Comparison of CEA and CA19-9 as a predictive factor for recurrence after curative gastrectomy in gastric cancer

Background Our aim of was to compare importance of the tumor markers (TMs) serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 in prediction of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods We reviewed retrospectively the clinical records of 149 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for stage I–III gastric cancer and whose CEA and CA19-9 levels were determined once preoperatively and for more than 3 years postoperatively. We investigated whether the clinicopathological characteristics of patients including age, sex, pathological disease stage, operative approach, type of gastrectomy, and degree of lymph node dissection as well as preoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 were risk factors for recurrence in univariate and multivariate analyses. Rate of recurrence was compared between patients positive and negative for postoperative CEA or CA19-9. We also calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictable values of postoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 for recurrence. The lead time was compared between CEA and CA19-9 that was defined as the time of the first detection of increases in tumor markers and confirmation of recurrence on imaging modalities. Results The number of patients positive for preoperative CEA was 25 (17%) and for CA19-9 was 11 (7%). Recurrence was confirmed in 29 (19%) patients. Stage III disease, preoperative positivity for CA19-9 but not CEA, and total gastrectomy were risk factors for recurrence in univariate analysis, but stage III disease was the only risk factor for recurrence in multivariate analysis. Forty and 15 patients were positive for postoperative CEA and CA19-9, respectively. The recurrence rate of 47% (7/15) in patients positive for postoperative CA19-9 was greater than that in negative patients (22/134 = 16%), but it did not differ between patients who were positive or negative for postoperative CEA. Specificity for CA19-9 was greater than that for CEA (P < 0.05). The lead time of CEA (3.9 ± 4.7 months) was not different from that of CA19-9 (6.1 ± 7.1 months). Conclusions These results indicate that CA19-9 rather than CEA is likely to be more useful for the detection of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Shibata, Chikashi [verfasserIn] Nakano, Toru Yasumoto, Akihiro Mitamura, Atsushi Sawada, Kentaro Ogawa, Hitoshi Miura, Tomoya Ise, Ichiro Takami, Kazuhiro Yamamoto, Kuniharu Katayose, Yu

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2022

Schlagwörter:	Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 Carcinoembryonic antigen Gastrectomy Gastric cancer Tumor marker Recurrence

Anmerkung:	© The Author(s) 2022

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: BMC surgery - London : BioMed Central, 2001, 22(2022), 1 vom: 03. Juni
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:22 ; year:2022 ; number:1 ; day:03 ; month:06

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s12893-022-01667-z

Katalog-ID:	SPR050753452

Internformat


LEADER	01000naa a22002652 4500
001	SPR050753452
003	DE-627
005	20230507195304.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230507s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s12893-022-01667-z \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR050753452
035			\|a (SPR)s12893-022-01667-z-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a Shibata, Chikashi \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Comparison of CEA and CA19-9 as a predictive factor for recurrence after curative gastrectomy in gastric cancer
264		1	\|c 2022
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © The Author(s) 2022
520			\|a Background Our aim of was to compare importance of the tumor markers (TMs) serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 in prediction of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods We reviewed retrospectively the clinical records of 149 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for stage I–III gastric cancer and whose CEA and CA19-9 levels were determined once preoperatively and for more than 3 years postoperatively. We investigated whether the clinicopathological characteristics of patients including age, sex, pathological disease stage, operative approach, type of gastrectomy, and degree of lymph node dissection as well as preoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 were risk factors for recurrence in univariate and multivariate analyses. Rate of recurrence was compared between patients positive and negative for postoperative CEA or CA19-9. We also calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictable values of postoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 for recurrence. The lead time was compared between CEA and CA19-9 that was defined as the time of the first detection of increases in tumor markers and confirmation of recurrence on imaging modalities. Results The number of patients positive for preoperative CEA was 25 (17%) and for CA19-9 was 11 (7%). Recurrence was confirmed in 29 (19%) patients. Stage III disease, preoperative positivity for CA19-9 but not CEA, and total gastrectomy were risk factors for recurrence in univariate analysis, but stage III disease was the only risk factor for recurrence in multivariate analysis. Forty and 15 patients were positive for postoperative CEA and CA19-9, respectively. The recurrence rate of 47% (7/15) in patients positive for postoperative CA19-9 was greater than that in negative patients (22/134 = 16%), but it did not differ between patients who were positive or negative for postoperative CEA. Specificity for CA19-9 was greater than that for CEA (P < 0.05). The lead time of CEA (3.9 ± 4.7 months) was not different from that of CA19-9 (6.1 ± 7.1 months). Conclusions These results indicate that CA19-9 rather than CEA is likely to be more useful for the detection of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
