4.7 Article

Lung tumour markers in oncology practice: a study of TPA and CA125

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 87, Issue 10, Pages 1112-1118

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600577

Keywords

lung neoplasm; neoplasm staging; prognosis; tissue polypeptide antigen; CA125; tumour markers

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Several substances mark the course of lung cancer and may reliably help the clinician in decision-making. This is the first clinical study specifically designed to compare tissue polypeptide antigen and CA 125 tumour associated antigen. Three hundred and eighty-four new lung cancer patients (309 males) were studied at their first clinical presentation and then strictly followed-up. Anthropometric, clinical and laboratory data - including tissue polypeptide antigen and CA 125 tumour associated antigen serum levels - were prospectively recorded. A total of 1000 tissue polypeptide antigen and CA 125 tumour associated antigen serum assays (384 pre-treatment and 6 16 posttreatment assays) were performed. Both tissue polypeptide antigen and CA 125 tumour associated antigen correlated significantly with the T, N and M stage descriptors at diagnosis (Rho: 0.200, 0.203, 0.263 and 0.181, 0.240, 0.276, respectively), and then with the objective response to treatment (Rho: 0.388 and 0.207, respectively). A pleural neoplastic involvement was mainly associated to an increase of CA 125 tumour associated antigen (Rho: 0.397). Both tissue polypeptide antigen and CA 125 tumour associated antigen were strongly predictive of the patients' outcome, as assessed by the univariate analysis of survival (log-rank test: 37.24 and 29.01) and several Cox' proportional hazards regression models. The two marker tests are similarly helpful and appear complementary, given the low inter-marker correlation and their independent prognostic capability. (C) 2002 Cancer Research UK.

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