Individual reference ranges of CA 15—3, MCA and CEA in recurrence of breast cancer

Hölzel, W; Beer, R.; Deschner, W.; Griesmacher, Andrea; Muller, Majon

doi:10.3109/00365519509090571

Cited by 20 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the distributions of the single subjects variability were clearly different between the healthy and patients groups, especially for CEA (Figure 1). This finding is in accord with other studies, 5–7 in which the individual critical difference was used to identify patients who developed recurrence and in which several cases showed the non-tumour related variability too high to allow identification of minor clinically relevant tumour marker variations.…”

supporting

confidence: 91%

Within-subject biological variation in disease: the case of tumour markers

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 91%

Within-subject biological variation in disease: the case of tumour markers

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The data indicated that the tumor related variability during steady state concentrations was relatively low and that the impact of normal background fluctuations diminished when concentrations increased. Overall, the (35), who reported a considerably higher CV B . Overall, the (35), who reported a considerably higher CV B .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of CA 15.3, CEA and TPA Concentrations during Monitoring of Breast Cancer

Sölétormos¹,

Petersen²,

Dombernowsky³

2000

CCLM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The variability of the tumor markers cancer antigen (CA) 15.3, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA) during steady state concentrations and the rate of increase during progression is described. One hundred and ninety-two patients were monitored during first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer and during follow-up. Blood specimens were sampled approximately every four weeks. Steady state concentrations were registered for 77 (CA 15.3), 96 (CEA), and 127 (TPA) patients with below cutoff level values and for 28 (CA 15.3), 25 (CEA), and 11 (TPA) patients with above cutoff level values. Clinical and marker progression was registered for 75 (CA 15.3), 62 (CEA), and 57 (TPA) patients. The coefficients of total variation of steady state concentrations (comprising the intra- and interassay analytical imprecision and the within subject biological variation) were higher below (14.9% CA 15.3, 15.4% CEA, 25.9% TPA) than above cutoffs (9.6% CA 15.3,6.0% CEA, 19.9% TPA). The variability was similar for CA 15.3 and CEA but higher for TPA. During progression the rates of increase in concentrations were similar for CA 15.3 (0.0257) and CEA (0.0214) and lower than for TPA (0.0346). Our data indicate that criteria for assessment of sequential tumor marker concentrations should consider the marker in question, the steady state variability, the cutoff value, and the rate of increase during disease progression.

show abstract

“…Most of these studies have been done in groups of healthy subjects (2)(3)(4) although there are some published data on biological variation in stable patients with chronic disease (5). If criteria were based on relative increase, the interpretation would improve dramatically (7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18). At present, reference points for tumour markers are usually the conventional group-based cut-off points derived from samples of healthy persons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Within-Subject Variation of Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Colorectal Cancer — Application of Reference Change Values and Individual Reference Ranges to Patient Follow-Up

Móra¹,

Queraltó²

1997

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dynamic interpretation of results is an alternative approach to the conventional cut-off procedure. Reference change limit is a valuable reference point to interpret dynamically tumour marker values when only very few serial results can be obtained from a patient after treatment. In this paper, a reference change limit of 2.0 μ §/1 was estimated for carcinoembryonic antigen in patients with complete remission of colorectal cancer. This figure means that a difference greater than 2.0 μg/l has at least a chance of being statistically significant (at 0.05 probability). As complementary information to the reference change limits, with more than four successive results, a simple time series model can be used to obtain predictive limits for the next observation.

show abstract

Individual reference ranges of CA 15—3, MCA and CEA in recurrence of breast cancer

Cited by 20 publications

References 9 publications

Within-subject biological variation in disease: the case of tumour markers

Within-subject biological variation in disease: the case of tumour markers

Assessment of CA 15.3, CEA and TPA Concentrations during Monitoring of Breast Cancer

Within-Subject Variation of Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Colorectal Cancer — Application of Reference Change Values and Individual Reference Ranges to Patient Follow-Up

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About