4.5 Article

Neuron-specific enolase is an effective tumour marker in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

期刊

LUNG CANCER
卷 41, 期 3, 页码 311-320

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-5002(03)00232-0

关键词

non-small cell lung cancer; neuron-specific enolase; tissue polypeptide antigen; carcinoembryonic antigen; prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Neuron-specific enolase (NSE) is a well known marker of small cell lung cancer. The present study was designed to assess the clinical value of NSE ill non-small cell. lung cancer (NSCLC), as compared to that of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and tissue potypeptide antigen (TPA). Methods: The study comprised 448 new consecutive NSCLC patients seen from 1996 to 2001. A set of 30 anthropometric, clinical, physical, laboratory, radiological, and pathological variables was prospectively recorded for all. patients. Patients were carefully followed-up, and their subsequent clinical course recorded. Results: Increased values of NSE were present in 32% of the patients. Bivariate analyses showed that NSE, TPA and CEA were significantly correlated with each other, lactate dehydrogenase, tumour diameter, and disease extent. Univariate analyses showed that patients with elevated concentration of both NSE and TPA had significantly shorter survivals than patients with low values (30 [95% Cl: 25-35] vs. 61 weeks [46-76], and 30 [Cl: 24-36] vs. 59 weeks [40-79], respectively, P = 0.0000). The Cox proportional hazards model including all the 22 variables significant in univariate analysis selected, in decreasing order of significance, the following variables: (1) N factor; (2) main treatment; (3) ECOG PS; (4) CNS metastasis; (5) age; (6) tumour cavitation; (7) NSE; (8) T factor; and (9) adrenal gland metastasis. Conclusions: This data indicates that serum assay of NSE is a useful marker also in NSCLC and a significant predictor of survival, independently of the other prognostic factors. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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