650		4	\|a Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Carcinoembryonic antigen \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Gastrectomy \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Gastric cancer \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Tumor marker \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Recurrence \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Nakano, Toru \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Yasumoto, Akihiro \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Mitamura, Atsushi \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Sawada, Kentaro \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Ogawa, Hitoshi \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Miura, Tomoya \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Ise, Ichiro \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Takami, Kazuhiro \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Yamamoto, Kuniharu \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Katayose, Yu \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t BMC surgery \|d London : BioMed Central, 2001 \|g 22(2022), 1 vom: 03. Juni \|w (DE-627)331018837 \|w (DE-600)2050442-1 \|x 1471-2482 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:22 \|g year:2022 \|g number:1 \|g day:03 \|g month:06
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01667-z \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 22 \|j 2022 \|e 1 \|b 03 \|c 06

Indexfelder

author_variant	c s cs t n tn a y ay a m am k s ks h o ho t m tm i i ii k t kt k y ky y k yk
matchkey_str	article:14712482:2022----::oprsnfeada9aardcieatrorcrecatruaie
hierarchy_sort_str	2022
publishDate	2022
allfields	10.1186/s12893-022-01667-z doi (DE-627)SPR050753452 (SPR)s12893-022-01667-z-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Shibata, Chikashi verfasserin aut Comparison of CEA and CA19-9 as a predictive factor for recurrence after curative gastrectomy in gastric cancer 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Our aim of was to compare importance of the tumor markers (TMs) serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 in prediction of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods We reviewed retrospectively the clinical records of 149 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for stage I–III gastric cancer and whose CEA and CA19-9 levels were determined once preoperatively and for more than 3 years postoperatively. We investigated whether the clinicopathological characteristics of patients including age, sex, pathological disease stage, operative approach, type of gastrectomy, and degree of lymph node dissection as well as preoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 were risk factors for recurrence in univariate and multivariate analyses. Rate of recurrence was compared between patients positive and negative for postoperative CEA or CA19-9. We also calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictable values of postoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 for recurrence. The lead time was compared between CEA and CA19-9 that was defined as the time of the first detection of increases in tumor markers and confirmation of recurrence on imaging modalities. Results The number of patients positive for preoperative CEA was 25 (17%) and for CA19-9 was 11 (7%). Recurrence was confirmed in 29 (19%) patients. Stage III disease, preoperative positivity for CA19-9 but not CEA, and total gastrectomy were risk factors for recurrence in univariate analysis, but stage III disease was the only risk factor for recurrence in multivariate analysis. Forty and 15 patients were positive for postoperative CEA and CA19-9, respectively. The recurrence rate of 47% (7/15) in patients positive for postoperative CA19-9 was greater than that in negative patients (22/134 = 16%), but it did not differ between patients who were positive or negative for postoperative CEA. Specificity for CA19-9 was greater than that for CEA (P < 0.05). The lead time of CEA (3.9 ± 4.7 months) was not different from that of CA19-9 (6.1 ± 7.1 months). Conclusions These results indicate that CA19-9 rather than CEA is likely to be more useful for the detection of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (dpeaa)DE-He213 Carcinoembryonic antigen (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastrectomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastric cancer (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tumor marker (dpeaa)DE-He213 Recurrence (dpeaa)DE-He213 Nakano, Toru aut Yasumoto, Akihiro aut Mitamura, Atsushi aut Sawada, Kentaro aut Ogawa, Hitoshi aut Miura, Tomoya aut Ise, Ichiro aut Takami, Kazuhiro aut Yamamoto, Kuniharu aut Katayose, Yu aut Enthalten in BMC surgery London : BioMed Central, 2001 22(2022), 1 vom: 03. Juni (DE-627)331018837 (DE-600)2050442-1 1471-2482 nnns volume:22 year:2022 number:1 day:03 month:06 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01667-z kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 22 2022 1 03 06
