4.6 Article

CA19.9 Serum Level Predicts Lymph-Nodes Status in Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Retrospective Single-Center Analysis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.690580

关键词

pancreatic cancer; carbohydrate antigen 19; 9; pancreatic surgery; lymph node staging; albuminemia; margin status

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, preoperative CA19-9 levels can predict nodal involvement and help in deciding on neoadjuvant treatments.
Background The choice between upfront surgery or neoadjuvant treatments (NAT) for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (R-PDAC) is controversial. R-PDAC with potential nodal involvement could benefit from NT. Ca (Carbohydrate antigen) 19.9 and serum albumin levels, alone or in combination, have proven their efficacy in assessing PDAC prognosis. The objective of this study was to evaluate the role of Ca 19.9 serum levels in predicting nodal status in R-PDAC. Methods Preoperative Ca 19.9, as well as serum albumin levels, of 165 patients selected for upfront surgery have been retrospectively collected and correlated to pathological nodal status (N), resection margins status (R) and vascular resections (VR). We further performed ROC curve analysis to identify optimal Ca 19.9 cut-off for pN+, R+ and vascular resection prediction. Results Increased Ca 19.9 levels in 114 PDAC patients were significantly associated with pN+ (p <0.001). This ability, confirmed in all the series by ROC curve analysis (Ca 19.9 >= 32 U/ml), was lost in the presence of hypoalbuminemia. Furthermore, Ca 19.9 at the cut off >418 U/ml was significantly associated with R+ (87% specificity, 36% sensitivity, p 0.014). Ca 19.9, at the cut-off >78 U/ml, indicated a significant trend to predict the need for VR (sensitivity 67%, specificity 53%; p = 0.059). Conclusions In R-PDAC with normal serum albumin levels, Ca 19.9 predicts pN+ and R+, thus suggesting a crucial role in deciding on NAT.

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

4.6
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