Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A re-evaluation of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as a serum marker for breast cancer: a prospective longitudinal study.
Guadagni, F; Ferroni, P; Carlini, S; Mariotti, S; Spila, A; Aloe, S; D'Alessandro, R; Carone, M D; Cicchetti, A; Ricciotti, A; Venturo, I; Perri, P; Di Filippo, F; Cognetti, F; Botti, C; Roselli, M.
Afiliación
  • Guadagni F; Laboratory of Clinical Pathology, Regina Elena Cancer Institute, Via Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy. guadagnifiore@uni.net
Clin Cancer Res ; 7(8): 2357-62, 2001 Aug.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-11489813
PURPOSE: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is still a widely used test for monitoring breast cancer, although recent reports discourage its routine use because of low sensitivity. This is a prospective study evaluating the efficacy of CEA and CA 15.3 in monitoring breast cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Serum CEA and CA 15.3 were measured in 2191 patients with either benign (n = 738) or malignant (n = 1453) breast diseases. Five hundred and forty-nine patients were monitored during postsurgical follow-up for either a minimum of 5 years or until time of recurrence. Fifty-three patients with metastases were also monitored during chemotherapy. RESULTS: Elevated CEA and CA 15.3 levels were found in 16.7% and 33.0% of patients, respectively. CEA sensitivity rose to 41.3% and CA 15.3 sensitivity rose to 80.8% in metastatic patients. The adjunct of CEA increased the CA 15.3 sensitivity by 6% in the overall population and by only 2.1% for patients with metastases. During postsurgical follow-up, CEA was elevated in 38.0% and CA 15.3 in 70.2% of patients with recurrence. The combination of CEA and CA 15.3 increased the overall sensitivity by only 1.4%. Longitudinal monitoring of 53 metastatic patients undergoing chemotherapy demonstrated that, when positive, both CEA and CA 15.3 paralleled response to treatment, although CA 15.3 was a significantly more powerful marker for determining response to treatment. The cost effectiveness ratio of CEA was clearly less favorable than that of CA 15.3. CONCLUSIONS: CEA monitoring should be considered an expensive and inefficient method of follow-up evaluation for breast cancer patients, and it provides no additional value when used in combination with CA 15.3.
Asunto(s)
Buscar en Google
Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias de la Mama / Antígeno Carcinoembrionario Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Clin Cancer Res Asunto de la revista: NEOPLASIAS Año: 2001 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Italia Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos
Buscar en Google
Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias de la Mama / Antígeno Carcinoembrionario Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Clin Cancer Res Asunto de la revista: NEOPLASIAS Año: 2001 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Italia Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos