Advertisement

Clinical evaluation and therapeutic monitoring value of serum tumor markers in lung cancer

Abstract

Background

Tumor markers CYFRA21-1, CEA, NSE, CA125, pro-GRP and SCC are routinely used for lung cancer. However, there has been no systematic evaluation of these markers in the same cohort. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic and therapeutic monitoring value of these markers.

Methods

The levels of 6 serum tumor markers were measured in 392 patients, including 308 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 84 with small cell lung cancer (SCLC), and 116 patients with benign lung diseases and 144 healthy controls. 34 patients were followed up after operation and chemotherapy. Multiple logistic models and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate their diagnostic value.

Results

CEA, NSE, CA125 and pro-GRP in SCLC, and CYFRA21-1 as well as CEA in NSCLC, were higher than those in control groups. The level of CEA and CA125 were related to the clinical stages of NSCLC. Pro-GRP was significantly increased in extensive disease (ED) compared with limited disease (LD) in SCLC. CYFRA21-1 was reduced after the third and fifth treatment cycle respectively in patients who undergoing operation and without operation. NSE and pro-GRP were reduced significantly after the second and third treatment cycles, respectively.

Conclusions

CEA, NSE, CA125 and pro-GRP could serve as biomarkers for SCLC, and CEA and CYFRA21-1 could serve as biomarkers for NSCLC. Pro-GRP, CA125 and CEA were related to the clinical stages of lung cancer. CYFRA21-1, NSE and pro-GRP could be used for monitoring the effect of chemotherapy.

Int J Biol Markers 2016; 31(1): e80 - e87

Article Type: ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

DOI:10.5301/jbm.5000177

Authors

Lishui Wang, Ding Wang, Guixi Zheng, Yongmei Yang, Lutao Du, Zhaogang Dong, Xin Zhang, Chuanxin Wang

Article History

Disclosures

Financial support: This study was supported by the National Key Clinical Medical Specialties Foundation, National Natural Science Foundation of China (81271916, 81301506), Natural Science Foundation of Shandong (ZR2013HM104), Foundation for Outstanding Young Scientists in Shandong province (2014BSE27062), Medical Science and Technology Development Plans in Shandong province (2014WS0124) and the National Key Clinical Medical Specialties Foundation.
Conflict of interest: All authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

This article is available as full text PDF.

Download any of the following attachments:

Introduction

Lung cancer is one of the most common respiratory tract malignancies, with high morbidity and mortality worldwide (1, 2). Patients with lung cancer usually do not exhibit noticeable symptoms, particularly in the early stage. More than 60% of the patients with lung cancer are diagnosed at an advanced stage and miss the optimal opportunity for surgery (3). The corresponding 5-year survival rates decrease significantly, from 60%-80% in stage I to less than 10% in advanced stage patients (4). Therefore, the current high mortality would be remarkably decreased if lung cancer were detected at an early stage. Among the available lung cancer testing methods, fiberoptic bronchoscope is recommended as the most reliable tool for high-risk patients. However, its wide application is hampered because it cannot be readily repeated, and it causes physical harm to patients. Conventional imaging examinations such as chest radiographs, computed tomography and cytological examination are not sensitive enough for effective early diagnosis (5).

Serum tumor markers have been shown to be excellent candidates and are widely used by clinicians in the early diagnosis of cancer. Several studies have also demonstrated the significance of serum tumor markers in the diagnosis, prognosis and follow-up of lung cancer (6-7-8-9). National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry (NACB) Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines recommend carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), squamous carcinoma antigen (SCC), neuron specific enolase (NSE), cytokeratin fragment (CYFRA21-1), carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) and pro-gastrin-releasing peptide (pro-GRP) as routine markers of lung cancer. However, there is no systematic evaluation of these 6 markers in the same cohort.

In the present study, we measured the levels of these 6 tumor markers in patients with lung cancer, patients with benign lung diseases and healthy controls, and analyzed their diagnostic value in different types of lung cancer. The relationship between makers and clinical stage of lung cancer was also studied. Meanwhile, we collected the serum of patients before and after operation or chemotherapy to evaluate the value of tumor markers in the therapeutic monitoring of lung cancer.

Materials and methods

Patients and control subjects

Written informed consent was obtained from each participant for the use of venous blood samples. All of the lung cancer and benign lung disease patients were recruited from the Department of General Surgery and the Department of Gastroenterology and Chemotherapy, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, between May 2010 and September 2013. The healthy controls were enrolled from the Department of Physical Examination Center, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University.

