Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2005 Feb 7;11(5):645-8.
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v11.i5.645.

Cytokeratins and carcinoembryonic antigen in diagnosis, staging and prognosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma

Luís C Fernandes  1 , Su B Kim, Delcio Matos
Affiliations

Cytokeratins and carcinoembryonic antigen in diagnosis, staging and prognosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma

Luís C Fernandes et al. World J Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the serum levels of cytokeratins and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in diagnosis, staging and prognosis of patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma.

Methods: The sample consisted of 169 patients. One hundred blood donors formed the control group. Radical surgery was performed on 120 patients, with an average follow-up duration of 22.3 mo. Relapses occurred in 23 individuals after an average of 18.09 mo. CEA was assayed via the Delfia method with a limit of 5 ng/mL. Cytokeratins were assayed via the LIA-mat TPA-M Prolifigen method with a limit of 72 U/L.

Results: In the diagnosis of patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma, CEA showed a sensitivity of 56%, a specificity of 95%, a positive predictive value of 94%, a negative predictive value of 50% and an accuracy of 76.8%. TPA-M had a sensitivity of 70%, a specificity of 96%, a positive predictive value of 97%, a negative predictive value of 66% and an accuracy of 93.6%. The elevation of one of the markers was shown to have a sensitivity of 76.9%, a specificity of 91%, a positive predictive value of 93.5%, a negative predictive value of 70% and an accuracy of 83.6%. There was no variation in the levels of the markers according to the degree of cell differentiation while there was an elevation in their concentrations in accordance with the increase in neoplastic dissemination. There was a statistically significant difference between the patients with stage IV lesions and those with stages I, II and III tumors. With regard to CEA, the average level was 14.2 ng/mL in patients with stage I lesions, 8.5 ng/mL in patients with stage II lesions, 8.0 ng/mL in patients with stage III lesions and 87.7 ng/mL in patients with stage IV lesions. In relation to TPA-M, the levels were 153.1 U/L in patients with stage I tumors, 106.5 U/L in patients with stage II tumors, 136.3 U/L in patients with stage III tumors and 464.3 U/L in patients with stage IV tumors. There was a statistical difference in patients with a high CEA level in relation to a shorter survival (P<0.05). However, there was no correlation between patients with high TPA-M levels and prognostic indices of patients undergoing radical surgery.

Conclusion: Cytokeratins demonstrate a greater sensitivity than CEA in the diagnosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma. There is an increase in the sensitivity of the markers with tumor dissemination. Cytokeratins cannot identify the worse prognosis in patients undergoing radical surgery. Cytokeratins constitute an advance in the direction of a perfect tumor marker in the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Receiver operating characteristic curve obtained in analysis of CEA and TPA-M in patients with colorectal cancer and individuals of the control group.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Preoperative TPA-M and survival of patients with colorectal cancer undergoing radical surgical treatment.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hoel DG, Davis DL, Miller AB, Sondik EJ, Swerdlow AJ. Trends in cancer mortality in 15 industrialized countries, 1969-1986. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992;84:313–320. - PubMed
    1. Colonna M, Grosclaude P, Launoy G, Tretarre B, Arveux P, Raverdy N, Benhamiche AM, Herbert C, Faivre J. Estimation of colorectal cancer prevalence in France. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:93–96. - PubMed
    1. Wilmink AB. Overview of the epidemiology of colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40:483–493. - PubMed
    1. Wang HZ, Huang XF, Wang Y, Ji JF, Gu J. Clinical features, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of multiple primary colorectal carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2004;10:2136–2139. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zinkin LD. A critical review of the classifications and staging of colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 1983;26:37–43. - PubMed