spelling	10.1186/s12893-022-01667-z doi (DE-627)SPR050753452 (SPR)s12893-022-01667-z-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Shibata, Chikashi verfasserin aut Comparison of CEA and CA19-9 as a predictive factor for recurrence after curative gastrectomy in gastric cancer 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Our aim of was to compare importance of the tumor markers (TMs) serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 in prediction of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods We reviewed retrospectively the clinical records of 149 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for stage I–III gastric cancer and whose CEA and CA19-9 levels were determined once preoperatively and for more than 3 years postoperatively. We investigated whether the clinicopathological characteristics of patients including age, sex, pathological disease stage, operative approach, type of gastrectomy, and degree of lymph node dissection as well as preoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 were risk factors for recurrence in univariate and multivariate analyses. Rate of recurrence was compared between patients positive and negative for postoperative CEA or CA19-9. We also calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictable values of postoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 for recurrence. The lead time was compared between CEA and CA19-9 that was defined as the time of the first detection of increases in tumor markers and confirmation of recurrence on imaging modalities. Results The number of patients positive for preoperative CEA was 25 (17%) and for CA19-9 was 11 (7%). Recurrence was confirmed in 29 (19%) patients. Stage III disease, preoperative positivity for CA19-9 but not CEA, and total gastrectomy were risk factors for recurrence in univariate analysis, but stage III disease was the only risk factor for recurrence in multivariate analysis. Forty and 15 patients were positive for postoperative CEA and CA19-9, respectively. The recurrence rate of 47% (7/15) in patients positive for postoperative CA19-9 was greater than that in negative patients (22/134 = 16%), but it did not differ between patients who were positive or negative for postoperative CEA. Specificity for CA19-9 was greater than that for CEA (P < 0.05). The lead time of CEA (3.9 ± 4.7 months) was not different from that of CA19-9 (6.1 ± 7.1 months). Conclusions These results indicate that CA19-9 rather than CEA is likely to be more useful for the detection of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (dpeaa)DE-He213 Carcinoembryonic antigen (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastrectomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastric cancer (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tumor marker (dpeaa)DE-He213 Recurrence (dpeaa)DE-He213 Nakano, Toru aut Yasumoto, Akihiro aut Mitamura, Atsushi aut Sawada, Kentaro aut Ogawa, Hitoshi aut Miura, Tomoya aut Ise, Ichiro aut Takami, Kazuhiro aut Yamamoto, Kuniharu aut Katayose, Yu aut Enthalten in BMC surgery London : BioMed Central, 2001 22(2022), 1 vom: 03. Juni (DE-627)331018837 (DE-600)2050442-1 1471-2482 nnns volume:22 year:2022 number:1 day:03 month:06 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01667-z kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 22 2022 1 03 06
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s12893-022-01667-z doi (DE-627)SPR050753452 (SPR)s12893-022-01667-z-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Shibata, Chikashi verfasserin aut Comparison of CEA and CA19-9 as a predictive factor for recurrence after curative gastrectomy in gastric cancer 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Our aim of was to compare importance of the tumor markers (TMs) serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 in prediction of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods We reviewed retrospectively the clinical records of 149 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for stage I–III gastric cancer and whose CEA and CA19-9 levels were determined once preoperatively and for more than 3 years postoperatively. We investigated whether the clinicopathological characteristics of patients including age, sex, pathological disease stage, operative approach, type of gastrectomy, and degree of lymph node dissection as well as preoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 were risk factors for recurrence in univariate and multivariate analyses. Rate of recurrence was compared between patients positive and negative for postoperative CEA or CA19-9. We also calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictable values of postoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 for recurrence. The lead time was compared between CEA and CA19-9 that was defined as the time of the first detection of increases in tumor markers and confirmation of recurrence on imaging modalities. Results The number of patients positive for preoperative CEA was 25 (17%) and for CA19-9 was 11 (7%). Recurrence was confirmed in 29 (19%) patients. Stage III disease, preoperative positivity for CA19-9 but not CEA, and total gastrectomy were risk factors for recurrence in univariate analysis, but stage III disease was the only risk factor for recurrence in multivariate analysis. Forty and 15 patients were positive for postoperative CEA and CA19-9, respectively. The recurrence rate of 47% (7/15) in patients positive for postoperative CA19-9 was greater than that in negative patients (22/134 = 16%), but it did not differ between patients who were positive or negative for postoperative CEA. Specificity for CA19-9 was greater than that for CEA (P < 0.05). The lead time of CEA (3.9 ± 4.7 months) was not different from that of CA19-9 (6.1 ± 7.1 months). Conclusions These results indicate that CA19-9 rather than CEA is likely to be more useful for the detection of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (dpeaa)DE-He213 Carcinoembryonic antigen (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastrectomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastric cancer (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tumor marker (dpeaa)DE-He213 Recurrence (dpeaa)DE-He213 Nakano, Toru aut Yasumoto, Akihiro aut Mitamura, Atsushi aut Sawada, Kentaro aut Ogawa, Hitoshi aut Miura, Tomoya aut Ise, Ichiro aut Takami, Kazuhiro aut Yamamoto, Kuniharu aut Katayose, Yu aut Enthalten in BMC surgery London : BioMed Central, 2001 22(2022), 1 vom: 03. Juni (DE-627)331018837 (DE-600)2050442-1 1471-2482 nnns volume:22 year:2022 number:1 day:03 month:06 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01667-z kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 22 2022 1 03 06
