Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Greaves, Ronda / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 3.556

CiteScore 2017: 2.34

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 1.114
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.188

Online
ISSN
1437-4331
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 40, Issue 3

Issues

Serum Cytokeratin Fragment 21.1 (CYFRA 21.1) as Tumour Marker for Breast Cancer: Comparison with Carbohydrate Antigen 15.3 (CA 15.3) and Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA)

Luca Giovanella / Luca Ceriani / Giovanni Giardina / Donata Bardelli / Fabio Tanzi / Silvana Garancini
Published Online: 2005-06-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2002.047

Abstract

Serum carbohydrate antigen 15.3 (CA 15.3) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) are currently employed in clinical practice as markers for breast cancer, particularly in the follow-up and therapy monitoring. However, the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) stated in its clinical practice guidelines for the use of tumour markers in breast carcinoma that neither CA 15.3 nor CEA are recommended for routine use in screening, diagnosis and surveillance after primary treatment, or in monitoring response to treatment, because current literature data are insufficient. Cytokeratin fragment 21.1 (CYFRA 21.1) assay detects a serum fragment of cytokeratin 19 (CK19) and is employed in the diagnosis and management of lung cancer, particularly of squamous cell histotype. Breast carcinoma has been demonstrated to express CK19 fragments in the primary and metastatic lesions and CK19 mRNA is detectable in peripheral blood from patients affected by breast cancer. We measured serum markers CYFRA 21.1, CEA and CA 15.3 in the sera from 212 females affected by histologically proven breast carcinoma. Patients comprised 96 individuals with untreated primary disease (54 stage I-II, 18 stage III and 24 stage IV), 30 regional (chest-wall and/or lymph-nodes) relapsing disease and 68 metastatic (haematogenous metastases) relapsing disease. Forty-eight patients previously treated by surgery and without any evidence of disease were enrolled to evaluate the role of serum markers in the monitoring for recurrence of the disease. One hundred healthy age-matched females and 65 patients affected by benign mammary gland disease (including 38 patients with mastopathy and 27 with fibroadenoma) were enrolled as controls. Serum levels of all markers increased from controls to patients affected by breast cancer, from stage I-II to stage IV of the breast cancer and from local to advanced recurrence. The comparison of diagnostic accuracy in the detection of primary and relapsing breast cancer showed no significant differences between markers. Univariate and multivariate survival analysis showed a significant statistically prognostic value for CA 15.3 and CYFRA 21.1 but not for CEA. However, the factors N and M were confirmed to be very strong predictors of the patients' survival. Finally, CEA and CYFRA 21.1 detected less recurrences than CA 15.3.

In conclusion, our data show no significant improvement in the diagnosis, prognostic evaluation and follow-up of breast cancer by CYFRA 21.1 and CEA assays compared to CA 15.3 assay. Considering the ASCO statement on tumour markers in breast cancer, the CYFRA 21.1 assay should not be employed in clinical practice.

About the article

Published Online: 2005-06-01

Published in Print: 2002-04-10


Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, Volume 40, Issue 3, Pages 298–303, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2002.047.

Export Citation

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
J.-Y. Pierga, L. Deneux, C. Bonneton, A. Vincent-Salomon, C. Nos, P. Anract, H. Magdelénat, P. Pouillart, and J.-P. Thiery
The International Journal of Biological Markers, 2004, Volume 19, Number 1, Page 23
[2]
R. Marrakchi, S. Ouerhani, S. Benammar, K. Rouissi, R. Bouhaha, K. Bougatef, Y. Messai, I. Khadimallah, K. Rahal, and A. Ben Ammar-Elgaaied
The International Journal of Biological Markers, 2008, Volume 23, Number 4, Page 238
[3]
Yanan Kong, Junye Wang, Wanli Liu, Qiaolun Chen, Juan Yang, Weidong Wei, Mingqing Wu, Lu Yang, Xinhua Xie, Ning Lv, Jiaoli Guo, Laisheng Li, Jie Gao, Xiaoming Xie, Shuqin Dai, and Todd W. Miller
PLoS ONE, 2013, Volume 8, Number 2, Page e57092
[4]
[5]
Hongliang Yao, Zhulin Yang, Ziru Liu, Xiongying Miao, Leping Yang, Daiqiang Li, Qiong Zou, and Yuan Yuan
Cancer Biomarkers, 2017, Volume 17, Number 4, Page 397
[6]
Dorit Di Gioia, Irene Blankenburg, Dorothea Nagel, Volker Heinemann, and Petra Stieber
Clinica Chimica Acta, 2016, Volume 461, Page 1
[7]
Samia A. Ebied, Wafaa M.E. Abdel-Rehim, Sanaa A. El-Benhawy, Mona A. El-Gawish, Mohamed A.A. Hassan, and Islam I. El-Settawy
Alexandria Journal of Medicine, 2017, Volume 53, Number 1, Page 41
[8]
William Jacot, Maryse Fiche, Khalil Zaman, Anita Wolfer, and Pierre-Jean Lamy
Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Reviews on Cancer, 2013, Volume 1836, Number 1, Page 146
[9]
Mohamed Elfagieh, Fathi Abdalla, Asma Gliwan, Jamela Boder, Wafa Nichols, and Abdelbaset Buhmeida
Tumor Biology, 2012, Volume 33, Number 6, Page 2371
[10]
S. Holdenrieder and P. Stieber
Clinical Biochemistry, 2004, Volume 37, Number 7, Page 605
[11]
M. Mohammadza, H. Alikhah, and A.G.A. Zareh
Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 2010, Volume 13, Number 4, Page 175

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in