All lung cancer patients were confirmed by histopathology or cytology. Tumors were staged according to the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) 2009 lung cancer classification. All follow-up patients were confirmed as in remission by clinicians. Preoperative blood samples were collected before any therapeutic procedures such as surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Postoperative blood samples were collected 7 days after each operation and after subsequent chemotherapy. Patients with lung benign diseases were diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis, pleural effusion, pneumonia, phthisis and bronchiectasis by standard diagnostic methods or histological examination. Age- and sex-matched healthy controls were recruited from a large pool of healthy individuals seeking a routine health check-up. Detailed patient characteristics are described in Supplementary Table I (Available online at www.biological-markers.com).

Sample collection and measurement

Briefly, 5 mL of venous blood was collected from each participant. The whole blood was separated into serum and cellular fractions within 2 hours by centrifugation at 4,000 rpm for 10 minutes. The whole process was strictly controlled to avoid hemolysis. The obtained serum was stored at -80°C before further analysis.

The CEA, NSE, CA125, CYFRA21-1 and pro-GRP concentrations were measured using electrochemiluminescence immunoassay method on a Roche Cobas e601 analyzer. The SCC concentration was measured using chemiluminescence immunoassay method on an ARCHITECT i2000SR analyzer.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 17.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The data were described as median, minimum, 25th, 75th, 95th percentiles and maximum. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the difference in the levels of serum tumor markers between the 2 groups. The signed-rank test was used to compare the difference in the levels of tumor markers preoperatively, postoperatively and after chemotherapy. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to select the optimal combination of tumor markers. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves was constructed, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of tumor markers. MedCalc software was used to generate the ROC curves.

Results

Comparison of tumor markers in lung cancer, benign lung disease and healthy control group

Expressions of CYFRA21-1, CEA, NSE, CA125 and pro-GRP were significantly higher in lung cancer than in benign lung disease patient and healthy control groups (p<0.05) (Tab. I). There was no statistically significant difference in SCC concentration among the 3 groups.

Concentration of tumors markers in different groups

Healthy controls Patients with benign lung disease Patients with lung cancer Patients with SCLC Patients with NSCLC
NSCLC = non-small cell lung cancer; SCLC = small cell lung cancer.
*p<0.05, vs. healthy control group.
p<0.05, vs. lung benign disease group.
p<0.05, vs. NSCLC group.
CYFRA21-1 (ng/mL) Median 1.9 2.28 3.03* 2.21 3.18*
Minimum 0.34 0.25 0.54 0.54 0.98
25th 0.87 1.76 1.98 1.15 2.26
75th 2.45 2.87 4.91 3.39 5.27
95th 3.22 5.61 15.57 8.08 21.37
Maximum 3.78 8.7 222.5 15.57 222.5
CEA (ng/mL) Median 1.62 2.84 3.57* 3.03* 3.57*
Minimum 0.08 0.29 0.47 0.47 0.72
25th 1.11 1.58 2.15 1.79 2.22
75th 2.23 4.15 7.17 7.48 6.72
95th 3.5 7.63 43.1 26.89 81.32
Maximum 3.5 8.5 2,542 43.1 2,542
NSE (ng/mL) Median 12.27 15.07 17.64* 43.98*†‡ 15.32*
Minimum 5.23 2.56 6.06 11.01 6.06
25th 10.89 13.14 10.45 22.36 10
75th 13.29 16.3 19.77 78.68 16.25
95th 18.72 21.09 78.68 329 25.69
Maximum 19.19 32.23 1,036 1,036 85.63
CA125 (U/mL) Median 12.65 14.12 17.86* 20.94* 15.51*
Minimum 1.78 4.67 3.97 7.11 3.97
25th 3.75 8.46 11.69 17.86 11.43
75th 17.58 27.88 24.51 55.66 23.1
95th 20.77 52.02 106 166.5 106
Maximum 24.78 76.35 1,470 284.7 1,470
SCC (ng/mL) Median 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5
Minimum 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
25th 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3
75th 0.8 0.8 1 0.6 1
95th 1.1 2.2 4.5 1.3 5.3
Maximum 1.1 2.5 57.3 1.6 57.3
pro-GRP (ng/L) Median 12.87 22.84 24.78* 353.2*†‡ 23.78*
Minimum 3.67 12 10.43 10.43 11.78
25th 9.77 16 19.88 157.1 18.44
75th 20.16 23.78 34.88 723.49 32.56
95th 37.98 40 603.35 4,588.01 43.89
Maximum 58.39 42.67 10,246 10,246 45.17

