Levels of neuron-specific enolase after chemotherapy do not predict a response in small cell lung cancer
Univ. Hospital Dijkzigt, Dept. of Oncology, Rotterdam.Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 3.08). 02/1988; 114(6):641-3. DOI: 10.1007/BF00398191
Neuron-specific enolase (NSE) was measured in serum samples of 35 patients with small cell lung cancer and 10 control patients. The samples were collected during 10 days after the first course of chemotherapy, in order to investigate whether changes of NSE had a predictive value of tumour response. Three patterns of change of NSE were observed. Pattern 1 showed an increase of serum NSE with a maximum value more than 1.5 times the pretreatment level (n = 17); pattern 2 involved no increase at all or less than 1.5 times the pretreatment level (n = 14); pattern 3 showed a continuous decrease (n = 5). No relationship between the three patterns of change and the tumour response was observed. Only an NSE level less than 10 ng/ml at the time of start of the second course predicted a major response.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The prescription of bone scans (BS) in the initial staging and follow-up of small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) is a traditional attitude. The availability of the serum neuron-specific enolase (NSE) assay and budget limitations led us to evaluate retrospectively, in 57 patients, the consequences of a more selective attitude, namely to perform BS only in those patients with abnormal serum NSE levels. Both BS and NSE assays were performed in 47 patients referred for initial staging of SCLC; NSE levels were normal in 8 but in 2 of these cases (25%) secondary bone localizations with great clinical significance were discovered at BS. During follow-up, 59 BS were performed in conjunction with NSE assays; 45 NSE levels were in the normal range whereas 17 (38%) corresponding BS were suggestive of bone metastases. In conclusion, due to the frequent occurrence of false-negative results in patients with bone metastases, serum NSE levels proved to be useless in the selection for BS of patients suffering from SCLC.The International journal of biological markers 10/1997; 12(4):148-53. · 1.37 Impact Factor
- Danish medical bulletin 03/1999; 46(1):1-12. · 1.01 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective: Serum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) neuron-specific enolase (NSE) levels in lung cancer have been investigated widely; however, their diagnostic values have not yet been clarified. The authors investigated the diagnostic validity of NSE in BALF and serum in lung cancer. Materials and Methods: In this prospective case-control study, NSE levels in BALF (B-NSE) and serum (S-NSE) of 3 groups of subjects were analyzed: control subjects (group 1, n = 15), patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; group 2, n = 15), and lung cancer (group 3, n = 35). Results: The differences in S-NSE and B-NSE levels between the groups were not significant (P > 0.05). S-NSE and B-NSE levels did not show any difference between smokers and nonsmokers, small cell lung cancer and nonsmall cell lung cancer patients, and stage I-II and stage III-IV patients in group 3 (P > 0.05). B-NSE or B-NSE/urea did not show any significance in comparison with S-NSE in the diagnosis and/or staging of malignancy (P > 0.05). S-NSE and B-NSE were well correlated with each other (r = 0.84, P = 0.000). The sensitivity of the S-NSE was 60% and the specificity was 40%. Conclusion: The authors conclude that, although elevation of B-NSE is a well-known parameter in small cell lung cancer, it can also be elevated considerably in nonsmall cell lung cancer and COPD. Because of the significant correlation between S-NSE and B-NSE, it may be sufficient to measure S-NSE activity because it is easier and less invasive. However, NSE has no role in the exact diagnosis of lung cancer; it can only be investigated in a scientific setting.American Journal of Clinical Oncology 11/2005; 28(6):586-590. DOI:10.1097/01.coc.0000177915.51805.6e · 3.06 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.