Clinical Evaluation Comparing AxSYM&lt;sup&gt;&amp;reg;&lt;/sup&gt; CA 15-3&lt;sup&gt;TM&lt;/sup&gt;, IMx&lt;sup&gt;&amp;reg;&lt;/sup&gt; CA 15-3 and Truquant&lt;sup&gt;&amp;reg;&lt;/sup&gt; BR&lt;sup&gt;TM&lt;/sup&gt; RIA

Lynch, Don M.; Rogers, Patrick E.; Love, Jessica; Salkas, Michael J.; Skarphol, Kelly A.; Gross, Mary E.; Lu, Michael G.; Petrides, Victoria; Bruzek, Debra J.; Cox, Jennifer L.; Jones, Kerrie A.; Kelley, Cynthia; Chan, Daniel W.

doi:10.1159/000030034

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Secondly, the 13 studies in our analysis used different methods/assays to test CA15-3 and CEA levels, including 11 for CA15-3: MEIA, Abbott AxSYM, ELISA, MyBioSource, Antuos, CIS Bio International, CanAg, Calbiotech, IRMA, CLIA and Bayer, and 8 for CEA: MEIA, Abbott AxSYM, ELISA, Antuos, Quorum, CLIA, Bayer and CanAg. Previous research compared 3 different CA15-3 assay kits (the manual IRMA Centocor and 2 fully automated methods, the ELISA-Boehringer Mannheim-ES300 and the Abbott IMx) and showed that they have different sensitivity and could yield inconsistent results [ 27 , 28 ]. Positive rates of the IRMA CA15-3 did not show any significant variations related to stage, while CA15-3 levels obtained by both ELISA and Abbott assays showed higher values in stage I than in stage II patients [ 27 , 28 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous research compared 3 different CA15-3 assay kits (the manual IRMA Centocor and 2 fully automated methods, the ELISA-Boehringer Mannheim-ES300 and the Abbott IMx) and showed that they have different sensitivity and could yield inconsistent results [ 27 , 28 ]. Positive rates of the IRMA CA15-3 did not show any significant variations related to stage, while CA15-3 levels obtained by both ELISA and Abbott assays showed higher values in stage I than in stage II patients [ 27 , 28 ]. Therefore, it may be necessary to find a uniform method to screen for CA15-3 and CEA levels.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing Clinical Significance of Serum CA15-3 and Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) Levels in Breast Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis

2016

Med Sci Monit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundBreast cancer is the most common malignant cancer in women worldwide. The tumor markers Cancer Antigen 15-3 (CA15-3) and Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) are frequently used for screening and monitoring breast cancer.Material/MethodsWe conducted a meta-analysis of 13 published case-control studies to assess the associations between serum levels of CA15-3 and CEA with breast cancer susceptibility, including 1179 cases and 493 controls. The analyses were performed on malignant tumor and benign tumor, as well as in different subgroups with respect to the patient ethnicities and clinical tumor stages.ResultsThis systematic review and meta-analysis of association studies shows that serum levels of CA15-3 and CEA are potential biomarkers for breast cancer monitoring. When stratified by clinical stage, we noticed that although malignant tumors in all stages show elevated levels of CA15-3, it is greatly associated with the tumor stage, as it increases as breast tumor stage worsens.ConclusionsThis study clarifies the inconsistent conclusions from multiple studies, and provides a precise estimation for clinical utility of 2 important biomarkers, CA15-3 and CEA, in breast cancer monitoring. Thus, our study will shed lights on the prognosis of breast cancer patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Clinical Significance of Serum CA15-3 and Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) Levels in Breast Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis

2016

Med Sci Monit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

G-CSF induces elevation of circulating CA 15-3 in breast carcinoma patients treated in an adjuvant setting