The lung cancer group was classified into those with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC). The results indicated that CEA, NSE, CA125 and pro-GRP levels in the SCLC group, as well as CYFRA21-1 and CEA in the NSCLC group, were higher than those in the benign lung disease and healthy control groups (p<0.05). The expression of SCC (median 0.8, range 0.1-57.3) was higher in the squamous cell lung cancer group than in the benign lung disease and healthy control groups (p = 0.001 and p = 0.024, respectively). The diagnostic value of SCC in the squamous cell lung cancer group is shown in Table II. In both the NSCLC and SCLC groups, the expression levels of SCC were not significantly different from those in the benign lung disease and healthy control groups (p>0.05). Therefore, SCC was excluded in further evaluations for diagnostic value.

Diagnosis value of tumor markers indicated by ROC curves

Tumor markers AUC 95% CI Sensitivity (%) Cutoff values
AUC = area under the curve; CI = confidence interval; NSCLC = non-small cell lung cancer; ROC = receiver operating characteristic; SCLC = small cell lung cancer.
Sensitivities and cutoff values of all tumor markers are for 95% specificity.
Lung cancer group CYFRA21-1 0.690 0.621-0.753 37.4 3.83 ng/mL
CEA 0.715 0.654-0.766 31.0 5.12 ng/mL
NSE 0.638 0.567-0.704 22.4 21.09 ng/mL
CA125 0.672 0.602-0.737 16.7 40.21 U/mL
pro-GRP 0.595 0.523-0.663 21.8 40 ng/L
SCLC group CEA 0.682 0.604-0.754 28.1 5.12 ng/mL
NSE 0.928 0.877-0.963 78.1 21.09 ng/mL
CA125 0.760 0.686-0.824 28.4 40.21 U/mL
pro-GRP 0.946 0.898-0.975 90.6 40 ng/L
NSCLC group CYFRA21-1 0.779 0.715-0.835 40.8 3.83 ng/mL
CEA 0.763 0.593-0.728 30.3 5.12 ng/mL
Squamous cell lung cancer group SCC 0.642 0.570-0.710 33.3 1.3 ng/mL

Diagnostic efficiency of tumor markers in different types of lung cancer

The diagnostic values of CYFRA21-1, CEA, NSE, CA125 and pro-GRP in lung cancer, NSCLC and SCLC groups were evaluated using the ROC method. The AUC, sensitivity (at 95% specificity) and cutoff value of the 6 tumor makers above are shown in Table II. The results showed that the diagnostic values of NSE and pro-GRP in the SCLC group were superior to those for CEA and CA125 according to AUC and sensitivity (p<0.05). However, there were no statistically significant differences in diagnostic efficiency of the markers, between the lung cancer group and the NSCLC group (p>0.05).

Optimal combination of tumor markers in different types of lung cancer

The stepwise backward method of logistic regression analysis was used to select the optimal combination for NSCLC and SCLC, and to establish the diagnostic panel. NSE, CA125 and pro-GRP were considered as the optimal combination markers for SCLC patients. Meanwhile, CYFRA21-1 and CEA were the optimal combination markers for NSCLC patients.

The predicted probability of diagnosis for SCLC was calculated using the following equation: logit(P) = -10.483 + 0.184*NSE + 0.074*CA125 + 0.107 * pro-GRP. ROC analysis indicated that AUC and sensitivity (at 95% specificity) of the SCLC panel were 0.979 and 91.4%, respectively. The diagnostic value of the SCLC panel was superior to that for CA125 (p<0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference between NSE and pro-GRP (p>0.05).

The predicted probability of diagnosis for NSCLC was calculated using the following equation: logit(P) = -2.271 + 0.475*CYFRA21-1 + 0.288*CEA. The AUC and sensitivity (at 95% specificity) of the NSCLC panel were 0.797 and 43.6%, respectively. The diagnostic value of the NSCLC panel was superior to that for CEA (p<0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference between the panel and CYFRA21-1 (p>0.05).

