-9) improves sensitivity and accuracy in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and precancerous lesion tubular adenoma. An automatic electrochemiluminescence immunoassay with matched kits (ECLIA) was performed on a Roche Cobas e411 analyzer to determine the levels of serum CEA, CA72-4, and CA19-9 in 35 patients with early colorectal cancer, 87 patients with tubular adenoma, and 58 healthy people undergoing colonoscopy after positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in a colorectal cancer screening program 2021 January to April. The values of these three tumor markers in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and tubular adenoma were analyzed. 180 patients (92 female and 88 male) were included into the study. We compared serum CEA, CA72-4 and CA19-9 markers among 3 groups: healthy people (mean age 64,0 ±8,6), patients with tubular adenoma (mean age 62,7 ± 6,4) and colorectal cancer (mean age 59,2 ±6,2). The levels of serum CEA, CA72-4, and CA19-9 were higher in the colorectal cancer group than in the tubular adenoma group and healthy subjects, and these differences were significant (p < 0.05). The combination of CEA, CA72-4, and CA19-9 had a higher diagnostic value for colorectal cancer compared to single markers, and the positive detection rate was 54.3%. The diagnostic power when using all three markers was the best, and applied for colorectal cancer and tubular adenoma. The combination of CA72-4, CEA, and CA19-9 markers increases the sensitivity and accuracy in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and can thus be considered an important tool for early colorectal diagnosis.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND

METHODS METHODS

An automatic electrochemiluminescence immunoassay with matched kits (ECLIA) was performed on a Roche Cobas e411 analyzer to determine the levels of serum CEA, CA72-4, and CA19-9 in 35 patients with early colorectal cancer, 87 patients with tubular adenoma, and 58 healthy people undergoing colonoscopy after positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in a colorectal cancer screening program 2021 January to April. The values of these three tumor markers in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and tubular adenoma were analyzed.

RESULTS RESULTS

180 patients (92 female and 88 male) were included into the study. We compared serum CEA, CA72-4 and CA19-9 markers among 3 groups: healthy people (mean age 64,0 ±8,6), patients with tubular adenoma (mean age 62,7 ± 6,4) and colorectal cancer (mean age 59,2 ±6,2). The levels of serum CEA, CA72-4, and CA19-9 were higher in the colorectal cancer group than in the tubular adenoma group and healthy subjects, and these differences were significant (p < 0.05). The combination of CEA, CA72-4, and CA19-9 had a higher diagnostic value for colorectal cancer compared to single markers, and the positive detection rate was 54.3%. The diagnostic power when using all three markers was the best, and applied for colorectal cancer and tubular adenoma.

CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS

The combination of CA72-4, CEA, and CA19-9 markers increases the sensitivity and accuracy in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and can thus be considered an important tool for early colorectal diagnosis.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1007/s10151-023-02873-4 PMID: 38358422

pubmed: 38358422

doi: 10.1007/s10151-023-02873-4

pii: 10.1007/s10151-023-02873-4

doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

Pagination

Informations de copyright

Références

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al (2021) Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71(3):209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660 .

doi: 10.3322/caac.21660 pubmed: 33538338

Calon A, Lonardo E, Berenguer-Llergo A et al (2015) Stromal gene expression defines poor-prognosis subtypes in colorectal cancer. Nat Genet 47(4):320–329. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3225

doi: 10.1038/ng.3225 pubmed: 25706628

Dulskas A, Gaizauskas V, Kildusiene I, Samalavicius NE, Smailyte G (2020) Improvement of survival over time for colorectal cancer patients: a population-based study. J Clin Med 9(12):4038. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9124038

doi: 10.3390/jcm9124038 pubmed: 33327538 pmcid: 7765021

ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Fisher DA, Shergill AK et al (2013) Role of endoscopy in the staging and management of colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 78:8–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2013.04.163

doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.04.163

Kahi CJ, Boland CR, Dominitz JA et al (2016) Colonoscopy surveillance after colorectal cancer resection: recommendations of the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 150:758–768.e711. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2016.01.001 .

Loeve F, Brown ML, Boer R, van Ballegooijen M, van Oortmarssen GJ, Habbema JD (2000) Endoscopic colorectal cancer screening: a cost-saving analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:557–563

doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.7.557 pubmed: 10749911

Garborg K, Holme Ø, Løberg M, Kalager M, Adami HO, Bretthauer M (2013) Current status of screening for colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 24:1963–1972. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdt157

doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt157 pubmed: 23619033

Anderson JC, Fortinsky RH, Kleppinger A, Merz-Beyus AB, Huntington CG 3rd, Lagarde S (2011) Predictors of compliance with free endoscopic colorectal cancer screening in uninsured adults. J Gen Intern Med 26:875–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1716-7

doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1716-7 pubmed: 21499823 pmcid: 3138985

Niv Y, Sperber AD (1995) Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of fecal occult blood testing (Hemoccult II) for colorectal neoplasia in symptomatic patients: a prospective study with total colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 90:1974–1977

pubmed: 7485003

Allison JE, Tekawa IS, Ransom LJ, Adrain AL (1996) Improving the fecal occult-blood test. N Engl J Med 334:1607–1608. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199606133342414

doi: 10.1056/NEJM199606133342414 pubmed: 8628349

Allison JE, Tekawa IS, Ransom LJ, Adrain AL (1996) A comparison of fecal occult-blood tests for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 334:155–159. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199601183340304

doi: 10.1056/NEJM199601183340304 pubmed: 8531970

Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH et al (2000) Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 343(3):162–168. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM2000072034303018

doi: 10.1056/NEJM2000072034303018 pubmed: 10900274

Calderwood AH, Lasser KE, Roy HK (2016) Colon adenoma features and their impact on risk of future advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer. World J Gastrointest Oncol 8(12):826–834. https://doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v8.i12.826

doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v8.i12.826 pubmed: 28035253 pmcid: 5156849

Hisabe T, Hirai F, Matsui T (2014) Development and progression of colorectal cancer based on follow-up analysis. Dig Endosc 26:73–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/den.1227610

doi: 10.1111/den.1227610 pubmed: 24750153

Edwards BK, Ward E, Kohler BA et al (2010) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer 116(3):544–573. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.2476011

doi: 10.1002/cncr.2476011 pubmed: 19998273

Dulskas A, Poskus T, Kildusiene I et al (2021) National colorectal cancer screening program in Lithuania: description of the 5-year performance on population level. Cancers (Basel) 13(5):1129. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13051129.PMID:33800772;PMCID:PMC7961359

doi: 10.3390/cancers13051129.PMID:33800772;PMCID:PMC7961359 pubmed: 33800772

Meklin J, SyrjÄnen K, Eskelinen M (2020) Fecal occult blood tests in colorectal cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis of traditional and new-generation fecal immunochemical tests. Anticancer Res 40(7):3591–3604. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.14349

doi: 10.21873/anticanres.14349 pubmed: 32620599

Park HJ, Ahn JY, Jung HY et al (2014) Clinical characteristics and outcomes for gastric cancer patients aged 18–30 years. Gastric Cancer 17:649–660

Nam DH, Lee YK, Park JC et al (2013) Prognostic value of early postoperative tumor marker response in gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 20:3905–3911

Parchur AK, Sharma G, Jagtap JM et al (2018) Vascular in⁃terventional radiology⁃guided photothermal therapy of colorectal cancer liver metastasis with theranostic gold nanorods. ACS Nano 12(7):6597–6611

Türk G, Eldem G, Kılıçkap S et al (2019) Outcomes of radioembolization in patients with chemorefractory colorectal cancer liver metastasis: a single-center experience. J Gastrointest Cancer 50(2):236–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-018-0053-z

doi: 10.1007/s12029-018-0053-z pubmed: 29354877

Baidoun F, Elshiwy K, Elkeraie Y et al (2021) Colorectal cancer epidemiology: recent trends and impact on outcomes. Curr Drug Targets 22:998–1009

Adam R, de Gramont A, Figueras J et al (2015) Managing synchronous liver metastases from colorectal cancer: a multidisciplinary international consensus. Cancer Treat Rev 41(9):729–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.06.006

Zhang S-Y, Lin M, Zhang H-B (2015) Diagnostic value of carcinoembryonic antigen and carcinoma antigen 19–9 for colorectal carcinoma. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 8:9404–9409

pubmed: 26464695 pmcid: 4583927

Filella X, Molina R, Grau JJ et al (1992) Prognostic value of CA 19.9 levels in colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 216:55–59

Zhang L-N, OuYang P-Y, Xiao W-W et al (2015) Elevated CA19-9 as the most significant prognostic factor in locally advanced rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Medicine 94:e1793

doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001793 pubmed: 26559251 pmcid: 4912245

Keller G, Vogelsang H, Becker I et al (2004) Germline mutations of the E-cadherin(CDH1) and TP53 genes, rather than of RUNX3 and HPP1, contribute to genetic predisposition in German gastric cancer patients. J Med Genet 41(6):e89. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.2003.015594

doi: 10.1136/jmg.2003.015594 pubmed: 15173255 pmcid: 1735803

Sun Z, Zhang N (2014) Clinical evaluation of CEA, CA19-9, CA72-4 and CA125 in gastric cancer patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. World J Surg Onc 12:397. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-12-397

doi: 10.1186/1477-7819-12-397