4.3 Article

The Levels of Tumor Markers in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Carcinoma and Their Values in Differentiation Between Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Carcinoma and Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Journal

PANCREAS
Volume 47, Issue 10, Pages 1290-1295

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001181

Keywords

alpha-fetoprotein; carbohydrate antigen 19-9; carbohydrate antigen 125; pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma

Funding

  1. Zhejiang Medical Science and Technology Project [2017KY331]
  2. Primary Research & Development Plan of Jiangsu Province [BE2017772]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives The levels of tumor markers in pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma (PNEC) are unknown, and imaging findings of PNEC and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have overlaps. In this study, we show the tumor markers in PNEC and evaluate their values for distinguishing PNEC from PDAC. Methods Thirty-three cases of PDAC and 21 cases of PNEC were retrospectively evaluated. The demographic information and clinical data were reviewed. Results Pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma was usually misdiagnosed (57.1%) as PDAC based on imaging findings. Abnormal carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and -fetoprotein (AFP) were observed in 19.0% to 28.6% of PNECs. Abnormal CA 19-9 and CA 125 levels were more common in PDAC than in PNEC (P < 0.05). Higher level of AFP was more common in PNEC than in PDAC (33.3% vs 3.0%, P < 0.05). The cutoff value of CA 19-9 for detecting PNEC was calculated as 38.5 U/mL or less with 0.788 sensitivity and 0.800 specificity. Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (odds ratio [OR], 22.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.94-179.3), AFP (OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.012-0.564), and CA 125 (OR, 17.4; 95% CI, 1.13-267.3) were predictors in differentiating PDAC from PNEC. Conclusions Carbohydrate antigen 19-9, AFP, and CA 125 have potential for distinguishing hypovascularized PNEC from PDAC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available