Differential diagnosis value of tumor markers in NSCLC and SCLC

The expressions of the 6 tumor markers in the NSCLC and SCLC groups were compared. The results showed that the levels of NSE and pro-GRP were significantly higher in the SCLC group than in the NSCLC group (Tab. I). The predicted probability of differential diagnosis of NSCLC and SCLC was calculated using the following equation: logit(P) = -6.481 + 0.023*NSE + 0.094*pro-GRP. Figure 1 demonstrates that AUC and sensitivity (at 95% specificity) of NSE, pro-GRP and the combination of the 2 markers for differential diagnosis of NSCLC and SCLC were 0.926, 0.932 and 0.940, and 71.9%, 90.6% and 90.8%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the differential diagnosis value among NSE, pro-GRP and the combination of the 2 markers.

Differential diagnosis value of NSE, pro-GRP and a combination of the 2 markers in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC).

Relationship between tumor marker and clinical stage of lung cancer

Expression of CEA was significantly higher in stages II-IV than in stage I (p = 0.003, p = 0.005 and p = 0.009, respectively). The level of CA125 was higher in stage IV than in stage I (p<0.001), stage II (p = 0.018) and stage III (p = 0.037); and in stage III, it was higher than in stage I (p<0.001). The expression of pro-GRP was higher in extensive disease (ED) for SCLC than in limited disease (LD) (p = 0.009). However, there were no statistically significant differences in the levels of CYFRA21-1 and NSE among the different stages of lung cancer (p>0.05) (Tab. III).

Concentration of tumor markers in different stages of lung cancer

NSCLC SCLC
Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV LD ED
ED = extensive disease; LD = limited disease; NSCLC = non-small cell lung cancer; SCLC = small cell lung cancer.
*p<0.05, vs. stage I.
p<0.05, vs. stage II.
p<0.05, vs. stage III.
§p<0.05, vs. LD.
CYFRA21-1 (ng/mL) Median 2.91 3.36 3.57 2.96 1.83 4.53
Minimum 0.98 1.14 1.25 1.58 0.84 0.54
25th 2.04 1.9 1.82 1.98 1.09 3.56
75th 4.41 4.48 6.3 16.59 2.22 8.08
95th 13.21 8.03 11.74 152.9 3.39 10.86
Maximum 27.31 41.74 59.08 222.5 6.2 15.57
CEA (ng/mL) Median 2.87 5.12* 4.23* 5.41* 2.5 8.56
Minimum 0.72 1.39 0.88 0.45 0.47 1.71
25th 1.75 2.76 2.77 2.29 1.6 3.57
75th 4.65 9.39 12.23 83.94 4.31 11.74
95th 27.06 338 156.9 986.5 24.95 14.9
Maximum 81.32 359.3 1,023.6 2,542 43.1 26.89
NSE (ng/mL) Median 11.67 14.15 12.76 14.19 38.83 109.8
Minimum 6.11 7.31 6.06 7.83 13.46 22.36
25th 9.58 10.11 9.21 12.57 20.85 44.92
75th 13.65 17.34 16.67 24.4 59.73 129.1
95th 20.02 31.38 21.17 85.63 255 329
Maximum 25.69 45.02 32.99 91.67 277.7 1,036
CA125 (U/mL) Median 13.69 16.09 18.27* 35.58*†‡ 18.88 79.2
Minimum 4.37 3.97 7.39 6.14 7.11 14.3
25th 9.73 11.92 12.37 22.38 11.21 44.57
75th 20.35 23.1 23.09 161.9 26.59 103.2
95th 38.69 61.99 69.55 628.9 91.3 103.8
Maximum 58.89 129 114.2 1,470 166.5 284.7
pro-GRP (ng/L) Median 24.78 27.99 23.78 20.88 253.84 2,855.62§
Minimum 11.78 11.78 11.46 12.35 18.29 10.43
25th 8.57 20.89 15.78 12.89 79.33 436.4
75th 34.38 34.65 24.78 24.3 527.82 2,898.05
95th 45.17 38.62 43.89 34.8 2,010.88 3,933.22
Maximum 53.26 45.17 45.17 44.88 4,588.01 10,246

Therapeutic monitoring value of tumor markers in lung cancer

The patients followed up were divided into 2 groups: those undergoing an operation before chemotherapy and those not undergoing an operation before chemotherapy. The monitoring values of tumor makers were assessed in the 2 groups (Figs. 2 and 3). Our results showed that CYFRA21-1 was significantly decreased after the third cycle of chemotherapy in patients who underwent an operation before chemotherapy and after the fifth cycle of chemotherapy in patients not undergoing an operation (p<0.05). NSE and pro-GRP were remarkably decreased after the second and the third cycles of chemotherapy, respectively (p<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the levels of CA125 and CEA between pretreatment and posttreatment.

