胸水、血清中CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1对恶性胸腔积液的诊断价值

目的探讨胸水、血清中CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1对恶性胸腔积液的诊断价值。方法测定40例恶性胸水和40例非恶性胸水及其血清中CEA、NSE、CYFRA21—1的水平。结果恶性胸水组胸水及其血清中CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1的水平明显高于非恶性胸水组,有显著性差异（P〈0．05）。恶性胸水组3项联合检测的阳性率明显高于单项检测（P〈0．05）。结论联合检测胸水及其血清中CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1对鉴别良、恶性胸水有一定的临床价值。     

CEA,CA199,CYFRA21-1测定对癌性、结核性胸腔积液的鉴别诊断价值

目的探讨癌胚抗原(CEA)、糖类抗原199(CA199)和非小细胞肺癌标志物(CYFRA21-1)对癌性和结核胸腔积液的鉴别诊断价值。方法应用放射免疫法分别测定胸腔积液病人的血清及胸水的CEA,CA199,CYFRA21-1水平,并评价联检对胸腔积液的诊断价值。结果恶性胸腔积液组血清及胸水CEA,CA199,CYFRA21-1水平显著高于良性胸腔积液组,且胸腔积液/血清>1,CEA和CYFRA21-1联检的灵敏度为86.5%,若加CA199,灵敏度为92.3%。结论CEA,CA199及CYFRA21-1联合检测对良、恶性胸腔积液的鉴别有较好的诊断价值,联检以CEA和CYFRA21-1为佳。     

肿瘤标志物CEA、CYFRA21-1和NSE联合检测对老年人胸腔积液鉴别诊断的意义

目的评价老年良、恶性胸腔积液患者血清和胸液中3种肿瘤标志物单项和联合检测的诊断价值。方法采集有胸腔积液患者的血清及胸水样本各64例，其中恶性组34例，良性组30例，用放射免疫法检测其血清及胸水癌胚抗原（CEA）、细胞角蛋白19片断（CYFRA21—1）和神经元特异性烯醇化酶（NSE）的含量。结果恶性组血清和胸水中CEA、CYFRA21—1、NSE水平均显著高于良性组（P〈0．01）；血清中3项指标对恶性胸水诊断的敏感性和特异性：CEA为79．4％和86．7％；CYFRA21—1为79．4％和83．3％；NSE为70．6％和73．3％；胸水中3项指标对恶性胸水诊断的敏感性和特异性：CEA为82．4％和83．3％；CYFRA21—1为79．4％和80．0％；NSE为64．7％和70．0％；CYFRA21—1与CEA联合检测可使血清标志物敏感性和诊断符合率提高至97．1％和92．2％，胸水标志物提高至97．1％和90．6％；血清和胸水中3种肿瘤标志物平行联合检测可提高诊断的敏感性至100％，系列联合检测可使特异性提高至100％。结论肿瘤标志物CEA、CYFRA21—1和NSE的联合检测，对老年人胸腔积液的鉴别诊断有较高的临床价值，以CEA＋CYFRA21—1组合为佳。     

CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1、ADA联检对癌性与结核性胸腔积液的鉴别诊断价值

目的通过对胸水肿瘤表记物癌胚抗原（CEA）、细胞角蛋白19片段（CYFRA21-1）、神经元特异性烯醇化酶（NSE）和腺昔脱氨酶（ADA）联合检测对癌性与结核性胸腔积液的鉴别诊断价值。方法用放射免疫分析和化学发光法测定已确诊的52例癌性胸腔积液患者（癌性组）及58例结核性胸腔积液患者的胸水CEA、NSE、CYFRA21-1、ADA,对检测结果进行回顾性对比分析。结果癌性组胸水中CEA,CYFRA211,NSE水平均比结核组高;胸水中ADA水平结核组较癌性组高。胸水中CEA,CYFRA211,NSE三项指标联合检测,对癌性胸积液的灵敏度为98.08%,特异度为89.66%,正确率为93.63%。结论联合检测CEA,CYFRA211,NSE,ADA对鉴别癌性与结核性胸腔积液有较高的临床价值。     

CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE、LDH在良恶性胸腔积液中的鉴别诊断价值

目的 探讨血清及胸腔积液中癌胚抗原(CEA)、细胞角蛋白19片段(CYFRA21-1)、神经特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)、乳酸脱氢酶(LDH)在良恶性胸腔积液鉴别诊断价值.方法 分析我院55例肺癌患者和53例良性胸腔积液患者的血清及胸腔积液中CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE、LDH检测水平,并根据受试者工作特性(ROC)曲线建立合理的临床判断临界值及检测的敏感性和特异性.结果 恶性患者胸水CYFRA21-1、NSE、CEA、LDH的水平高于良性患者(P<0.05).胸水CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE、LDH的敏感性和特异性分别为90.9、63.6、72.7、36.4%和98.1、83、67.9、88.7%.血清CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE、LDH的敏感性和特异性分别为89.1、87.3 、32.1、25.5%和92.5、79.2、90.6、92.5%.结论 胸水中CYFRA21-1、NSE、CEA、LDH检测在良恶性胸腔积液鉴别诊断中具有一定临床价值.     

肿瘤标志物CEA、CA125在恶性胸腔积液中的诊断价值

目的探讨CEA、CA125在恶性胸腔积液中的诊断价值。方法对42例恶性胸腔积液和38例良性胸腔积液患者分别给予胸水和血清CEA、CE125测定。结果恶性胸腔积液组血清和胸水中CEA、CA125测定值均明显高于良性组。结论 CEA、CA125肿瘤标志物的测定在鉴别良恶性胸腔积液中有价值。     

多项指标检测对渗出性胸腔积液的鉴别诊断价值

目的探讨良恶性胸腔积液的临床实验特点。方法将83例渗出性胸腔积液分为结核积液组（良性）和癌性积液组（恶性）,检测患者胸腔积液三项指标水平。结果两组胸腔积液患者腺苷脱氨酶（ADA）,癌胚抗原（CEA）及胸水LDH／血清LDH（乳酸脱氢酶（LDH））、均有显著性差异（P〈0．01）。结论胸腔积液ADA,CEA及胸水LDH／血清LDH水平检测对鉴别渗出性胸腔积液性质有较好的临床实用价值。     

细胞DNA倍体分析及CYFRA21-1、CEA、CA125水平检测在老年良恶性胸腔积液诊断中的价值

目的探讨胸腔积液中细胞DNA倍体分析与联合检测CYFRA21-1、CEA、CA125在其良恶性鉴别诊断方面的应用价值。方法选取80例恶性及70例良性胸腔积液患者,平均年龄(64±3)岁,分别行CYFRA21-1、CEA、CA125检测及细胞DNA倍体分析。结果恶性胸腔积液组CYFRA21-1、CEA、CA125的含量明显高于良性胸腔积液组(P<0.05);细胞DNA倍体分析法联合CYFRA21-1、CEA、CA125检测的灵敏性及特异性均高于CYFRA21-1、CEA、CA125的测定(P<0.05)。结论在胸腔积液良恶性的鉴别诊断方面,细胞DNA倍体分析联合CYFRA21-1、CEA、CA125检测法具有更好的诊断价值。     

胸水和血清ADA、CEA联合检测对良恶性胸腔积液的诊断价值

目的探讨胸水／血清腺苷脱氨酶（ADA）、癌胚抗原（CEA）联合检测对良恶性胸腔积液的鉴别诊断价值。方法采用酶连续监测法和酶联免疫（ELISA）双抗体夹心法对119例胸腔积液进行胸水／血清ADA和CEA检测分析。结果CEA在结核性和癌性胸腔积液中的阳性率分别为8．20％和63．6％，特异性91．8％（89／97）。ADA活性在结核性和癌性胸腔积液中分别为（59．62±29．86）U／L和（15．31±7．36）U／L（P〈0．01）。以P—ADA〉40U／L做为诊断结核的临界值，其敏感性为79．3％，特异性为86．4％；以P—ADA／S—ADA〉1为临界值，其敏感性为97．7％，特异性为95．5％。结论胸腔积液ADA、CEA检测对良恶性胸腔积液具有诊断与鉴别诊断价值。     

