Nicolini A, Ferdeghini M, Colombini C, Carpi A
Institute of 2nd Medical Clinic, University of Pisa, Italy.
J Nucl Med Allied Sci. 1990 Oct-Dec;34(4):309-13.
In a group of breast cancer patients post-operatively followed-up by serum CEA, TPA, and CA15-3 level determinations, the CA549, CA M26 and CA M29 values as well were measured. In metastatic patients, CA549 and CA M26 showed a sensitivity only slightly lower (70% and 67%, respectively) than that of TPA which was the highest (78%), while CA M29 sensitivity (58%) was much lower than that of TPA and similar to CEA (57%). In non-relapsed patients, CA M26 and CA M29 showed a specificity (95% and 92% respectively) similar to CEA (86%) and CA15-3 (92%) and much higher than TPA (73%). Among the possible associations of all the studied tumor markers, the CA M26-CA M29-CEA one seems the most promising because of its high sensitivity and specificity. Benign liver diseases and/or diabetes are probably the reasons most often responsible for the aspecific increase in serum CA549 values. On the other hand, they seem to affect the CA M29 much less and the CA M26 almost not at all.
在一组通过检测血清癌胚抗原（CEA）、组织多肽抗原（TPA）和糖类抗原15-3（CA15-3）水平进行术后随访的乳腺癌患者中，同时测定了糖类抗原549（CA549）、糖类抗原M26（CA M26）和糖类抗原M29（CA M29）的值。在转移性患者中，CA549和CA M26的敏感性仅略低于TPA（分别为70%和67%），TPA的敏感性最高（78%），而CA M29的敏感性（58%）远低于TPA，与CEA（57%）相似。在未复发的患者中，CA M26和CA M29的特异性（分别为95%和92%）与CEA（86%）和CA15-3（92%）相似，远高于TPA（73%）。在所有研究的肿瘤标志物的可能组合中，CA M26-CA M29-CEA组合似乎最有前景，因为其具有高敏感性和特异性。良性肝脏疾病和/或糖尿病可能是血清CA549值非特异性升高最常见的原因。另一方面，它们对CA M29的影响似乎小得多，对CA M26几乎没有影响。