The concentration of tumor markers in pretreatment, 7 days after operation and 1, 2 and 3 cycles after chemotherapy in lung cancer patients. CYFRA21-1 was significantly decreased after the third cycle of chemotherapy in patients who experienced operation before chemotherapy (p<0.05). CYFRA21-1 median: 3.88, 2.33, 2.23, 2.01 and 1.78; CEA median: 5.12, 2.67, 2.74, 2.41 and 2.21; CA125 median: 18.27, 24.36, 18.73, 16.30 and 17.83; NSE median: 13.94, 13.40, 11.21, 12.32 and 10.89; pro-GRP median: 14.36, 14.28, 11.36, 11.78 and 10.86, respectively.

The concentration of tumor markers in pretreatment and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 cycles of chemotherapy in lung cancer patients. CYFRA21-1 was significantly decreased after the fifth cycle of chemotherapy in patients without operation (p<0.05). NSE and pro-GRP were remarkably decreased after the second and third cycle of chemotherapy, respectively (p<0.05). CYFRA21-1 median: 3.61, 2.59, 2.14, 2.44, 2.11, 1.71 and 1.23; CEA median: 5.39, 4.29, 3.32, 2.48, 2.18, 1.88 and 1.65; CA125 median: 29.70, 18.42, 14.03, 13.20, 12.98, 12.89 and 11.87; NSE median: 43.98, 13.12, 13.09, 13.11, 12.33, 11.45 and 10.35; pro-GRP median: 353.2, 167.5, 60.37, 46.78, 24.87, 23.67 and 18.56, respectively.

Discussion

Lung cancer has a high mortality rate worldwide (1). Early detection and timely treatment can significantly improve the prognosis and prolong survival times for patients with lung cancer. Detection of tumor markers has proven to be useful for early diagnosis of lung cancer, and these can be indicators for monitoring treatment effect. Currently, tumor markers, including CYFRA21-1, CEA, NSE, CA125, SCC and pro-GRP, are routinely used in clinical laboratories. However, a comprehensive evaluation of these 6 tumor markers in the diagnosis and therapeutic monitoring of lung cancer is lacking.

In the present study, 6 serum markers were evaluated individually and in combination, in lung cancer, benign lung disease and healthy controls. CEA is mainly used in the diagnosis and therapeutic monitoring of gastrointestinal cancer. Several studies have indicated increased CEA levels in lung adenocarcinoma and advanced bronchogenic cancer of various histological types (10, 11). The sensitivity of CEA is around 35% to 77% (12). Our study showed that the expression of CEA was significantly higher in both NSCLC and SCLC groups than in the benign lung disease and healthy control groups, and that it could be a useful marker for both NSCLC and SCLC patients. The sensitivity (at 95% specificity) of CEA in diagnosing NSCLC and SCLC was 30.3% and 28.1%, respectively. Furthermore, our results indicated that CEA was correlated with TNM stage. In stages II-IV, the level of CEA was higher than in stage I.

CYFRA21-1 is considered a sensitive tumor marker for lung cancer, especially for NSCLC. The sensitivity of CYFRA21-1 ranges from 55% to 70% in lung cancer (8, 13). Our results indicated that the level of CYFRA21-1 was higher in the NSCLC group than in the benign lung disease and healthy control groups. Meanwhile, we found that CYFRA21-1 and CEA were the optimal combination markers for NSCLC patients, which was similar to what was reported by Molina et al (14). The sensitivity of CYFRA21-1 for lung cancer and NSCLC was 37.4% and 40.8%, respectively. There was no correlation between CYFRA21-1 and TNM stage in the present study.

SCC is elevated in many types of squamous cell carcinoma, including uterine cervix, bronchus, nasopharynx and lung cancer. Currently, the results of SCC in serum of lung cancer patients have been controversial. Several studies have reported that SCC is valuable for the early diagnosis of lung cancer (15, 16). Other researchers have found higher SCC levels in patients with lung squamous cell carcinoma than patients with benign lung diseases and healthy controls (5). Our result was consistent with the latter. Therefore, SCC may not be a valuable marker for lung cancer diagnosis, but it may be useful for distinguishing between lung squamous cell carcinoma and other histological subtypes.

