联合CA19-9、CA125和CEA检测在AFP阴性的ICC鉴别诊断中的应用价值

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-5069.2017.06.025

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的探讨血清癌抗原19-9（CA19-9）、癌抗原125（CA125）和癌胚抗原（CEA）联合检测在甲胎蛋白（AFP）阴性的肝内胆管细胞癌（ICC）患者诊断中的价值。方法2014年6月~2016年6月我院收治的ICC患者60例,根据AFP检测结果,将其分为AFP阴性组和AFP阳性组,每组分别为30例。采用微阵列酶联免疫分析法（Array-ELISA）检测血清CA19-9、CA125和CEA,采用受试者工作特征曲线（ROC）下面积（AUC）分别对各标记物及联合检测诊断的灵敏度、特异度和正确率进行评估。结果30例AFP阴性组血清CA19-9、CA125和CEA水平分别为138.8（85.7~185.1）U/ml、109.6（48.4~201.8）U/ml、11.2（17.5~21.9）ng/ml,均显著高于AFP阳性组的【（38.0（16.9~75.5）U/ml、18.1（9.3~48.1）U/ml、5.5（3.1~8.5）ng/ml）,P<0.01】;两组血清肿瘤标志物诊断ICC的ROC曲线下面积均呈现出CA19-9>CA125>CEA的趋势,在AFP阴性组,各单项诊断的ROC曲线下面积分别为0.85、0.83和0.81,显著高于AFP阳性组的【（0.55、0.45和0.42）,P<0.05】;在单项诊断ICC时,血清CA19-9、CA125和CEA的最佳临床诊断截断点分别为124.89 U/ml、96.04 U/ml和11.97 ng/ml;血清CA19-9、CA125和CEA诊断ICC的灵敏度、特异度和正确率分别为（73.33%、76.67%和71.67%）、（66.67%、70.00%和68.33%）和（60.00%、70.00%和65.00%）,以CA19-9检测诊断的效能最高;两组联合检测诊断的ROC曲线下面积均高于单项指标检测的ROC曲线下面积,且都表现为（CA19-9/CA125/CEA）>（CA19-9/CA125）>（CA19-9/CEA）>（CA125/CEA）,在AFP阴性组,各联合检测诊断的ROC曲线下面积分别为0.94、0.88、0.86和0.85 ,显著高于在AFP阳性组的【（0.74、0.62、0.58和0.52）,P<0.05】;（CA19-9/CA125/CEA）、（CA19-9/CA125）、（CA19-9/CEA）和（CA125/CEA）四种联合检测诊断的灵敏度、特异度和正确率均提高,分别为（90.00%、90.00%和90.00%）、（83.33%、83.33%和81.67%）、（76.67%、83.33%和80.00%）和（70.00%、76.67%和73.33%）,以CA19-9/CA125/CEA联合检测诊断效能最高。结论我们认为,血清CA19-9、CA125和CEA联合检测可提高对AFP阴性ICC患者诊断的正确率,需要临床扩大验证。

关键词: 肝内胆管细胞癌, 癌抗原19-9, 癌抗原125, 癌胚抗原, 诊断

Abstract: Objective To explore the application of serum cancer antigen19-9（CA19-9）,CA125 and carcinoembryonic antige （CEA） in the diagnosis of serum alpha-fetoprotein （AFP） negative patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma （ICC）. Methods 60 patients with ICC were recruited in our hospital between June 2014 and June 2016,and they were divided into two groups,e.g. AFP-negative group and AFP-positive group with 30 in each group according to the results of serum AFP detection. Serum CA19-9,CA125 and CEA levels were detected by array-ELISA. Receiver operating characteristic（ROC） curves were used to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of each and joint detection of CA19-9,CA125 and CEA for diagnosis of ICC. Results Serum levels of CA19-9,CA125 and CEA in AFP negative group were 138.8（85.7~185.1）U/ml,109.6（48.4~201.8）U/ml, 11.2（17.5~21.9） ng/ml,much higher than 【（38.0（16.9~75.5）U/ml,18.1（9.3~48.1）U/ml,5.5（3.1~8.5）ng/ml）,P<0.01】 in AFP-positive group;The ROC curve area of serum CA19-9,CA125 and CEA in AFP negative group were 0.85,0.83 and 0.81,respectively,significantly higher than[（0.55,0.45 and 0.42）,P<0.05] in AFP positive group; the cut-off-value of serum CA19-9,CA125 and CEA in diagnosis of ICC were 124.89 U/ml,96.04 U/ml and 11.97 ng/ml respectively;The sensitivity,specificity and accuracy rates of CA19-9,CA125 and CEA were （73.33%,76.67% and 71.67%）,（66.67%,70.00% and 68.33%） and（60.00,70.00% and 65.00）,respectively;ROC curve area under joint detection showed that （CA19-9/CA125/CEA）>（CA19-9/CA125）>（CA19-9/CEA）> （CA125/CEA）,the ROC curve area of joint diagnosis in the AFP negative group were 0.94,0.88,0.86 and 0.85,respectively,significantly higher than those in the AFP positive group [（0.74,0.62,0.58 and 0.52）,P<0.05];the sensitivity,specificity and accuracy of joint detection[（CA19-9/CA125/CEA）,（CA19-9/CA125）,（CA19-9/CEA） and 9CA125/CEA）] increased,and they were（90%,90% and 90%）,（83.33%,83.33% and 81.67%）,（76.67%,83.33% and 80%） and（70%,76.67% and 73.33%）,respectively,with the efficacy of （CA19-9/CA125/CEA） was the best. Conclusion We believe that the combination of serum CA19-9,CA125 and CEA detection can improve the correct diagnosis of serum AFP negative patients with ICC,which needs further clinical investigation.

