4.7 Article

Prognostic Significance of Carcinoembryonic Antigen Staining in Cancer Tissues of Gastric Cancer Patients

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 1244-1251

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4981-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to assess the significance of the correlation among tissue carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) expression with serum CEA (sCEA) levels and long-term survival to highlight the clinical prognostic significance of tissue CEA expression in gastric cancer patients. Immunohistological method and radioimmunoassay were used to assess tissue and sCEA expression, respectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine correlations, and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to investigate the prognostic significance. Our results demonstrate that tissue CEA in gastric cancer is significantly correlated with preoperative sCEA levels (p = 0.031), depth of invasion (p = 0.001), lymph node metastasis (p < 0.001), distant metastasis (p = 0.001), and TNM staging (p < 0.001). The 5-year survival rates were 67.6, 53.9, and 40.1 % for negatively, moderately, and intensely positively stained tissues (p < 0.001), and 57.0 and 37.9 % for serum with normal and elevated CEA expression (p = 0.031). Multivariate analysis revealed that tissue CEA can be considered an independent prognostic factor. Further analysis illustrated that patients with negative expression in both tissue and serum had better prognosis compared with those positively expressing CEA in both tissue and serum and/or those positively expressing CEA in either tissue or serum (p < 0.001). Our results also demonstrated that patients with negative tissue CEA staining and elevated sCEA expression had a better 5-year survival. Tissue CEA expression in gastric cancer is directly correlated with sCEA levels and long-term prognosis. Thus, tissue CEA expression can be considered as a useful biomarker to improve the interpretation of sCEA levels in predicting long-term survival.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据