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s12893-022-01667-z doi (DE-627)SPR050753452 (SPR)s12893-022-01667-z-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Shibata, Chikashi verfasserin aut Comparison of CEA and CA19-9 as a predictive factor for recurrence after curative gastrectomy in gastric cancer 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Our aim of was to compare importance of the tumor markers (TMs) serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 in prediction of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods We reviewed retrospectively the clinical records of 149 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for stage I–III gastric cancer and whose CEA and CA19-9 levels were determined once preoperatively and for more than 3 years postoperatively. We investigated whether the clinicopathological characteristics of patients including age, sex, pathological disease stage, operative approach, type of gastrectomy, and degree of lymph node dissection as well as preoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 were risk factors for recurrence in univariate and multivariate analyses. Rate of recurrence was compared between patients positive and negative for postoperative CEA or CA19-9. We also calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictable values of postoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 for recurrence. The lead time was compared between CEA and CA19-9 that was defined as the time of the first detection of increases in tumor markers and confirmation of recurrence on imaging modalities. Results The number of patients positive for preoperative CEA was 25 (17%) and for CA19-9 was 11 (7%). Recurrence was confirmed in 29 (19%) patients. Stage III disease, preoperative positivity for CA19-9 but not CEA, and total gastrectomy were risk factors for recurrence in univariate analysis, but stage III disease was the only risk factor for recurrence in multivariate analysis. Forty and 15 patients were positive for postoperative CEA and CA19-9, respectively. The recurrence rate of 47% (7/15) in patients positive for postoperative CA19-9 was greater than that in negative patients (22/134 = 16%), but it did not differ between patients who were positive or negative for postoperative CEA. Specificity for CA19-9 was greater than that for CEA (P < 0.05). The lead time of CEA (3.9 ± 4.7 months) was not different from that of CA19-9 (6.1 ± 7.1 months). Conclusions These results indicate that CA19-9 rather than CEA is likely to be more useful for the detection of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (dpeaa)DE-He213 Carcinoembryonic antigen (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastrectomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastric cancer (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tumor marker (dpeaa)DE-He213 Recurrence (dpeaa)DE-He213 Nakano, Toru aut Yasumoto, Akihiro aut Mitamura, Atsushi aut Sawada, Kentaro aut Ogawa, Hitoshi aut Miura, Tomoya aut Ise, Ichiro aut Takami, Kazuhiro aut Yamamoto, Kuniharu aut Katayose, Yu aut Enthalten in BMC surgery London : BioMed Central, 2001 22(2022), 1 vom: 03. Juni (DE-627)331018837 (DE-600)2050442-1 1471-2482 nnns volume:22 year:2022 number:1 day:03 month:06 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01667-z kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 22 2022 1 03 06
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s12893-022-01667-z doi (DE-627)SPR050753452 (SPR)s12893-022-01667-z-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Shibata, Chikashi verfasserin aut Comparison of CEA and CA19-9 as a predictive factor for recurrence after curative gastrectomy in gastric cancer 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Our aim of was to compare importance of the tumor markers (TMs) serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 in prediction of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods We reviewed retrospectively the clinical records of 149 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for stage I–III gastric cancer and whose CEA and CA19-9 levels were determined once preoperatively and for more than 3 years postoperatively. We investigated whether the clinicopathological characteristics of patients including age, sex, pathological disease stage, operative approach, type of gastrectomy, and degree of lymph node dissection as well as preoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 were risk factors for recurrence in univariate and multivariate analyses. Rate of recurrence was compared between patients positive and negative for postoperative CEA or CA19-9. We also calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictable values of postoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 for recurrence. The lead time was compared between CEA and CA19-9 that was defined as the time of the first detection of increases