Literature DB >> 7948823

Clinical value of tumour markers and serum-ascites albumin gradient in the diagnosis of malignancy-related ascites.

S J Chen1, S S Wang, C W Lu, Y Chao, F Y Lee, S D Lee, S L Wu, K L Cherng, K J Lo.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7948823     DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.1994.tb01262.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 0815-9319            Impact factor:   4.029


  6 in total

1.  ACCURACY OF SERUM - ASCITES ALBUMIN GRADIENT IN THE AETIOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS OF ASCITES.

Authors:  A K Seth; R Rangarao; R Pakhetra; V Baskaran; Pvs Rana; S Rajamani
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2011-07-21

2.  Markedly elevated CA19-9 associated with benign ovarian cyst and ascites.

Authors:  Oliver Brain; Laura H W Brown; Shaila Suvarna; Roger Chapman
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2009-03-20

3.  Assessment of a panel of tumor markers for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant effusions by well-based reverse phase protein array.

Authors:  Till Braunschweig; Joon-Yong Chung; Chel Hun Choi; Hanbyoul Cho; Qing-Rong Chen; Ran Xie; Candice Perry; Javed Khan; Stephen M Hewitt
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2015-05-29       Impact factor: 2.644

4.  Voltammetric analysis for distinguishing portal hypertension-related from malignancy-related ascites: A proof of concept study.

Authors:  Moises Muley; Umberto Vespasiani-Gentilucci; Antonio De Vincentis; Marco Santonico; Giorgio Pennazza; Simona Sanguedolce; Cristiana De Luca; Francesco Plotti; Antonio Picardi; Raffaele Antonelli-Incalzi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Vascular endothelial growth factor levels in ascites between chemonaive and chemotreated patients.

Authors:  Hae Kyung Lee; Hiun Suk Chae; Jin Soo Kim; Hyung Keun Kim; Young Seok Cho; Sang Young Rho; Jin-Hyoung Kang; Seok Goo Cho; Hong Seok Jang; Kyungja Han
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2008-06-30       Impact factor: 2.759

6.  Diagnostic and prognostic value of SHOX2 and SEPT9 DNA methylation and cytology in benign, paramalignant, and malignant ascites.

Authors:  Maria Jung; Svenja Pützer; Heidrun Gevensleben; Sebastian Meller; Glen Kristiansen; Dimo Dietrich
Journal:  Clin Epigenetics       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 6.551

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.