Briasoulis

Andreopoulou

Tolis

et al. 2001

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Cancer antigen 15‐3 (CA 15‐3), a circulating marker that determines secreted products of the polymorphic MUC1 gene, has been established as a convenient tool for monitoring breast carcinoma patients. METHODS The authors investigated alterations of soluble CA 15‐3 in 57 postoperative breast carcinoma patients while they were receiving intensified adjuvant chemotherapy with granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G‐CSF) support; 26 patients had American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Stage II, and 31 patients had AJCC Stage III breast carcinoma. Serial CA 15‐3 values recorded thoughout the treatment were compared with baseline values, analyzed for correlation with hematologic and biochemical parameters, and compared with clinicopathologic characteristics and patient outcome. At a median follow‐up time of 32 months, 47 of these patients remained relapse‐free. RESULTS A twofold increase of CA 15‐3 was detected at the end of the second week of treatment, remained significantly elevated in most patients at above the cutoff level of 30 U/mL throughout the treatment period (P < 0.0001), and subsided to pretreatment values 1–2 months after treatment cessation. CA 15‐3 values were found to be associated strongly with absolute neutrophil count, serum lactate dehydrogenase, and alkaline phosphatase. The median values and the kinetics of tumor markers did not differ over time in regard to hormonal receptor status and disease recurrence. CONCLUSIONS These data provide strong evidence that G‐CSF administration can induce elevation of CA 15‐3 and indicate that false‐positive results should be considered when evaluating CA 15‐3 in patients who are receiving G‐CSF. It is speculated that this phenomenon occurs through the induction of MUC1 antigen of unknown origin by G‐CSF. Experimental investigation of this clinical observation is warranted. Cancer 2001;91:909–17. © 2001 American Cancer Society.

show abstract

CA27.29 as a tumour marker for risk evaluation and therapy monitoring in primary breast cancer patients

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several trials showed that tumour markers are associated with an impaired prognosis for breast cancer. Whether earlier treatment can improve the course of the disease remains controversial. The SUCCESS Trial compares FEC (500/100/500)-docetaxel (100) vs. FEC (500/100/500)-docetaxel/gemcitabine (75/2000) as well as 2 vs. 5 years of zoledronate in high-risk primary breast cancer patients. In 2669 patients, CA27.29 was measured before and after chemotherapy with the ST AIA-PACK CA27.29 reagent for the AIA-600II automated enzyme immunoassay (Tosoh Bioscience, Belgium). Values above 31 U/ml were considered positive. Of the patients, 7.6 % (n = 202, mean 19, range 3-410) and 19.1 % (n = 511, mean 21, range 3-331) had elevated marker levels before and after chemotherapy, respectively. Of the patients, 4.9 and 78 % showed elevated and low CA27.29, respectively, at both time points. After treatment, 35 % of the pre-therapy positive patients were negative, and 15 % of the initially negative patients became positive. The correlation between both time points was significant (p < 0.0001). No correlations among nodal status, grading, hormonal status, HER2 status and CA27.29 levels were found. However, tumour size (p = 0.02), older age (p < 0.001) and post-menopausal status (p = 0.006) were significantly associated with higher CA27.29 levels. Before treatment, the prevalence of elevated CA27.29 was equally distributed between both treatment arms, whereas after chemotherapy, 13.7 % of the patients in the FEC-doc arm showed an increased level vs. 25.4 % of the patients in the FEC-doc/gemcitabine arm (p < 0.0001). However, we could not show a significant association between the G-CSF application (yes vs. no) and CA27.29 status before/after chemotherapy (p = 0.75). These results indicate a close relationship between CA27.29 levels and tumour mass. Increased values after the completion of chemotherapy might be attributed to treatment effects and should be considered with caution.

show abstract

Clinical Evaluation Comparing AxSYM<sup>®</sup> CA 15-3<sup>TM</sup>, IMx<sup>®</sup> CA 15-3 and Truquant<sup>®</sup> BR<sup>TM</sup> RIA

Cited by 6 publications

References 13 publications

Assessing Clinical Significance of Serum CA15-3 and Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) Levels in Breast Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis

Assessing Clinical Significance of Serum CA15-3 and Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) Levels in Breast Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis

G-CSF induces elevation of circulating CA 15-3 in breast carcinoma patients treated in an adjuvant setting

CA27.29 as a tumour marker for risk evaluation and therapy monitoring in primary breast cancer patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About