in tumor markers and confirmation of recurrence on imaging modalities. Results The number of patients positive for preoperative CEA was 25 (17%) and for CA19-9 was 11 (7%). Recurrence was confirmed in 29 (19%) patients. Stage III disease, preoperative positivity for CA19-9 but not CEA, and total gastrectomy were risk factors for recurrence in univariate analysis, but stage III disease was the only risk factor for recurrence in multivariate analysis. Forty and 15 patients were positive for postoperative CEA and CA19-9, respectively. The recurrence rate of 47% (7/15) in patients positive for postoperative CA19-9 was greater than that in negative patients (22/134 = 16%), but it did not differ between patients who were positive or negative for postoperative CEA. Specificity for CA19-9 was greater than that for CEA (P < 0.05). The lead time of CEA (3.9 ± 4.7 months) was not different from that of CA19-9 (6.1 ± 7.1 months). Conclusions These results indicate that CA19-9 rather than CEA is likely to be more useful for the detection of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (dpeaa)DE-He213 Carcinoembryonic antigen (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastrectomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastric cancer (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tumor marker (dpeaa)DE-He213 Recurrence (dpeaa)DE-He213 Nakano, Toru aut Yasumoto, Akihiro aut Mitamura, Atsushi aut Sawada, Kentaro aut Ogawa, Hitoshi aut Miura, Tomoya aut Ise, Ichiro aut Takami, Kazuhiro aut Yamamoto, Kuniharu aut Katayose, Yu aut Enthalten in BMC surgery London : BioMed Central, 2001 22(2022), 1 vom: 03. Juni (DE-627)331018837 (DE-600)2050442-1 1471-2482 nnns volume:22 year:2022 number:1 day:03 month:06 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01667-z kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 22 2022 1 03 06
language	English
source	Enthalten in BMC surgery 22(2022), 1 vom: 03. Juni volume:22 year:2022 number:1 day:03 month:06
sourceStr	Enthalten in BMC surgery 22(2022), 1 vom: 03. Juni volume:22 year:2022 number:1 day:03 month:06
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 Carcinoembryonic antigen Gastrectomy Gastric cancer Tumor marker Recurrence
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	BMC surgery
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Shibata, Chikashi @@aut@@ Nakano, Toru @@aut@@ Yasumoto, Akihiro @@aut@@ Mitamura, Atsushi @@aut@@ Sawada, Kentaro @@aut@@ Ogawa, Hitoshi @@aut@@ Miura, Tomoya @@aut@@ Ise, Ichiro @@aut@@ Takami, Kazuhiro @@aut@@ Yamamoto, Kuniharu @@aut@@ Katayose, Yu @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2022-06-03T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	331018837
id	SPR050753452
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR050753452</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230507195304.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230507s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12893-022-01667-z</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR050753452</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12893-022-01667-z-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shibata, Chikashi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of CEA and CA19-9 as a predictive factor for recurrence after curative gastrectomy in gastric cancer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Our aim of was to compare importance of the tumor markers (TMs) serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 in prediction of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods We reviewed retrospectively the clinical records of 149 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for stage I–III gastric cancer and whose CEA and CA19-9 levels were determined once preoperatively and for more than 3 years postoperatively. We investigated whether the clinicopathological characteristics of patients including age, sex, pathological disease stage, operative approach, type of gastrectomy, and degree of lymph node dissection as well as preoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 were risk factors for recurrence in univariate and multivariate analyses. Rate of recurrence was compared between patients positive and negative for postoperative CEA or CA19-9. We also calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictable values of postoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 for recurrence. The lead time was compared between CEA and CA19-9 that was defined as the time of the first detection of increases in tumor markers and confirmation of recurrence on imaging modalities. Results The number of patients positive for preoperative CEA was 25 (17%) and for CA19-9 was 11 (7%). Recurrence was confirmed in 29 (19%) patients. Stage III disease, preoperative positivity for CA19-9 but not CEA, and total gastrectomy were risk factors for recurrence in univariate analysis, but stage III disease was the only risk factor for recurrence in multivariate analysis. Forty and 15 patients were positive for postoperative CEA and CA19-9, respectively. The recurrence rate of 47% (7/15) in patients positive for postoperative CA19-9 was greater than that in negative patients (22/134 = 16%), but it did not differ between patients who were positive or negative for postoperative CEA. Specificity for CA19-9 was greater than that for CEA (P < 0.05). The lead time of CEA (3.9 ± 4.7 months) was not different from that of CA19-9 (6.1 ± 7.1 months). Conclusions These results indicate that CA19-9 rather than CEA is likely to be more useful for the detection of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Carbohydrate antigen 