Key words: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, Cancer antigen19-9, CA125, Carcinoembryonic antigen, Diagnosis

张国柄, 徐江海. 联合CA19-9、CA125和CEA检测在AFP阴性的ICC鉴别诊断中的应用价值[J]. 实用肝脏病杂志, 2017, 20(6): 740-743.

Zhang Guobing, Xu Jianghai. Application of serum CA19-9, CA125 and CEA in diagnosis of serum AFP negative patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma[J]. JOURNAL OF PRACTICAL HEPATOLOGY, 2017, 20(6): 740-743.

参考文献

[1] 黄元哲,杨新伟,杨家和,等. 肝内胆管细胞癌的治疗进展.肝胆外科杂志,2014,22（1）:73-76.
[2] 车斯尧,何龙光,陈钦寿,等. 非手术治疗原发性肝癌的现状与进展. 中华肝胆外科杂志,2016,22（6）:428-432.
[3] Khan SA,Emadossadaty S,Ladep NG,et al. Rising trends in cholangiocarcinoma:is the ICD classification system misleading us. J Hepatol,2012,56（4）:848-854.
[4] 侯帅,樊琳琳. 非手术治疗原发性肝癌研究进展. 实用肝脏病杂志,2016,19（2）:249-252.
[5] 陈曦,李勇,王嘉,等. 血清学肿瘤标志物在936例肝占位病变诊断中的临床分析. 山西医科大学学报,2013,44（1）:44-47.
[6] 吴向嵩,刘颖斌. 肝内胆管细胞癌手术治疗策略的进展. 中华消化外科杂志,2016,15（11）:1131-1134.
[7] 张效本,阮秀花. 4种肿瘤标志物联合检测对AFP阴性肝癌诊断的互补作用. 现代中西医结合杂志,2011,20（6）:660-662.
[8] 徐恩君,陈秋莉,李涛,等. 血清AFP、AFP-L3联合检测在原发性肝癌中的诊断价值. 安徽医科大学学报,2016,51（7）:1066-1070.
[9] 朱剑峰,李志辉,朱红静,等. CEA、CA199、CA724、CA242、CA125、CA50对消化道肿瘤的诊断价值. 实用癌症杂志,2014,32（5）:501-502.
[10] 邓伟伟,黄艳春,阿先古丽·阿不力孜,等. 肿瘤标记物联合检测对肿瘤高危人群筛查的临床意义. 国际免疫学杂志,2016,39（1）:29-33.
[11] 朱以佳,张培建. 肝内胆管癌的诊治进展.国际外科学杂志,2013,40（4）:268-271.
[12] 管超楠,崔峰,苏华,等. 四种肿瘤标记物鉴别诊断肝内胆管癌与肝细胞癌的临床研究. 肝脏,2015,17（11）:864-866.
[13] 李征,雷正清,李俊,等. 肝内胆管癌外科预后预测研究进展. 肝胆外科杂志,2016,24（1）:69-72.
[14] 霍群,刘杰,陈莉,等. 血清 AFP 临界值判断对肝癌诊断的影响. 广西师范大学学报（自然科学版）,2014,32（3）:121-124.
[15] 张永,李晓勇,宋瑜,等. 优化肿瘤标志物群建立的决策树模型对肝癌辅助诊断的价值. 郑州大学学报（医学版）,2015,23（6）:794-797.
[16] Bottoni P,Scatena R.The role of CA 125 as tumor marker:Biochemical and clinical aspects.Adv Exp Med Biol,2015,86（7）:229-244.
[17] 王雪琴.四项肿瘤标志物在肝癌诊断中的应用. 标记免疫分析与临床,2013,20（6）:479-480.
[18] Tang X,Zhang J,Chen Y,et al. Correlation between clinicopathological features and CA19-9/CEA in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Chin J Oncol,2014,36（8）,662-666.
[19] Lumachi F,Lo Re G,Tozzoli R, et al. Measurement of serum carcinoembryonic antigen,carbohydrate antigen19-9,cytokeratin-
19 fragment and matrix metalloproteinase-7 for detecting cholangiocarcinoma:a preliminary case-control study. Anticancer Res,2014,34（22）,6663-6667.
[20] 朱波,肖亚雄,彭宇生,等. GP73、GPC3和AFP联合检测在原发性肝癌诊断中的探讨. 重庆医学,2016,45（10）:1367-1369.