术前血清CA19-9和NSE对食管鳞癌患者预后的影响

相智声; 林征; 刘双; 杨惠敏; 王航; 黄丽萍; 陈元美; 胡志坚

doi:10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2019.02.003

术前血清CA19-9和NSE对食管鳞癌患者预后的影响

doi: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2019.02.003

1.
350122 福州, 福建医科大学公共卫生学院流行病与卫生统计学系, 福建省环境因素与肿瘤省级重点实验室
2.
350014 福州, 医科大学教学医院, 福建省肿瘤医院胸外科

基金项目:

国家重点研发计划精准医学研究重点专项2017年度项目 2017YFC0907100

2018年福建省医学创新课题 2018-CX-38

详细信息

通讯作者:
胡志坚, E-mail: hzj99955888@126.com

中图分类号: R449
计量
- 文章访问数: 318
- HTML全文浏览量: 175
- PDF下载量: 38
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2018-08-14
- 修回日期: 2018-11-06
- 刊出日期: 2019-02-10

Prognostic values of preoperative serum CA199 and NSE on esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients

1.
Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Environment Factors and Cancer, School of Public Health, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou 350122, China
2.
Department of Thoracic surgery, Fujian Provincial Tumor Hospital, Teaching Hospital of Fujian Medical University; Fuzhou 350014, China

Funds:

National Key R&D Program of China 2017YFC0907100

Medical Innovation project of Fujian Province 2018-CX-38

More Information

Corresponding author: Hu Zhi-jian, E-mail: hzj99955888@126.com

摘要

摘要: 目的研究术前血清癌抗原19-9（cancer antigen 19-9，CA19-9）和神经元特异性烯醇化酶（neuron-specific enolase，NSE）对食管鳞癌（esophageal squamous cell carcinoma，ESCC）患者预后的影响。方法前瞻性分析176例经病理确诊的食管鳞癌新发病例。应用χ²检验分析CA19-9和NSE与患者一般临床特征之间的关系。运用Kaplan-Meier法绘制生存曲线，通过Log-rank法进行生存率的比较，利用Cox比例风险回归模型进行多因素分析。结果高CA19-9和NSE联合检测组的食管鳞癌患者预后较差（总生存：HR=2.310，95%CI：1.209~4.418；无病生存：HR=2.354，95%CI：1.265~4.381）。相比于两种标志物单独检测，联合检测CA19-9和NSE对食管鳞癌患者生存预测的准确性更高（总生存：C-index=0.686；无病生存：C-index=0.684）。结论术前血清CA19-9和NSE是食管鳞癌患者预后的危险因素，联合检测对食管鳞癌患者预后预测的准确性更高。
- 食管鳞癌 /
- 癌抗原19-9 /
- 神经元特异性烯醇化酶 /
- 预后
Abstract: Objective To explore the effects of preoperative serum cancer antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) and neuron-specific enolase (NSE) on the prognosis of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Methods This prospective study enrolled 176 patients with ESCC. χ² test was used to analyze the relationship between CA19-9, NSE and general clinical features. Survival curves were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons were performed using the log-rank test. The Cox proportional hazards model was performed for multivariate analyses of overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS). Results The patients with both high CA19-9 and NSE had the poor prognosis compared with those had both low CA19-9 and NSE (OS: HR=2.310, 95% CI: 1.208-4.418; DFS: HR=2.354, 95% CI: 1.265-4.381). Compared to the separate detection of the two markers, the combined detection of CA19-9 and NSE was more accurate in the prognosis prediction of patients with ESCC (OS: C-index=0.686; DFS: C-index=0.684). Conclusions Preoperative serum CA19-9 and NSE were risk factors for the prognosis of patients with ESCC. Combined detection had higher accuracy of prediction of prognosis in patients with ESCC.
- Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma /
- Cancer antigen 19-9 /
- Neuron-specific enolase /
- Prognostic

HTML全文

图 1 不同CA19-9和NSE联合检测分组患者的总生存曲线

Figure 1. Overall survival curves of patients in different groups of the the combined detection CA19-9 and NSE

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 不同CA19-9和NSE联合检测分组患者的无病生存曲线

Figure 2. Disease free survival curves of patients in different groups of the the combined detection of of CA19-9 and NSE