胸水生化指标联合肿瘤标志物在肺癌恶性胸水鉴别诊断中的应用价值

目的探讨胸水生化指标联合肿瘤标志物在肺癌患者恶性胸水鉴别诊断中的应用价值。方法选取2016-01~2017-12该院住院的70例肺癌患者为研究对象,并选择同期住院的其他呼吸系统疾病(肺炎、慢性阻塞性肺疾病)并伴胸腔积液的患者70例作为非肺癌对照组,测定胸水生化5项、胸水及血清肿瘤标志物水平变化,比较两组指标差异。结果肺癌组胸水的TP、FET、LDH、胸水LDH/血清LDH比值、CEA、CA19-9、CA153、CA125、CYFRA21-1水平均显著高于对照组(P 0. 01)。肺癌组血清CA19-9、CA153、CA125及CYFRA21-1水平均显著高于对照组(P 0. 01)。肺癌组肿瘤标志物项目胸水ROC曲线下的面积 0. 8的有CEA、CA153、CYFRA21-1,而血清ROC曲线下的面积 0. 8的仅有CYFRA21-1。结论胸水生化TP、FET、LDH、胸水LDH/血清LDH比值及联合其血清肿瘤标志物可以作为肺癌恶性胸水的鉴别诊断指标,其中CYFRA21-1鉴别肺癌恶性胸水的临床价值最高。     

Diagnostic utility of serum and pleural fluid carcinoembryonic antigen, neuron-specific enolase, and cytokeratin 19 fragments in patients with effusions from primary lung cancer

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic values of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), and cytokeratin 19 fragments (CYFRA 21-1) as markers of pleurisy in primary lung cancer. DESIGN: Prospective case-control study. SETTING: A tertiary university hospital. PATIENTS: Thirty-four patients with lung cancer and 16 patients with tuberculous pleurisy. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Levels of CEA, NSE, and CYFRA 21-1 were measured by immunoassay in the serum and pleural fluid of patients with lung cancer and of patients with tuberculous pleurisy. Patients with lung cancer were found to have significantly higher serum and pleural fluid levels of CEA and CYFRA 21-1 than patients with tuberculous pleurisy. Using cutoff values of 5 ng/mL, 20 ng/mL, and 3.3 ng/mL for serum CEA, NSE, and CYFRA 21-1, respectively, the sensitivities and specificities of these tumor markers were as follows for differentiating malignant effusion from benign: CEA, 68% and 93%; NSE, 34% and 93%; and CYFRA 21-1, 45% and 100%. Using cutoff values of 5 ng/mL, 20 ng/mL, and 45 ng/mL for pleural fluid, the sensitivities and specificities were as follows: CEA, 82% and 94%; NSE, 36% and 94%; and CYFRA 21-1, 61% and 81%. A combination of pleural fluid CEA and NSE increased sensitivity and specificity. CONCLUSIONS: In the diagnosis of malignant effusion associated with lung cancer, the determinations of CEA and NSE in pleural fluid could enhance diagnostic yield better than those of all three tumor markers.     

Twist蛋白、VEGF、CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE在肺癌患者恶性胸水中的表达和应用

目的：探讨肺癌患者恶性胸水中Twist蛋白、血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)、癌胚抗原(CEA)、细胞角蛋白19片段(CYFRA21-1)、神经原特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)的表达及其临床意义。方法采集52例肺癌患者恶性胸腔积液标本,其中腺癌24例,鳞癌16例,小细胞肺癌12例,良性胸腔积液患者45例作为对照。应用酶联免疫吸附试验法和化学发光法检测各指标水平。结果肺癌组恶性胸水中 Twist 蛋白、VEGF、CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE 的表达均高于良性肺病组(t值分别为8.67、9.11、3.94、5.37、3.10,P值均<0.05);肺癌组恶性胸水中 Twist 和 VEGF的水平与患者肿瘤病理类型无关(P 值均>0.05),CEA 水平在腺癌中最高,CYFRA21-1水平在鳞癌中最高,NSE水平在小细胞肺癌中最高。Twist 蛋白、VEGF、CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE 在肺癌恶性胸水中的敏感度分别为78.8%、84.6%、61.5%、46.2%、42.3%,特异度分别为86.7%、88.9%、91.1%、86.7%、77.8%。CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE在不同肺癌恶性胸水中敏感度不同,联合检测可提高敏感度。结论胸水中 Twist 蛋白、VEGF、CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE 检测有利于良、恶性胸水的鉴别, Twist蛋白、VEGF水平与肿瘤病理类型无关,CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE 水平与肿瘤病理类型相关,联合检测可提高诊断的敏感度。     

