The prognostic value of preoperative serum levels of CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 tumor markers was investigated in 153 patients resected for gastric cancer. The positivity rates for CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 were 20.9, 34.6 and 28.1%, respectively. Multiple logistic regression analysis for positive levels of tumor markers indicates that CEA positivity is significantly related to the depth of invasion (p < 0.005) and the presence of distant metastasis (p < 0.05), CA 19-9 positivity is related to nodal involvement (p < 0.05) and the depth of invasion (p < 0.05), whereas CA 72-4 positivity is influenced by tumor size (p < 0.005) and noncurative surgery (p < 0.05). Positive levels of each tumor marker were associated with a worse prognosis if compared with negative cases using univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis of curatively resected cases identified depth in gastric wall (p < 0.0001), nodal status (p < 0.0005), and tumor location in the upper third (p < 0.05) as significant prognostic variables; CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 serum positivity did not reach statistical significance. However, when the positivity of the three markers was associated, a p value < 0.05 was observed. The analysis of survival curves stratified by tumor stage revealed that marker positivity significantly affects survival in stages I, II and IV (p < 0.05). The combined assay of CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 preoperative serum levels provides additional prognostic information in patients resected for gastric cancer; patients with preoperative positivity for one of these tumor markers should be considered at high risk of recurrence even in early stages of gastric carcinoma.

Keywords:
Gastric cancer, Tumor markers, CEA, CA 19-9, CA 72-4, Prognosis
1.
Black RJ, Bray F, Ferlay J, Parkin DM: Cancer incidence and mortality in the European Union: Cancer registry data and estimates of national incidence for 1990. Eur J Cancer 1997;33:1075–1107.
2.
Akoh JA, Macintyre IMC: Improving survival in gastric cancer review of 5-year survival rates in English language publications from 1970. Br J Surg 1992;79:293–299.
3.
Hermanek P, Sobin LJ: UICC TNM classification of malignant tumors, ed 4, rev 2. Berlin, Springer, 1992.
4.
Roder J, Bottcher K, Siewert R, Busch R, Hermanek P, Meyer HJ, and the German Gastric Carcinoma Study Group: Prognostic factors in gastric carcinoma. Cancer 1993;72:2089–2097.
5.
Moertel CG, O’Fallon JR, Go VLW, O’Connell MJ, Thynne GS: The preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen test in diagnosis, staging, and prognosis of colorectal cancer. Cancer 1986;58:603–610.
6.
Nakane Y, Okamura S, Akehira K, Boku T, Okusa T, Tanaka K, Hioki K: Correlation of preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen levels and prognosis of gastric cancer patients. Cancer 1994;73:2073–2078.
7.
Sakamoto J, Nakazato H, Teramukai S, Ohashi Y, Takahashi Y, Mai M, Toge T, Okura H, Kodaira S, Maetani S, Okajima K, Nomoto K, Hattori T, Inokuchi K: Association between preoperative plasma CEA levels and the prognosis of gastric cancer following curative resection. Tumor Marker Committee, Japanese Foundation for Multidisciplinary Treatment of Cancer, Tokyo, Japan. Surg Oncol 1996;5:133–139.
8.
Ikeda Y, Mori M, Kajiyama K, Kamakura T, Maehara Y, Haraguchi Y, Sugimachi K: Indicative value of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) for liver recurrence following curative resection of stage II and III gastric cancer. Hepatogastroenterology 1996;43:1281–1287.
9.
Kornek G, Depisch D, Temsch EM, Scheithauer W: Comparative analysis of cancer-associated antigen CA-195, CA 19-9 and carcinoembryonic antigen in diagnosis, follow-up and monitoring to response to chemotherapy in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1991;117:493–496.
10.
Barillari P, Sammartino P, Cardi M, Ricci M, Gozzo P, Cesareo S, Cerasi A: Gastrointestinal cancer follow-up: The effectiveness of sequential CEA, TPA and CA 19-9 evaluation in the early diagnosis of recurrences. Aust N Z J Surg 1991;61:675–680.
11.
Kodera Y, Yamamura Y, Torii A, Uesaka K, Hirai T, Yasui K, Morimoto T, Kato T, Kito T: The prognostic value of preoperative serum levels of CEA and CA 19-9 in patients with gastric cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 1996;91:49–53.
12.
Victorzon M, Haglund C, Lundin J, Roberts PJ: A prognostic value of CA 19-9 but not of CEA in patients with gastric cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 1995;21:379–384.
13.
Johnson VG, Schlom J, Paterson AJ, Bennet J, Magnani JL, Colcher D: Analysis of a human tumor-associated glycoprotein (TAG-72) identified by monoclonal antibody B72.3. Cancer Res 1986;46:850–857.