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 176例病例临床资料基本情况

Table 1. Basic information on clinical data of 176 cases

变量	数量	构成比(%)
性别
女	41	23.3
男	135	76.7
年龄(岁)
≤60	86	48.9
＞60	90	51.1
肿瘤部位
上中段	113	64.2
下段	63	35.8
肿瘤长度(cm)
≤3	74	42.0
＞3	102	58.0
肿瘤分期
Ⅰ~Ⅱ	90	51.1
Ⅲ~Ⅳ	86	48.9
术后是否化疗
否	100	56.8
是	76	43.2
CA19-9^a	2.03	±0.81
NSEa	1.09	±0.49
1年生存率^b	OS：85.6%(95% CI：0.801~0.911)	DFS：83.8%(95% CI：0.781~0.895)
3年生存率^b	OS：55.4%(95% CI：0.454~0.654)	DFS：53.4%(95% CI：0.436~0.632)
注：^a CA19-9和NSE两组数据均经过自然对数转换；^b OS：总生存概率，DFS：无病生存概率。

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 CA19-9和NSE与患者的一般临床特征的关系

Table 2. Correlation of CA19-9, NSE with the clinical characteristics of patients

	CA19-9(U/ml)			NSE(ng/ml)			CA19-9和NSE联合检测
	低表达组(n=94)	高表达组(n=82)	P值	低表达组(n=103)	高表达组(n=73)	P值	低表达组(n=60)	高表达组(n=116)	P值
性别			0.164			0.468			0.457
女	18	23		26	15		12	29
男	76	59		77	58		48	87
年龄(岁)			0.354			0.920			0.828
≤60	49	37		50	36		30	56
＞60	45	45		53	37		30	60
肿瘤部位			0.838			0.061			0.624
上中段	61	52		72	41		40	73
下段	33	30		31	32		20	43
肿瘤长度(cm)			0.091			0.252			0.473
≤3	34	40		47	27		23	51
＞3	60	42		56	46		37	65
肿瘤分期			0.778			0.308			0.461
Ⅰ-Ⅱ	49	41		56	34		33	57
Ⅲ-Ⅳ	45	41		47	39		27	59
术后是否放化疗			0.298			0.883			0.189
否	50	50		59	41		30	70
是	44	32		44	32		30	46

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 食管鳞癌患者Cox多因素回归分析

Table 3. Cox multivariate regression analyses of ESCC patients

变量	总生存		无病生存
变量	HR(95%CI)	P值	HR(95%CI)	P值
性别
女	1.000		1.000
男	0.973(0.493~1.922)	0.938	1.128(0.577~2.203)	0.725
年龄(岁)
≤60	1.000		1.000
＞60	0.959(0.536~1.714)	0.887	1.195(0.691~2.065)	0.524
肿瘤部位
上中段	1.000		1.000
下段	0.950(0.511~1.766)	0.870	1.030(0.578~1.835)	0.919
肿瘤长度(cm)
≤3	1.000		1.000
＞3	1.873(0.970~3.617)	0.062	1.720(0.925~3.195)	0.086
肿瘤分期
Ⅰ~Ⅱ	1.000		1.000
Ⅲ~Ⅳ	2.143(1.175~3.910)	0.013	2.269(1.273~4.046)	0.005
术后是否放化疗
否	1.000		1.000
是	0.907(0.505~1.628)	0.743	0.948(0.544~1.651)	0.849
CA19-9和NSE联合检测
低表达组	1.000		1.000
高表达组	2.310(1.208~4.418)	0.011	2.354(1.265~4.381)	0.007

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(18)

