4.7 Article

Preoperauve hCGβ and CA 72-4 are prognostic factors in gastric cancer

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 111, Issue 6, Pages 929-933

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.20321

Keywords

CEA; CA 19-9; CA 72-4; CA 242; hCG beta; gastric cancer; prognosis; survival; tumour marker

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In gastric cancer, the role of tumour markers in assessment of prognosis is unconfirmed. In our study, we evaluated the prognostic significance of serum tumour markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CA 19-9, CA 72-4, CA 242 and free beta subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCGbeta) in gastric cancer. Preoperative serum samples were obtained from 146 patients with gastric cancer, including 29 with stage 1, 11 with stage 11, 42 with stage III and 64 patients with stage IV cancer. Quantitation of CEA, CA 19-9, CA 72-4 and CA 242 in serum was performed with commercial assays. HCGbeta was measured with an in-house immunofluorometric assay based on monoclonal antibodies specific for the free beta-subunit of hCG. Survival analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier life-tables and log-rank test, and with multivariate Cox regression analysis. Disease-specific cumulative 2-year survival rate was 40%. Serum levels of CEA, CA 72-4, CA 242 and hCGbeta showed significant correlation with stage (p<0.027); for CA 19-9 the association was of borderline significance (p=0.056). Of the studied markers, CA 19-9, CA 72-4, CA 242 and hCGbeta were found to be prognostic factors in univariate analysis (p< 0.022). In multivariate analysis, stage had the statistically most significant association with prognosis followed by hCGbeta, tumour histology according to the Laur6n classification and by CA 72-4. In gastric cancer, tumour markers hCGbeta and CA 72-4 are independent prognostic factors in addition to stage and histological type of the tumour. (C) 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available