19-9</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Carcinoembryonic antigen</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Gastrectomy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Gastric cancer</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Tumor marker</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Recurrence</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nakano, Toru</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yasumoto, Akihiro</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mitamura, Atsushi</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sawada, Kentaro</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ogawa, Hitoshi</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Miura, Tomoya</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ise, Ichiro</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Takami, Kazuhiro</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yamamoto, Kuniharu</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Katayose, Yu</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC surgery</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">22(2022), 1 vom: 03. Juni</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)331018837</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2050442-1</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2482</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:22</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:03</subfield><subfield code="g">month:06</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01667-z</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">22</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">03</subfield><subfield code="c">06</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Shibata, Chikashi
spellingShingle	Shibata, Chikashi misc Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 misc Carcinoembryonic antigen misc Gastrectomy misc Gastric cancer misc Tumor marker misc Recurrence Comparison of CEA and CA19-9 as a predictive factor for recurrence after curative gastrectomy in gastric cancer
authorStr	Shibata, Chikashi
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)331018837
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1471-2482
topic_title	Comparison of CEA and CA19-9 as a predictive factor for recurrence after curative gastrectomy in gastric cancer Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (dpeaa)DE-He213 Carcinoembryonic antigen (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastrectomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastric cancer (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tumor marker (dpeaa)DE-He213 Recurrence (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	misc Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 misc Carcinoembryonic antigen misc Gastrectomy misc Gastric cancer misc Tumor marker misc Recurrence
topic_unstemmed	misc Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 misc Carcinoembryonic antigen misc Gastrectomy misc Gastric cancer misc Tumor marker misc Recurrence
topic_browse	misc Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 misc Carcinoembryonic antigen misc Gastrectomy misc Gastric cancer misc Tumor marker misc Recurrence
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	BMC surgery
hierarchy_parent_id	331018837
hierarchy_top_title	BMC surgery
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)331018837 (DE-600)2050442-1
title	Comparison of CEA and CA19-9 as a predictive factor for recurrence after curative gastrectomy in gastric cancer
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR050753452 (SPR)s12893-022-01667-z-e
title_full	Comparison of CEA and CA19-9 as a predictive factor for recurrence after curative gastrectomy in gastric cancer
author_sort	Shibata, Chikashi
journal	BMC surgery
journalStr	BMC surgery
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2022
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Shibata, Chikashi Nakano, Toru Yasumoto, Akihiro Mitamura, Atsushi Sawada, Kentaro Ogawa, Hitoshi Miura, Tomoya Ise, Ichiro Takami, Kazuhiro Yamamoto, Kuniharu Katayose, Yu
container_volume	22
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Shibata, Chikashi
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s12893-022-01667-z
title_sort	comparison of cea and ca19-9 as a predictive factor for recurrence after curative gastrectomy in gastric cancer
title_auth	Comparison of CEA and CA19-9 as a predictive factor for recurrence after curative gastrectomy in gastric cancer
abstract	Background Our aim of was to compare importance of the tumor markers (TMs) serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 in prediction of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods We reviewed retrospectively the clinical records of 149 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for stage I–III gastric cancer and whose CEA and CA19-9 levels were determined once preoperatively and for more than 3 years postoperatively. We investigated whether the clinicopathological characteristics of patients including age, sex, pathological disease stage, operative approach, type of gastrectomy, and degree of lymph node dissection as well as preoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 were risk factors for recurrence in univariate and multivariate analyses. Rate of recurrence was compared between patients positive and negative for postoperative CEA or CA19-9. We also calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictable values of postoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 for recurrence. The lead time was compared between CEA and CA19-9 that was defined as the time of the first detection