14.
Hamazoe R, Maeta M, Matsui T, Shibata S, Shiota S, Kaibara N: CA 72-4 compared with carcinoembryonic antigen as a tumour marker for gastric cancer. Eur J Cancer 1992;28A:1351–1354.
15.
Thor A, Ohuchi N, Szpak CA, Johnston WW, Schlom J: Distribution of oncofetal antigen tumor-associated glycoprotein-72 defined by monoclonal antibody B72.3. Cancer Res 1986;46:3118–3124.
16.
Joypaul B, Browning M, Newman E, Byrne D, Cuschieri A: Comparison of serum CA 72-4 and CA 19-9 levels in gastric cancer patients and correlation with recurrence. Am J Surg 1995;169:595–599.
17.
Spila A, Roselli M, Cosimelli M, Ferroni P, Cavaliere F, Arcuri R, Tedesco M, Carlini S, D’Alessandro R, Perri P, Casciani CU, Greiner JW, Schlom J, Guadagni F: Clinical utility of CA 72-4 serum marker in the staging and immediate postsurgical management of gastric cancer patients. Anticancer Res 1996;16:2241–2248.
18.
Safi F, Kuhns V, Berger HG: Comparison of CA 72-4, CA 19-9 and CEA in the diagnosis and monitoring of gastric cancer. Int J Biol Markers 1995;10:100–106.
19.
Kodama I, Koufuji K, Kawabata S, Tetsu S, Tsuji Y, Takeda J, Kakegawa T: The clinical efficacy of CA 72-4 as a serum marker for gastric cancer in comparison with CA 19-9 and CEA. Int Surg 1995;80:45–48.
20.
Gonzales A, Vizoso F, Allende MT, Sanchez MT, Balibrea JL, Ruibal A: Preoperative CEA and TAG-72 serum levels as prognostic indicators in resectable gastric carcinoma. Int J Biol Markers 1996;11:165–171.
21.
Reiter W, Stieber P, Reuter C, Nagel D, Cramer C, Pahl H, Fateh Moghadam A: Prognostic value of preoperative serum levels of CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 in gastric carcinoma. Anticancer Res 1997;17:2903–2906.
22.
Ikeguchi M, Katano K, Saitou H, Tsujitani S, Maeta M, Kaibara N: Pre-operative serum levels of CA 72-4 in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma. Hepatogastroenterology 1997;44:866–871.
23.
Lauren P: The two histological main types of gastric carcinoma: diffuse and so-called intestinal type carcinoma: An attempt at a histo-clinical classification. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand 1965;64:31–43.
24.
Torre GC, Lucchese V, Rembado R, Barbetti V: Tumour markers: From laboratory to clinical use. Anticancer Res 1996;16:2215–2220.
25.
Ikeda Y, Oomori H, Koyanagi N, Mori M, Kamakura T, Minagawa S, Tateishi H, Sugimachi K: Prognostic value of combination assays for CEA and CA 19-9 in gastric cancer. Oncology 1995;52:483–486.
26.
Gomyo Y, Ikeda M, Osaki M, Tatebe S, Tsujitani S, Ikeguchi M, Kaibara N, Ito H: Expression of p21 (waf1/cip1/sdi1), but not p53 protein, is a factor in the survival of patients with advanced gastric carcinoma. Cancer 1997;79:2067–2072.
27.
Maehara Y, Sugimachi K, Akagi M, Kakegawa T, Shimazu H, Tomita M: Serum carcinoembryonic antigen level increases correlate with tumor progression in patients with differentiated gastric carcinoma following noncurative resection. Cancer Res 1990;50:3952–3955.
28.
Benchimol S, Fuks A, Jothy S, Beauchemin N, Shirota K, Stanners CP: Carcinoembryonic antigen, a human tumor marker, functions as an intercellular adhesion molecule. Cell 1989;57:327–334.
29.
Yogeenwaran G, Salk PL: Metastatic potential is positively correlated with cell surface sialylation of cultured murine tumor cell lines. Science 1981;212:1514–1517.
30.
Hostetter RB, Augustus LB, Mankarious R, Chi K, Fan D, Toth C, Thomas P, Jessup JM: Carcinoembryonic antigen as a selective enhancer of colorectal cancer metastasis. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990;82:380–385.
31.
Nakamura T, Tabuchi Y, Nakae S, Ohno M, Saitoh Y: Serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels and proliferating cell nuclear antigen labeling index for patients with colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 1996;77:1741–1746.
1999
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.