To investigate whether pleural levels of the soluble oncoprotein 185 HER-2 (sp185(HER-2)), individually or in combination with CEA and CA 15-3, were useful for the diagnosis of malignant effusions.
Levels of CEA, CA 15-3, and sp185(HER-2) were measured in the pleural fluid from 135 malignant and 103 benign effusions. Thresholds of these tumor markers were chosen for a diagnostic specificity of >or=99%.
Pleural sp185(HER-2) levels greater than 25 ng/mL were observed in 20% of breast and 10% of lung adenocarcinomas, and predicted a malignant effusion with a sensitivity of 7% and a likelihood ratio of 7.6. Combination of CEA and CA 15-3 resulted in 50% sensitivity, while adding sp185(HER-2) to this panel nonsignificantly increased sensitivity by 5% (P = 0.45). Only 1 patient with breast adenocarcinoma among 45 cytology-negative malignant effusions had sp185(HER-2) above the diagnostic cutoff point.
Measurement of pleural fluid sp185(HER-2) has poor diagnostic performance in patients with malignant effusions.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The first step in the evaluation of patients with pleural effusion is to determine whether the effusion is a transudate or an exudate. An exudative effusion is diagnosed if the patient meets Light's criteria. The serum to pleural fluid protein or albumin gradients may help better categorize the occasional transudate misidentified as an exudate by these criteria. If the patient has a transudative effusion, therapy should be directed toward the underlying heart failure or cirrhosis. If the patient has an exudative effusion, attempts should be made to define the etiology. Pneumonia, cancer, tuberculosis, and pulmonary embolism account for most exudative effusions. Many pleural fluid tests are useful in the differential diagnosis of exudative effusions. Other tests helpful for diagnosis include helical computed tomography and thoracoscopy.
American family physician 05/2006; 73(7):1211-20. · 2.18 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Pleural effusions (PE) are the most common complications that may be produced by a wide variety of diseases. A large number of studies exploring the role of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cytokeratin fragment 19 (CYFRA 21-1) marker in differential diagnosis of PE have been published, employing differing methodologies with sometimes conflicting results. A comprehensive systematic review would be useful to synthesize the currently available bulk of information. The objective of this work was to assess and compare the overall value of pleural fluid CEA and CYFRA 21-1 in differential diagnosis of PEs with a meta-analysis. All the English and Chinese published studies for differential diagnosis of PEs by pleural fluid CEA and CYFRA 21-1 were collected. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated, the threshold effect and the possible sources of heterogeneity were also analyzed. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve analysis was used to compare the differential diagnostic ability of pleural fluid CEA and CYFRA 21-1. A total of 19 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 3,228 subjects. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of CEA and CYFRA 21-1 were 45.9% (43.2-48.5%) and 97.0% (96.0-97.8%), and 47.3% (44.0-50.6%) and 91.8% (89.5-93.7%), respectively. Both CEA and CYFRA 21-1 have a threshold effect, the main source of heterogeneity was from variable assay methods. The areas under the SROC curve (AUCs) of CEA and CYFRA 21-1 were 0.7691 and 0.8213, respectively. There was no statistical significance between the AUC of CEA and CYFRA 21-1 (P>0.05). Both CEA and CYFRA 21-1 have good performance in the differential diagnosis of PE, when compared with CEA, CYFRA 21-1 has no advantage.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Conventional tests are not always helpful in making a diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion (MPE). Many studies have investigated the utility of pleural carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in the early diagnosis of MPE. The present meta-analysis determined the accuracy of CEA measurement in the diagnosis of MPE.
A systematic review of English language studies was conducted and data on the accuracy of pleural CEA concentrations in the diagnosis of MPE were pooled using random effects models. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to summarize the overall test performance.
Forty-five studies met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The summary estimates for CEA in the diagnosis of MPE were: sensitivity 0.54 (95% CI: 0.52-0.55), specificity 0.94 (95% CI: 0.93-0.95), positive likelihood ratio 9.52 (95% CI: 6.97-13.01), negative likelihood ratio 0.49 (95% CI: 0.44-0.54) and diagnostic odds ratio 22.5 (95% CI: 15.6-32.5). Analysis of a subset of 11 studies which examined the value of pleural CEA in ruling out a diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma found that the sensitivity and specificity of a CEA level exceeding cut-off values were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.93-0.99) and 0.60 (95% CI: 0.55-0.65), respectively.
Measurement of pleural CEA is likely to be a useful diagnostic tool for confirming MPE, and is also helpful in the differential diagnosis between malignant pleural mesothelioma and metastatic lung cancer. The results of CEA assays should be interpreted in parallel with clinical findings and the results of conventional tests.
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.