No abstract

No abstract

Background: In breast cancer current guidelines do not recommend the routine use of serum tumour markers. Differently, we observed that CEA-TPA-CA15.3 (carcinoembryonic (CEA) tissue polypeptide (TPA) and cancer associated 115D8/DF3 (CA15.3) antigens) panel permits early detection and treatment for most relapsing patients. As high sensitivity and specificity and different cut-off values have been reported for mucin-like carcinoma associated antigen (MCA), we compared MCA with the above mentioned tumour markers and MCA-CA15.3 with the CEA-TPA-CA15.3 panel. Methods:In 289 breast cancer patients submitted to an intensive post-operative follow-up with tumour markers, we compared MCA (cut-off values, ≥ 11 and ≥ 15 U/mL) with CEA or CA15.3 or TPA for detection of relapse. In addition, we compared the MCA-CA15.3 and CEA-TPA-CA15.3 tumour marker panels. Results: Distant metastases occurred 19 times in 18 (6.7%) of the 268 patients who were disease-free at the beginning of the study. MCA sensitivity with both cut-off values was higher than that of CEA or TPA or CA15.3 (68% vs 10%, 26%, 32% and 53% vs 16%, 42%, 32% respectively). With cut-off ≥ 11 U/mL, MCA showed the lowest specificity (42%); with cut-off ≥ 15 U/mL, MCA specificity was similar to TPA (73% vs 72%) and lower than that of CEA and CA15.3 (96% and 97%

Long-term intensive risk-adjusted monitoring using the CEA, TPA, CA19.9, and CA72.4 TM panel and abdominal ultrasonography allows early detection of most recurrences. Patients can then undergo radical metastasectomy, with potentially improved overall survival.

Summary Between 1977 and1993, 384 breast cancer patients were followed up post-operatively every 4 or 6 months with a serum tumour marker panel (CEA-TPA-CA1 5-3) and the usual imaging techniques. Twenty-eight patients were treated 13.5±10 months (mean±s.d.) before the clinical and/or radiological occurrence of distant metastases that were suspected because of an increase in the tumour markers (patients treated 'early'). Their outcome was compared with that of 22 similar patients who were treated only after a definite radiological diagnosis was achieved (patients treated 'not early'). The median survivals from mastectomy and salvage treatment were also compared for the two groups. The groups were similar for all the major prognostic factors (menopause, staging, hormone dependency). In the group treated 'early', the lead time from the tumour marker increase to the clinical and radiological signs of metastases was significantly longer than that of the group not treated 'early' (13.5 ± 10 vs 3.4 ± 2.8 months respectively; P < 0.001 by unpaired t-test). For patients treated 'early', the survival curves up to 30 months after salvage treatment and up to 72 months after mastectomy showed greater survival than those for the patients treated later (42.9% vs 13.6% and 42.9% vs 22.7% respectively; P = 0.04 in both instances). These data suggest that treatment triggered by rising tumour markers before clinical and/or radiological appearance of distant metastases can be useful in prolonging both the asymptomatic interval and the duration of response of some relapsed patients. Randomized prospective trials must be encouraged to confirm these data and to better evaluate the effect on the disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of 'early' salvage treatment protocols.