Chen S J, Wang S S, Lu C W, Chao Y, Lee F Y, Lee S D, Wu S L, Cherng K L, Lo K J
Department of Medicine, Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1994 Jul-Aug;9(4):396-400. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.1994.tb01262.x.
To determine the clinical value of tumour markers in the diagnosis of malignancy-related ascites (not including hepatocellular carcinoma), serum and ascitic fluid levels of carcinoembryonic antigen, cancer antigen 125, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, tissue polypeptide antigen and serum-ascites albumin gradient were determined in 66 patients with cirrhotic ascites, 28 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and ascites, and 29 patients with malignancy-related ascites. Three tumour markers and serum-ascites albumin gradient showed significant difference between patients with malignancy-related ascites and those without: serum carcinoembryonic antigen (26.4 +/- 31.5 vs 4.8 +/- 4.6 ng/mL, P < 0.01), ascitic fluid carcinoembryonic antigen (118.4 +/- 196.5 vs 2.0 +/- 1.4 ng/mL, P < 0.01), ascitic fluid carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (12,933 +/- 25,496 vs 23 +/- 67 U/mL, P < 0.01) and serum-ascites albumin gradient (1.1 +/- 0.4 vs 2.0 +/- 0.4 g/dL, P < 0.01). At the best cut-off levels chosen from near 95% of the data in those without malignancy-related ascites, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy to diagnose malignancy-related ascites were, respectively, 65.5%, 93.6%, 87.0% using serum carcinoembryonic antigen > or = 10 ng/mL; 69.0%, 94.7%, 88.6% using ascitic fluid carcinoembryonic antigen > or = 5 ng/mL; 65.5%, 93.6%, 87.0% using ascitic fluid carbohydrate antigen 19-9 > or = 50 U/mL; 62.1%, 98.9%, 90.2% using serum-ascites albumin gradient < 1.1 g/dL. Although serum-ascites albumin gradient offered the best diagnostic accuracy and specificity, its sensitivity was not good enough. Our study indicates that serum-ascites albumin gradient and tumour markers are not sensitive parameters in the diagnosis of malignancy-related ascites.
为确定肿瘤标志物在恶性肿瘤相关腹水(不包括肝细胞癌)诊断中的临床价值,我们测定了66例肝硬化腹水患者、28例肝细胞癌合并腹水患者及29例恶性肿瘤相关腹水患者的血清和腹水癌胚抗原、癌抗原125、糖类抗原19-9、组织多肽抗原水平以及血清-腹水白蛋白梯度。在恶性肿瘤相关腹水患者与非恶性肿瘤相关腹水患者之间,三种肿瘤标志物及血清-腹水白蛋白梯度存在显著差异:血清癌胚抗原(26.4±31.5 vs 4.8±4.6 ng/mL,P<0.01)、腹水癌胚抗原(118.4±196.5 vs 2.0±1.4 ng/mL,P<0.01)、腹水糖类抗原19-9(12,933±25,496 vs 23±67 U/mL,P<0.01)以及血清-腹水白蛋白梯度(1.1±0.4 vs 2.0±0.4 g/dL,P<0.01)。以非恶性肿瘤相关腹水患者中接近95%的数据所选取的最佳截断值水平来看,使用血清癌胚抗原≥10 ng/mL诊断恶性肿瘤相关腹水的敏感性、特异性和准确性分别为65.5%、93.6%、87.0%;使用腹水癌胚抗原≥5 ng/mL时分别为69.0%、94.7%、88.6%;使用腹水糖类抗原19-9≥50 U/mL时分别为65.5%、93.6%、87.0%;使用血清-腹水白蛋白梯度<1.1 g/dL时分别为62.1%、98.9%、90.2%。尽管血清-腹水白蛋白梯度具有最佳的诊断准确性和特异性,但其敏感性不够理想。我们的研究表明,血清-腹水白蛋白梯度和肿瘤标志物在恶性肿瘤相关腹水的诊断中并非敏感参数。