Dnistrian A M, Schwartz M K, Greenberg E J, Smith C A, Schwartz D C
Department of Clinical Chemistry, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), New York, N.Y.
Tumour Biol. 1991;12(2):82-90. doi: 10.1159/000217692.
The clinical utility of CA M26 and CA M29 was studied in 116 breast cancer patients and compared with results for CA 15-3 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). The highest sensitivities for breast cancer detection were achieved with CA 15-3 (0.60) and CEA (0.56), but this was compromised by a relative lack of specificity (0.87 and 0.88 for CA 15-3 and CEA, respectively). Sensitivities attained with CA M26 (0.47) and CA M29 (0.53) were lower, but there was an excellent specificity (1.00) for each assay in this series of benign patients. Tumor marker elevations were appreciable with advanced disease such that 82 of 91 patients (90%) with active metastatic breast cancer exhibited at least one abnormal test value. Longitudinal studies demonstrated that CA M26, CA M29, CA 15-3 and CEA complement each other and combinations of these markers reflect disease status better than individual tests.
在116例乳腺癌患者中研究了CA M26和CA M29的临床效用，并与CA 15-3和癌胚抗原（CEA）的检测结果进行比较。检测乳腺癌的最高敏感性来自CA 15-3（0.60）和CEA（0.56），但相对缺乏特异性（CA 15-3和CEA的特异性分别为0.87和0.88），这削弱了其检测效能。CA M26（0.47）和CA M29（0.53）的敏感性较低，但在这一系列良性患者中，每项检测的特异性均极佳（均为1.00）。肿瘤标志物在疾病进展时明显升高，91例有活跃转移性乳腺癌的患者中有82例（90%）至少有一项检测值异常。纵向研究表明，CA M26、CA M29、CA 15-3和CEA相互补充，这些标志物的组合比单项检测能更好地反映疾病状态。
