Serum and ascites tumor markers in the diagnostic and prognostic prediction for appendiceal pseudomyxoma peritonei

Abstract

Background To investigate the expression of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen 199 (CA199) and CA125 in serum and ascites of appendiceal pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) patients relative to their diagnostic and predictive value. Methods The study comprised 183 patients with pathologically confirmed appendiceal PMP, enrolled from May 2012 to June 2020, in Aerospace Center Hospital. Serum and ascites tumor markers were obtained, and their diagnostic values were compared by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The prognostic factors of appendiceal PMP with different pathologic subgroups were calculated by univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models. Results There were significant differences between the numbers of patients with positive CEA and CA199 in serum vs. ascites: p = 0.034 in CEA and p = 0.006 in CA199, respectively. The sensitivities with optimal cut-off values for ascites markers of CEA, CA199 and CA125 were 83.5%, 88.9% and 72.6%, respectively. CEA in ascites showed significant difference in the diagnosis of appendiceal PMP (p = 0.000); the areas under the ROC curves (AUROCs) and specificity were 0.725, 70.7%, respectively. Univariate analysis showed that the higher the ascites tumor markers, the poorer the survival (p = 0.014). Multivariate analysis indicated that completeness of cytoreduction (CCR), ascites CEA and pathological grade were independent risk factors for overall survival (OS). Conclusion CEA in ascites can be used to help specify the origin of PMP. Furthermore, elevation of ascites CEA, high pathological grade and incomplete cytoreduction predicted poor prognosis of appendiceal PMP.

Appendiceal Mucinous Neoplasms: From Clinic to Pathology and Prognosis

“…However, one key finding that we would like to emphasize from the results of our study is that histology on its own has limited discriminative power as none of the classification systems scored a c-index value higher than 0.7 predicting OS and DFS. Therefore, other prognostic factors (serological TM [ 105 ], biological markers [ 106 , 107 ] …etc.) should be taken into account to achieve better patient stratification.…”