应用ROC曲线研究肾上腺髓质素对结核性与恶性胸腔积液的鉴别诊断价值

目的以细胞角质蛋白19片段(CYFRA211)、神经元特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)、癌胚抗原(CEA)为对照,研究肾上腺髓质素(adrenomedullin AM)对恶性胸腔积液的鉴别诊断价值,并研究联合检测的临床意义,为结核性与恶性胸腔积液的鉴别诊断提供实验依据。方法应用放射免疫法(RIA)分别检测恶性及结核性胸腔积液组病人胸腔积液中AM、CYFRA211、NSE、CEA含量,比较4项指标诊断肺癌的敏感性、特异性及准确性。结果(1)恶性胸腔积液中AM的含量(115.05±31.06pg/ml)明显高于结核性胸腔积液(71.40±10.80 pg/ml),有显著性差别(P<0.01);(2)AM诊断恶性胸腔积液敏感性、准确性较NSE、CEA显著增高(P<0.05),与CYFRA211相比无显著性差异(P>0.05);(3)4项指标联合检测敏感性、准确性提高到90.4%和89.4%,均高于单项检测,有显著性差异(P<0.05)。结论(1)胸腔积液中AM的检测可作为结核性与恶性胸腔积液鉴别诊断的实验室指标;(2)AM与CYFRA211、NSE、CEA的联合检测可进一步提高诊断敏感性和准确性,对提高恶性胸腔积液的鉴别诊断有较大的意义;(3)研究提示AM参与恶性胸腔积液的发生发展,推测干扰AM与其特异性受体的结合及信号转导途径可为恶性胸腔积液的治疗开辟新的研究思路。     

Diagnostic value of the tumor markers TPA-M, CYPFRA 21-1 and CEA in pleural effusion. Prospective comparison of thoracoscopic investigations in patients with pleural effusion

The diagnostic value of tumour markers in pleural effusion is not yet clearly defined. CEA (Carcinoembryonic Antigen), CYFRA 21-1 (Cytokeratin 19-Fragment) and TPA-M, a new monoclonal-based radioimmunoassay for TPA (Tissue Polypeptide Antigen), were measured in pleural fluid and sera of 125 consecutive patients who underwent medical thoracoscopy. The group consisted of 79 patients with malignant and 45 with non-malignant pleural effusion and 1 patient without definitive diagnosis, and hence 124 patients were available for assessing the diagnostic value. In pleural fluid based on a specificity of 90% versus benign diseases the sensitivity for CEA was 52.5%; with the maximum achievable specificity of 80% for CYFRA 21-1 the sensitivity was 68% and for TPA-M with 67% the sensitivity was 67%. Based on the cut-off values for these specificities the combined use of the three tumour markers resulted in a sensitivity of 85.7% but with a lower specificity of 59.1%. There is only a limited value for tumour markers in the diagnosis of pleural effusion.     

