Roles of serum and biliary CEA, CA19-9, VEGFR3, and TAC in differentiating between malignant and benign biliary obstructions

Additionally, combination of serum CEA (p<0.001), CA 19-9 (p<0.001), VEGFR-3 (p<0.001), and biliary CA 19-9 (p=0.028) markers achieved 95% estimation probability, and the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 88.5%, 45.7%, and 64%, respectively.Conclusion: Serum and biliary CEA, CA 19-9, VEGFR-3, and TAC tests would not be useful in the differentiation between malignant and benign biliary obstructions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯

Objective & Hypothesis:Background/Aims: Despite the presence of many diagnostic methods, the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant biliary obstructions is still not easy.

📊

Key Findings & Data:We aimed to evaluate the role of serum/biliary carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 , vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-3(VEGFR-3), and total antioxidant capacity (TAC) tests in this differential diagnosis.Materials and Methods: Patients (n:225; 110?, 115?) with diagnosis of malignant (n:96) or benign (n:129) biliary obstruction were included in this cross-sectional study.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:Additionally, combination of serum CEA (p<0.001), CA 19-9 (p<0.001), VEGFR-3 (p<0.001), and biliary CA 19-9 (p=0.028) markers achieved 95% estimation probability, and the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 88.5%, 45.7%, and 64%, respectively.Conclusion: Serum and biliary CEA, CA 19-9, VEGFR-3, and TAC tests would not be useful in the differentiation between malignant and benign biliary obstructions.

🔬Design:Research Article

📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample

⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Background/Aims: Despite the presence of many diagnostic methods, the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant biliary obstructions is still not easy. We aimed to evaluate the role of serum/biliary carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 , vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-3(VEGFR-3), and total antioxidant capacity (TAC) tests in this differential diagnosis.Materials and Methods: Patients (n:225; 110?, 115?) with diagnosis of malignant (n:96) or benign (n:129) biliary obstruction were included in this cross-sectional study. Serum and biliary CEA, CA 19-9, VEGFR-3, and TAC tests were analyzed, statistics were obtained, and significance was defined as p<0.05. Results: Mean age was 54.9±16.4 for the benign and 54.2±19.6 for the malignant group (p=0.89). Head of pancreas cancer (18.2%), cholangiocarcinoma (11.4%) and choledochal stone (48%) were the most common etiologies. The area under the curve (AUC)s by ROC analysis of serum/biliary CA 19-9, VEGFR-3, and TAC and serum CEA were 0.701/0.616, 0.622/0.663, 0.602/0.581, and 0713, respectively. Serum TAC had higher sensitivity (61.1%) and CEA had lower sensitivity (42.7%), whereas CEA had higher specificity (89.9%) and TAC had lower specificity (60.5%). In biliary tumor markers, CA 19-9 had higher sensitivity (74%) and VEGFR-3 had lower sensitivity (56.2%); however, VEGFR-3 had higher specificity (79.1%) and CA 19-9 had lower specificity (34.1%). Additionally, combination of serum CEA (p<0.001), CA 19-9 (p<0.001), VEGFR-3 (p<0.001), and biliary CA 19-9 (p=0.028) markers achieved 95% estimation probability, and the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 88.5%, 45.7%, and 64%, respectively.Conclusion: Serum and biliary CEA, CA 19-9, VEGFR-3, and TAC tests would not be useful in the differentiation between malignant and benign biliary obstructions.

🔖

Cite This Article

İNCE, A. T., YILDIZ, K., BAYSAL, B., DANALIOĞLU, A., KOCAMAN, O., TOZLU, M., GANGARAPU, V., KEMİK, A. S., UYSAL, Ö., ŞENTÜRK, H. (2014). Roles of serum and biliary CEA, CA19-9, VEGFR3, and TAC in differentiating between malignant and benign biliary obstructions. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 2, 162–169. https://ajindex.com/articles/410753

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

Kurt M, Onal IK, Parlak E, et al. Do metabolic alterations serve as biochemical markers in the diagnosis of malignant biliary ob- struction? An observational study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 22: 58-60. [CrossRef] Vauthey JN, Blumgart LH. Recent advances in the management of cholangiocarcinomas. Semin Liver Dis 1994; 14: 109-14. [CrossRef] Khan SA, Taylor-Robinson SD, Toledano MB, Beck A, Elliott P, Thomas HC. Changing international trends in mortality rates for liver, biliary and pancreatic tumours. J Hepatol 2002; 37: 806-13. [CrossRef] Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2009 (Vintage 2009 Populations), National Cancer Institute. Available from: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2009_ pops09/, based on November 2011 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2012.
Saluja SS, Sharma R, Pal S, Sahni P, Chattopadhyay TK. Differen- tiation between benign and malignant hilar obstructions using laboratory and radiological investigations: A prospective study. HPB (Oxford) 2007; 9: 373-82. [CrossRef] Akdoğan M, Parlak E, Kayhan B, Balk M, Saydam G, Sahin B. Are se- rum and biliary carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate anti- gen19-9 determinations reliable for differentiation between benign and malignant biliary disease? Turk J Gastroenterol 2003; 14: 181-4.
Konomi K, Nakamura K, Tobimatsu M, Saito S, Toyoda K, Yasunami Y. Identification of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in bile of patients with malignant biliary tract disease. Jpn J Surg 1982; 12: 184-90.
Morris-Stiff G, Teli M, Jardine N, Puntis MC. CA19-9 antigen levels can distinguish between benign and malignant pancreaticobil- iary disease. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2009; 8: 620-6.
Patel AH, Harnois DM, Klee GG, LaRusso NF, Gores GJ. The utility of CA19- 9 in the diagnoses of cholangiocarcinoma in patients without primary sclerosing cholangitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 204-7. [CrossRef] Nichols JC, Gores GJ, LaRusso NF, Wiesner RH, Nagorney DM, Ritts RE Jr. Diagnostic role of serum CA19-9 for cholangiocarcinoma in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Mayo Clin Proc 1993; 68: 874-9. [CrossRef] Qin XL, Wang ZR, Shi JS, Lu M, Wang L, He QR. Utility of serum CA19-9 in diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma: in comparison with CEA. World J Gastroenterol 2004; 10: 427-32.
Chen CY, Shiesh SC, Tsao HC, Lin XZ. The assessment of biliary CA 125, CA19-9 and CEA in diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma--the in- fluence of sampling time and hepatolithia