of increases in tumor markers and confirmation of recurrence on imaging modalities. Results The number of patients positive for preoperative CEA was 25 (17%) and for CA19-9 was 11 (7%). Recurrence was confirmed in 29 (19%) patients. Stage III disease, preoperative positivity for CA19-9 but not CEA, and total gastrectomy were risk factors for recurrence in univariate analysis, but stage III disease was the only risk factor for recurrence in multivariate analysis. Forty and 15 patients were positive for postoperative CEA and CA19-9, respectively. The recurrence rate of 47% (7/15) in patients positive for postoperative CA19-9 was greater than that in negative patients (22/134 = 16%), but it did not differ between patients who were positive or negative for postoperative CEA. Specificity for CA19-9 was greater than that for CEA (P < 0.05). The lead time of CEA (3.9 ± 4.7 months) was not different from that of CA19-9 (6.1 ± 7.1 months). Conclusions These results indicate that CA19-9 rather than CEA is likely to be more useful for the detection of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. © The Author(s) 2022
abstractGer	Background Our aim of was to compare importance of the tumor markers (TMs) serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 in prediction of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods We reviewed retrospectively the clinical records of 149 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for stage I–III gastric cancer and whose CEA and CA19-9 levels were determined once preoperatively and for more than 3 years postoperatively. We investigated whether the clinicopathological characteristics of patients including age, sex, pathological disease stage, operative approach, type of gastrectomy, and degree of lymph node dissection as well as preoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 were risk factors for recurrence in univariate and multivariate analyses. Rate of recurrence was compared between patients positive and negative for postoperative CEA or CA19-9. We also calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictable values of postoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 for recurrence. The lead time was compared between CEA and CA19-9 that was defined as the time of the first detection of increases in tumor markers and confirmation of recurrence on imaging modalities. Results The number of patients positive for preoperative CEA was 25 (17%) and for CA19-9 was 11 (7%). Recurrence was confirmed in 29 (19%) patients. Stage III disease, preoperative positivity for CA19-9 but not CEA, and total gastrectomy were risk factors for recurrence in univariate analysis, but stage III disease was the only risk factor for recurrence in multivariate analysis. Forty and 15 patients were positive for postoperative CEA and CA19-9, respectively. The recurrence rate of 47% (7/15) in patients positive for postoperative CA19-9 was greater than that in negative patients (22/134 = 16%), but it did not differ between patients who were positive or negative for postoperative CEA. Specificity for CA19-9 was greater than that for CEA (P < 0.05). The lead time of CEA (3.9 ± 4.7 months) was not different from that of CA19-9 (6.1 ± 7.1 months). Conclusions These results indicate that CA19-9 rather than CEA is likely to be more useful for the detection of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. © The Author(s) 2022
abstract_unstemmed	Background Our aim of was to compare importance of the tumor markers (TMs) serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 in prediction of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods We reviewed retrospectively the clinical records of 149 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for stage I–III gastric cancer and whose CEA and CA19-9 levels were determined once preoperatively and for more than 3 years postoperatively. We investigated whether the clinicopathological characteristics of patients including age, sex, pathological disease stage, operative approach, type of gastrectomy, and degree of lymph node dissection as well as preoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 were risk factors for recurrence in univariate and multivariate analyses. Rate of recurrence was compared between patients positive and negative for postoperative CEA or CA19-9. We also calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictable values of postoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 for recurrence. The lead time was compared between CEA and CA19-9 that was defined as the time of the first detection of increases in tumor markers and confirmation of recurrence on imaging modalities. Results The number of patients positive for preoperative CEA was 25 (17%) and for CA19-9 was 11 (7%). Recurrence was confirmed in 29 (19%) patients. Stage III disease, preoperative positivity for CA19-9 but not CEA, and total gastrectomy were risk factors for recurrence in univariate analysis, but stage III disease was the only risk factor for recurrence in multivariate analysis. Forty and 15 patients were positive for postoperative CEA and CA19-9, respectively. The recurrence rate of 47% (7/15) in patients positive for postoperative CA19-9 was greater than that in negative patients (22/134 = 16%), but it did not differ between patients who were positive or negative for postoperative CEA. Specificity for CA19-9 was greater than that for CEA (P < 0.05). The lead time of CEA (3.9 ± 4.7 months) was not different from that of CA19-9 (6.1 ± 7.1 months). Conclusions These results indicate that CA19-9 rather than CEA is likely to be more useful for the detection of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. © The Author(s) 2022