CA125 is a glycoprotein expressed in fetal epithelial cells of the body cavity. It has mainly been used as a specific marker for ovarian cancer. Recently, CA125 has gradually been introduced in lung cancer diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. There has been no report on the correlation between CA125 and tumor size, stage and histological type. It can be used as an independent prognostic indicator for patients with lung cancer (17). We found that CA125 increased significantly in the SCLC group, but there was no significant difference in the level of CA125 between the NSCLC group and the lung benign disease and healthy control groups. Furthermore, CA125 levels were associated with TNM stage. The level of CA125 was higher in stage IV than in stages I-III, and was also higher in stage III than in stage I of NSCLC.

NSE and pro-GRP are useful markers with high diagnostic value for SCLC patients (18, 19). In the present study, the expression levels of NSE and pro-GRP were higher in the SCLC group than in the lung benign disease and healthy control groups. The sensitivity of NSE and pro-GRP was 78.1% and 90.6%, respectively. Pro-GRP was correlated with the stage of SCLC. The expression of pro-GRP was higher in ED than in LD. However, no difference was observed between LD and ED in NSE level. Our results also showed that NSE and pro-GRP could be used as markers for distinguishing SCLC and NSCLC with high sensitivity and specificity.

The usual method for assessing operation or chemotherapy response in cancer patients is through the change of tumor size as measured by imaging examination. However, these measurements are often inconsistent with clinical status. Several studies have demonstrated that serum markers play an important role in therapeutic monitoring. Pang et al (8) have demonstrated that a significant reduction in CYFRA21-1 level is associated with a positive response after 2 cycles of chemotherapy in NSCLC patients. CYFRA21-1 is a useful surrogate marker for predicting responses to chemotherapy. A retrospective report by Ardizzoni et al (20) showed that a significant decrease of serum CEA level after 2 cycles of chemotherapy predicts the patient’s response as accurately as an ROC curve analysis of 0.65. Ebert et al (21) indicated that after curative surgery of NSCLC, only CYFRA 21-1 levels dropped to within the normal range within 1 week. During the monitoring of response to chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, concordant results were obtained in 59.4% of the cases for CYFRA21-1 (TPA-M: 63.3%, TPS: 65.5%, CEA: 54.8%, NSE: 68.9%). The most discordant results were obtained in tumor remission due to an insufficient decrease in the markers. Progressive disease was most effectively indicated by CYFRA 21-1 in NSCLC (60%) and by NSE in SCLC (70.0%). Our results indicated that CYFRA21-1 was significantly decreased after 3 cycles in patients who underwent an operation before chemotherapy and 5 cycles of chemotherapy in patients without an operation. NSE and pro-GRP were remarkably decreased after 2 and 3 cycles of chemotherapy, respectively. There were no significant differences in the levels of CEA and CA125 before and after treatment. Therefore, CYFRA21-1, NSE and pro-GRP were sensitive markers for therapeutic monitoring of lung cancer.