[1]	赫捷, 邵康. 中国食管癌流行病学现状、诊疗现状及担任中华未来对策[J]. 中国癌症杂志, 2011(7): 15-18. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-3969.2011.07.001 He J, Shao K. The epidemiology, current status of management, challenge and future strategy for esophageal cancer in China[J]. China Oncology, 2011(7): 15-18. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-3969.2011.07.001
[2]	Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics, 2012[J]. C A Cancer J Clin, 2015, 65(2): 69-90. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21262.
[3]	张倩倩, 陈伟霖, 林征, 等. 外周血NLR和HWR水平对非手术食管鳞癌患者预后的影响[J]. 中华疾病控制杂志, 2017, 21(9): 930-934. DOI: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2017.09.017. Zhang QQ, Chen WL, Lin Z, et al. Prognostic values of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and hemoglobin-to-white blood cell ratio on non-operative esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients[J]. Chin J Dis Control Prev, 2017, 21(9): 930-934. DOI: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2017.09.017.
[4]	Wang J, Wang X, Yu F, et al. Combined detection of preoperative serum CEA, CA19-9 and CA242 improve prognostic prediction of surgically treated colorectal cancer patients[J]. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2015, 8(11): 14853. DOI: 10.1016/S1098-3015(10)74458-2.
[5]	Ning S, Wei W, Li J, et al. Clinical significance and diagnostic capacity of serum TK1, CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 levels in gastric and colorectal cancer patients[J]. J Cancer, 2018, 9(3): 494-501. DOI: 10.7150/jca.21562.
[6]	杨忠信, 赵松. 食管癌患者围术期监测血清CEA、CA125、CA19-9和βHCG的临床意义[J]. 中国老年学杂志, 2010, 30(4): 466-468. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-9202.2010.04.016. Yang ZX, Zhao S. Perioperative monitoring of serum CEA, CA125, CA19-9 and βHCG in patients with esophageal cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of Gerontology, 2010, 30(4): 466-468. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-9202.2010.04.016.
[7]	钱希铭, 王晓明, 高亚英, 等. 小细胞肺癌患者化疗前后血清ProGRP、CEP350、NSE含量评估及其与疾病预后的关系[J]. 海南医学院学报, 2016, 22(16): 1848-1850. DOI: 10.13210/j.cnki.jhmu.20160517.002. Qian XM, Wang XM, Gao YY, et al. Assessment of serum ProGRP, CEP350 and NSE levels in patients with small cell lung cancer before and after chemotherapy and their relationship with disease prognosis[J]. Journal of Hainan Medical University, 2016, 22(16): 1848-1850. DOI: 10.13210/j.cnki.jhmu.20160517.002.
[8]	徐广文, 马冬春. 非小细胞肺癌患者血清CA21-1、CEA、NSE手术前后表达水平变化及意义[J]. 安徽医药, 2013, 17(3): 415-416. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-6469.2013.03.023. Xu GW, Ma DC. Expression and Significance of Serum CA21-1, CEA, NSE Expression in Patients with Non-small Cell Lung Cancer before and after Operation[J]. Anhui Medical and Pharmaceutical Journal, 2013, 17(3): 415-416. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-6469.2013.03.023.
[9]	Lopez JB, Royan GP, Lakhwani MN, et al. CA 72-4 compared with CEA and CA 19-9 as a marker of some gastrointestinal malignancies[J]. Int J Biol Markers, 1999, 14(3): 172-177. DOI: 10.1016/S0964-8305(99)00061-X.
[10]	Carpelan M, Louhimo J, Stenman UH, et al. CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 improve the diagnostic accuracy in gastrointestinal cancers[J]. Anticancer Research, 2002, 22(4): 2311-2316. DOI: 10.1159/000081385.
[11]	Feng JF, Chen QX. Prognostic significance of preoperative CA72-4 in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma[J]. Arch Iran Med, 2013, 16(6): 338. DOI: 013166/AIM.006.
[12]	Tokunaga R, Yu I, Nakamura K, et al. Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 is a useful prognostic marker in esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma[J]. Cancer Med, 2016, 4(11): 1659-1666. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.514.
[13]	Song JY, Chen MQ, Guo JH, et al. Combined pretreatment serum CA19-9 and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a potential prognostic factor in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients[J]. Medicine, 2018, 97(4): e9707. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000009707.
[14]	Xu WY, Zhang HH, Yang XB, et al. Prognostic significance of combined preoperative fibrinogen and CA199 in gallbladder cancer patients[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2018, 24(13): 1451-1463. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i13.1451.
[15]	Marcouizos G, Ignatiadou E, Papanikolaou GE, et al. Highly elevated serum levels of CA 19-9 in choledocholithiasis: a case report[J]. Cases J, 2009, 2(1): 1-3. DOI: 10.4076/1757-1626-2-6662.
[16]	Xu HX, Liu L, Xiang JF, et al. Postoperative serum CEA and CA125 levels are supplementary to perioperative CA19-9 levels in predicting operative outcomes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma[J]. Surgery, 2017, 161(2): 373-384. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.08.005.
[17]	Liu X, Qiu H, Liu J, et al. Combined preoperative concentrations of CEA, CA 19-9, and 72-4 for predicting outcomes in patients with gastric cancer after curative resection[J]. Oncotarget, 2016, 7(23): 35446-35453. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.9060.
[18]	陈从华, 明炜, 龚顺松, 等. CEA、NSE及CYFRA21-1对老年非小细胞肺癌患者手术预后判断的价值[J]. 河北医药, 2017, 39(05): 675-677. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-7386.2017.05.009 Chen CH, Ming W, Gong SS, et al. The clinical value of changes of levels of NSE, CEA CYFRA21-1 in postoperative prognosis evaluation in elderly patients with non small cell lung cancer[J]. Hebei Medical Journal, 2017, 39(05): 675-677. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-7386.2017.05.009