<p>Diagnosis Value of Combined Detection of Serum SF, CEA and CRP in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer</p>

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical diagnostic value of combined detection of serum ferritin (SF), carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) and C-reactive protein (CRP) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: The study included 70 patients with NSCLC, 50 patients with benign lung disease and 50 healthy subjects. The serum concentrations of SF, CEA and CRP were determined by ELISA. Results: The results showed that the serum levels of SF, CEA and CRP in the NSCLC group were significantly higher than those of the benign lung disease group and the control group. The expression of the above three indexes in the lung cancer group III+IV was higher than that in the I+II group (P<0.05), and the expression of SF, CEA and CRP in the adenocarcinoma group was higher than that in the squamous cell carcinoma group. The difference is statistically significant (P<0.01). When the serum CEA, SF and CRP levels were used alone for diagnosis of NSCLC, CRP had the best diagnostic value. The area under the curve was 0.795. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 81.8% and 66.8%, respectivelyWhen combining these three factors, the area under the curve was 0.890, and the sensitivity and specificity were 80.3% and 82.5%, respectively. The parameters above were also significantly different (all P<0.01). Conclusion: This study indicated that the combined detection of serum SF, CEA and CRP could improve the early diagnostic sensitivity of NSCLC, and may be used as a potential diagnostic method for NSCLC.

Prognostic significance of postoperative longitudinal change of serum carcinoembryonic antigen level in patients with stage I lung adenocarcinoma completely resected by single-port video-assisted thoracic surgery: a retrospective study

“…In our study, it was shown that smaller tumor diameter (<20 mm: HR: 2.437, 95% CI: 1.245-4.770, P=0.009) had a significant effect on stage I LUAD survival (AUC =0.592), which is consistent with a few previous studies (5,(43)(44)(45). Moreover, we found that postoperative CEA grouping (NN vs. NH, NN vs. HH; both P<0.001) had a considerable (31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36). In these latter combination studies, a universal cutoff value or the reference value of the kit was used.…”

“…The expression of CEA also increases in patients with lung cancer, especially those with LUAD, and has higher diagnostic value than do the other types (28)(29)(30). Most relevant current studies have focused on either the predictive effect of the preoperative serum CEA level on the prognosis of patients or on combining serum CEA with other markers for diagnosis (31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36). These reports are only the results of a one-time preoperative CEA test.…”

Integrated microbiome, metabolome, and proteome analysis identifies a novel interplay among commensal bacteria, metabolites and candidate targets in non‐small cell lung cancer

“…For this study, we selected CRP, LBP, and CD14, which are related to IL-8 production. A recent study described that CRP could improve the early diagnostic sensitivity of NSCLC, 60 and CRP was also significantly changed in our study. LBP is produced by lung parenchyma, and Chalubinska-Fendler et al have proposed that LBP may be a marker for evaluating radiotoxicity in NSCLC patients.…”

The value of combined detection of CEA, CYFRA21-1, SCC-Ag, and pro-GRP in the differential diagnosis of lung cancer

“…At present, CEA is more commonly applied to the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in non-small cell lung cancer, but its cut-off level varies greatly in different studies (14,15). In one Chinese study, the serum CEA level of non-small cell lung cancer cases was found to be significantly higher than that of benign lung tumor cases and healthy people (16), while in another, the level in a lung adenocarcinoma group was significantly higher than that of a lung SCC group and small cell lung cancer group (17). While results such as those mentioned above show that CEA is of great significance for the clinical diagnosis of lung cancer, its role in early diagnosis is less convincing as it has poor specificity and its level of increase in the early stage of lung cancer is not obvious.…”