Pasanen P A, Eskelinen M, Partanen K, Pikkarainen P, Penttilä I, Alhava E
Department of Surgery, Kuopio University Hospital, Finland.
Anticancer Res. 1992 Nov-Dec;12(6B):2309-14.
The diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and tumour markers CEA, CA 50 and CA 242 in pancreatic cancer (n = 26) was studied in 113 patients with jaundice, in 20 patients with unjaundiced cholestasis, and in 60 patients with the suspicion of chronic pancreatitis or a pancreatic tumour. The sensitivities of US, CT and ERCP were 61.9%, 95.2% and 82.3%, the specificities 93.9%, 92.9% and 94.1%, and the efficiencies 91.6%, 96.6% and 92.1%, respectively. The sensitivities of CEA, CA 50 and CA 242 were 92.3%, 96.1% and 61.5%, the specificities 59.2%, 58.0% and 95.2%, and the efficiencies 63.7%, 63.2% and 90.6% respectively. The combined use of the imaging methods and tumour markers was also analysed. When either the imaging method or the serum marker test was required to be positive, the sensitivities of the combinations were clearly better than those of US and CA 242 alone, but only slightly better than those of CT, ERCP or the tumour markers CEA and CA 50 alone. When both the imaging test and the marker test were required to be positive, the specificities of the combinations were clearly better than those of CEA and CA 50 alone, but they did not exceed the specificity of the imaging methods or CA 242 alone. We conclude that CT, ERCP and CEA and CA 50 are highly sensitive in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer in symptomatic patients, while the sensitivity of US and CA 242 is lower. The specificity of the imaging methods and CA 242 is high, but that of CEA and CA 50 is low. Imaging methods and serum tumour markers could be more used in clinical practice in a complementary manner. In patients with jaundice and/or cholestasis or with a suspicion of pancreatic tumour or chronic pancreatitis, the combined use may yield higher sensitivity than US alone and higher specificity than CEA or CA 50 alone.
在113例黄疸患者、20例无黄疸型胆汁淤积患者以及60例疑似慢性胰腺炎或胰腺肿瘤的患者中,研究了超声(US)、计算机断层扫描(CT)、内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)以及肿瘤标志物癌胚抗原(CEA)、糖类抗原50(CA 50)和糖类抗原242(CA 242)对26例胰腺癌患者的诊断准确性。US、CT和ERCP的敏感度分别为61.9%、95.2%和82.3%,特异度分别为93.9%、92.9%和94.1%,效率分别为91.6%、96.6%和92.1%。CEA、CA 50和CA 242的敏感度分别为92.3%、96.1%和61.5%,特异度分别为59.2%、58.0%和95.2%,效率分别为63.7%、63.2%和90.6%。还分析了成像方法和肿瘤标志物的联合应用。当要求成像方法或血清标志物检测呈阳性时,联合检测的敏感度明显优于单独使用US和CA 242,但仅略优于单独使用CT、ERCP或肿瘤标志物CEA和CA 50。当要求成像检测和标志物检测均呈阳性时,联合检测的特异度明显优于单独使用CEA和CA 50,但未超过单独成像方法或CA 242的特异度。我们得出结论,CT、ERCP以及CEA和CA 50对有症状患者的胰腺癌诊断具有高度敏感性,而US和CA 242的敏感性较低。成像方法和CA 242的特异度较高,但CEA和CA 50的特异度较低。成像方法和血清肿瘤标志物在临床实践中可以更多地以互补方式使用。在黄疸和/或胆汁淤积患者或疑似胰腺肿瘤或慢性胰腺炎的患者中,联合使用可能比单独使用US具有更高的敏感度,比单独使用CEA或CA 50具有更高的特异度。