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Comparison of CEA and CA19-9 as a predictive factor for recurrence after curative gastrectomy in gastric cancer
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01667-z
remote_bool	true
author2	Nakano, Toru Yasumoto, Akihiro Mitamura, Atsushi Sawada, Kentaro Ogawa, Hitoshi Miura, Tomoya Ise, Ichiro Takami, Kazuhiro Yamamoto, Kuniharu Katayose, Yu
author2Str	Nakano, Toru Yasumoto, Akihiro Mitamura, Atsushi Sawada, Kentaro Ogawa, Hitoshi Miura, Tomoya Ise, Ichiro Takami, Kazuhiro Yamamoto, Kuniharu Katayose, Yu
ppnlink	331018837
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s12893-022-01667-z
up_date	2024-07-03T17:33:49.295Z
_version_	1803580110846033920
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR050753452</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230507195304.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230507s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12893-022-01667-z</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR050753452</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12893-022-01667-z-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shibata, Chikashi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of CEA and CA19-9 as a predictive factor for recurrence after curative gastrectomy in gastric cancer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Our aim of was to compare importance of the tumor markers (TMs) serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 in prediction of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods We reviewed retrospectively the clinical records of 149 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for stage I–III gastric cancer and whose CEA and CA19-9 levels were determined once preoperatively and for more than 3 years postoperatively. We investigated whether the clinicopathological characteristics of patients including age, sex, pathological disease stage, operative approach, type of gastrectomy, and degree of lymph node dissection as well as preoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 were risk factors for recurrence in univariate and multivariate analyses. Rate of recurrence was compared between patients positive and negative for postoperative CEA or CA19-9. We also calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictable values of postoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 for recurrence. The lead time was compared between CEA and CA19-9 that was defined as the time of the first detection of increases in tumor markers and confirmation of recurrence on imaging modalities. Results The number of patients positive for preoperative CEA was 25 (17%) and for CA19-9 was 11 (7%). Recurrence was confirmed in 29 (19%) patients. Stage III disease, preoperative positivity for CA19-9 but not CEA, and total gastrectomy were risk factors for recurrence in univariate analysis, but stage III disease was the only risk factor for recurrence in multivariate analysis. Forty and 15 patients were positive for postoperative CEA and CA19-9, respectively. The recurrence rate of 47% (7/15) in patients positive for postoperative CA19-9 was greater than that in negative patients (22/134 = 16%), but it did not differ between patients who were positive or negative for postoperative CEA. Specificity for CA19-9 was greater than that for CEA (P < 0.05). The lead time of CEA (3.9 ± 4.7 months) was not different from that of CA19-9 (6.1 ± 7.1 months). Conclusions These results indicate that CA19-9 rather than CEA is likely to be more useful for the detection of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Carbohydrate antigen 19-9</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Carcinoembryonic antigen</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Gastrectomy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Gastric cancer</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Tumor marker</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Recurrence</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nakano, Toru</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yasumoto, Akihiro</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mitamura, Atsushi</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sawada, Kentaro</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ogawa, Hitoshi</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Miura, Tomoya</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ise, Ichiro</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Takami, Kazuhiro</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yamamoto, Kuniharu</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Katayose, Yu</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC surgery</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">22(2022), 1 vom: 03. Juni</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)331018837</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2050442-1</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2482</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:22</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:03</subfield><subfield code="g">month:06</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01667-z</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">22</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">03</subfield><subfield code="c">06</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.401165

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Comparison of CEA and CA19-9 as a predictive factor for recurrence after curative gastrectomy in gastric cancer

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?