CEA、CYFRA21-1、TSGF对恶性胸水诊断价值的研究

目的通过对胸水中CEA（癌胚抗原）、CYFRA21-1（细胞角蛋白19片段）、TSGF（恶性肿瘤特异性生长因子）的检测,探讨此三项指标在恶性胸水诊断中的价值。方法应用酶联免疫法（ELISA）对59例恶性胸水和48例良性胸水进行检测。结果恶性胸水组中CEA、CYFRA21-1、TSGF在胸水中的含量明显高于良性胸水组（P〈0．01）。CYFRA21-1在肺鳞癌中表达水平最高,CEA在肺腺癌中表达水平最高。其敏感性和特异性分别为：CEA：81．36％,91．67％;CYFRA21-1：91．53％,79．17％;TSGF：86．44％,89．58％。胸水CEA＋CYFRA21-1＋TSGF联合检测肺癌的的敏感性为93．22％,特异性为60．42％,阳性预测值为84．69％,阴性预测值为86．58％。结论CEA、CYFRA21-1、TSGF的联合检测在恶性胸水的诊断中有重要的I临床应用价值。     

CEA、CYFRA21-1、NSE联合检测在鉴别良恶性胸腔积液中的诊断价值探讨

目的通过分别对胸腔积液病人CEA(癌胚抗原),NSE(神经元特异性烯醇化酶)、细胞角蛋白19片段的测定,以及三者联合检测的应用,来判断患者胸腔积液的良恶性的临床价值。方法对NSE、CEA和CYFRA21-1的检测采用电化学发光法。结果 CYFRA21-1灵敏度为63.16%,准确度为75.64%,You den指数为0.51,特异度为87.5%;NSE的灵敏度为47.37%,准确度为66.67%,You den指数为0.32,特异度为85%;CEA灵敏度为60.53%,准确度为79.49%,You den指数为0.58,特异度为97.5%。对于三者联合使用的结果中,CYFRA21-1和CEA联合检测的阳性率较高。结论肿瘤标志物在对恶性胸腔积液的诊断过程中,联合检测更有临床价值。     

胸水肿瘤标志物测定对癌性积液的诊断价值

分别测定43例胸腔积液患者的血清与胸水肿瘤标志物(CEA、NSE、CA_(212)、CYFRA_(21-1)含量,其中癌性积液28例,非癌性积液15例。发现胸水中肿瘤标志物含量均明显高于血清水平;CEA、NSE、CA_(212)三者联合应用在胸水中敏感性高达92.8％,特异性96.2％,而血清中相应为75％,87.5％;CYFRA_(21-1)在非癌性组中阳性率较高,但数值明显低于癌性积液组(P值<0.01)。提示测定胸水肿瘤标志物对恶性积液的诊断具有临床应用价值。     

Diagnostic value of CYFRA 21-1 tumor marker and CEA in pleural effusion due to mesothelioma

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to assess the clinical value of CYFRA 21-1 tumor marker and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as diagnostic tools that are complementary to cytology in the diagnosis of malignant mesotheliomas. PATIENTS: We measured CEA and CYFRA 21-1 in the pleural effusions (PEs) and serum of 106 patients (benign lung disease, 34 patients; bronchogenic and metastatic carcinoma, 40 patients; mesothelioma, 32 patients). METHODS: CEA and CYFRA 21--1 levels were determined by means of two commercial enzyme immunoassays. RESULTS: The cutoff levels of CYFRA 21--1 and CEA in malignant PEs, selected on the basis of the best diagnostic efficacy, were 41.9 ng/mL and 5.0 ng/mL, respectively. In all neoplastic PEs, CYFRA 21--1 and CEA sensitivity was 78% and 30.6%, respectively, with a specificity of 80% and 91%, respectively. The sensitivity of CYFRA 21--1 and CEA in patients with mesothelioma was 87.5% and 3.1%, respectively. The results of the CYFRA 21--1 assay were positive in 17 of 19 cases of mesothelioma (89.5%) with a negative or uncertain cytology. The association of the tumor marker assay and the cytology allowed a correct diagnosis in 30 of 32 cases of mesothelioma (93.7%). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that CYFRA 21--1 would provide a useful parameter for the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant PE from mesothelioma when the result of cytology is negative or uncertain and the clinical context does not allow a more aggressive approach. Moreover, the association of CYFRA 21--1 with CEA could provide details for a differential diagnosis between mesotheliomas and carcinomas. In fact, an elevated CYFRA 21--1 level with a low CEA level is highly suggestive of mesothelioma, whereas high levels of CEA alone or high levels of both the markers suggest a diagnosis of malignant PE, excluding mesothelioma.