Disclosures

Financial support: This study was supported by the National Key Clinical Medical Specialties Foundation, National Natural Science Foundation of China (81271916, 81301506), Natural Science Foundation of Shandong (ZR2013HM104), Foundation for Outstanding Young Scientists in Shandong province (2014BSE27062), Medical Science and Technology Development Plans in Shandong province (2014WS0124) and the National Key Clinical Medical Specialties Foundation.
Conflict of interest: All authors declare they have no conflict of interest.
References
  • 1. Liu YC Zhou SB Gao F et al. Chemotherapy and late course three dimensional conformal radiotherapy for treatment of patients with stage III non- small cell lung cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013 14 4 2663 2665 Google Scholar
  • 2. Lu YY Huang XE Xu L et al. Potential predictors of sensitivity to pemetrexed as first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLCs. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013 14 3 2005 2008 Google Scholar
  • 3. Ries LAG Young JL Keel GE et al. “Cancer of the lung” SEER Survival Monograph: cancer survival among adults: U.S. SEER Program, 1988-2001, NIH. Publication no. 07-6215 Bethesda, MD National Institutes of Health 2007: 73-80. Google Scholar
  • 4. Rami-Porta R Crowley JJ Goldstraw P The revised TNM staging system for lung cancer. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009 15 1 4 9 Google Scholar
  • 5. Wang R Wang G Zhang N et al. Clinical evaluation and cost-effectiveness analysis of serum tumor markers in lung cancer. BioMed Res Int 2013 2013 195692 Google Scholar
  • 6. Wang WJ Tao Z Gu W Sun LH Clinical observations on the association between diagnosis of lung cancer and serum tumor markers in combination. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013 14 7 4369 4371 Google Scholar
  • 7. Li X Lu J Ren H et al. Combining multiple serum biomarkers in tumor diagnosis: a clinical assessment. Mol Clin Oncol 2013 1 153 160 Google Scholar
  • 8. Pang L Wang J Jiang Y Chen L Decreased levels of serum cytokeratin 19 fragment CYFRA 21-1 predict objective response to chemotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Exp Ther Med 2013 6 2 355 360 Google Scholar
  • 9. Fang MY Wang SY Zheng YB et al. Prognostic and predictive significance of plasma hepatocyte growth factor and carcinoembryonic antigen in non-small lung cancer after surgery. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2014 18 3 398 403 Google Scholar
  • 10. Li X Asmitananda T Gao L et al. Biomarkers in the lung cancer diagnosis: a clinical perspective. Neoplasma 2012 59 5 500 507 Google Scholar
  • 11. Harmsma M Schutte B Ramaekers FC Serum markers in small cell lung cancer: opportunities for improvement. Biochim Biophys Acta 2013 1836 255 72 Google Scholar
  • 12. Ramshankar V Krishnamurthy A Lung cancer detection by screening: presenting circulating miRNAs as a promising next generation biomarker breakthrough. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013 14 4 2167 2172 Google Scholar
  • 13. Cabrera-Alarcon JL Carrillo-Vico A Santotoribio JD et al. CYFRA 21-1 as a tool for distant metastasis detection in lung cancer. Clin Lab 2011 57 11-12 1011 1014 Google Scholar
  • 14. Molina R Auge JM Escudero JM et al. Mucins CA 125, CA 19.9, CA 15.3 and TAG-72.3 as tumor markers in patients with lung cancer: comparison with CYFRA 21-1, CEA, SCC and NSE. Tumour Biol 2008 29 6 371 380 Google Scholar
  • 15. Song WA Liu X Tian XD et al. Utility of squamous cell carcinoma antigen, carcinoembryonic antigen, Cyfra 21-1 and neuron specific enolase in lung cancer diagnosis: a prospective study from China. Chin Med J (Engl) 2011 124 20 3244 3248 Google Scholar
  • 16. Zou Y Wang L Zhao C et al. CEA, SCC and NSE levels in exhaled breath condensate: possible markers for early detection of lung cancer. J Breath Res 2013 7 4 047101 Google Scholar
  • 17. Yu D Du K Liu T et al. Prognostic value of tumor markers, NSE, CA125 and SCC, in operable NSCLC patients. Int J Mol Sci 2013 14 6 11145 11156 Google Scholar
  • 18. Feng F Wu Y Wu Y Nie G Ni R The effect of artificial neural network model combined with six tumor markers in auxiliary diagnosis of lung cancer. J Med Syst 2012 36 5 2973 2980 Google Scholar
  • 19. Ryu C Sawada T Taniguchi D Machino R Nagayasu T [Benign pulmonary mass suspected of primary lung cancer for the high level of Pro gastrin-releasing peptide(ProGRP)] [article in Japanese]. Kyobu Geka 2012 65 12 1067 1070 Google Scholar
  • 20. Ardizzoni A Cafferata MA Tiseo M et al. Decline in serum carcinoembryonic antigen and cytokeratin 19 fragment during chemotherapy predicts objective response and survival in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer 2006 107 12 2842 2849 Google Scholar
  • 21. Ebert W Hoppe M Muley T Drings P Monitoring of therapy in inoperable lung cancer patients by measurement of CYFRA 21-1, TPA- TP CEA, and NSE. Anticancer Res 1997 17 4B 2875 2878 Google Scholar

Authors

Affiliations

  • Department of Clinical Laboratory, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan - PR China

Article usage statistics

The blue line displays unique views in the time frame indicated.
The yellow line displays unique downloads.
Views and downloads are counted only once per session.

This article has supplementary materials available to download.