PDF下载 ( 1809 KB)
Value of combined detection of AFP, CA19-9, and CEA in early diagnosis of primary liver cancer
-
摘要: 目的研究AFP、CA19-9、CEA联合检测对原发性肝癌进行早期诊断的临床价值。方法收集2014年10月-2016年12月东南大学附属第二医院门诊和住院的肝病患者248例,分为原发性肝癌组（n=88）和非肿瘤性肝病组（n=160）,另选取130例健康体检者为正常对照组。采用Roche cobas e 411 analyzer检测3组患者的血清肿瘤标志物AFP、CA19-9、CEA水平,分析3种肿瘤标志物单个检测和联合检测的灵敏度和特异度。采用Beckman Coulter AU5800检测肝功能生化指标。采用Biotek ELX808检测HBV血清学标志物和HCV抗体。应用受试者工作特征曲线（ROC曲线）对原发性肝癌患者的血清AFP、CA19-9、CEA及3者联合检测结果进行分析评价。计量资料多组间比较采用单因素方差分析,进一步两两比较采用SNK-q检验,2组间比较采用t检验;计数资料组间比较采用χ2检验。相关性分析采用Spearman分析。结果在原发性肝癌组和非肿瘤性肝病组中,肝功能异常患者的AFP、CA19-9均显著高于肝功能正常组（原发性肝癌组:t值分别为3...Abstract: Objective To investigate the value of combined measurement of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) , carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) , and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in the early diagnosis of primary liver cancer.Methods A total of 248 patients who visited the outpatient service or were hospitalized in The Second Hospital of Nanjing from October 2014 to December 2016 were enrolled and divided into primary liver cancer group with 88 patients and non-tumor liver disease group with 160 patients.A total of 130 healthy subjects who underwent physical examination were enrolled as normal control group.The Roche cobas e 411 analyzer was used to measure the serum levels of the tumor markers AFP, CA19-9, and CEA, and the sensitivities and specificities of these markers or a combination of them were analyzed.Beckman Coulter AU5800 was used to measure biochemical parameters for liver function, and Biotek ELX808 was used to measure hepatitis B virus markers and HCV antibody.The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze the results of measurements of serum AFP, CA19-9, and CEA alone or in combination in patients with primary liver cancer.A one-way analysis of variance was used for comparison of continuous data between multiple groups and the SNK-q test was used for further comparison between two groups;the t-test was used for comparison of continuous data between two groups.The chi-square test was used for comparison of categorical data between groups.The Spearman correlation analysis was also performed.Results In the primary liver cancer group and the non-tumor liver disease group, the patients with abnormal liver function had significantly higher levels of AFP and CA19-9 than those with normal liver function (primary liver cancer group:t=35.64 and 3.38, both P<0.05;non-tumor liver disease group:t=12.51 and 8.19, both P<0.05) .Among the patients with normal liver function, the primary liver cancer group had a significantly higher level of CEA than the non-tumor liver disease group and the normal control group (all P<0.05) .Among the patients with abnormal liver function, the primary liver cancer group had significantly higher levels of AFP, CA19-9, and CEA than the non-tumor liver disease group and the normal control group (all P<0.05) .The serum levels of AFP, CA19-9, and CEA increased with the increase in Child-Pugh class.Among the patients with abnormal liver function in the primary liver cancer group, Child-Pugh class B patients had significant increases in the levels of AFP, CA19-9, and CEA compared with Child-Pugh class A patients, and Child-Pugh class C patients had significant increases compared with Child-Pugh class B patients (all P<0.05) .Among the patients with abnormal liver function in the non-tumor liver disease group, Child-Pugh class B patients had significant increases in the levels of AFP and CA19-9 compared with Child-Pugh class A patients, and Child-Pugh class C patients had significant increases compared with Child-Pugh class B patients (all P<0.05) ;Child-Pugh class C patients had a significant increase in the level of CEA than Child-Pugh class A/B patients (P<0.05) .The primary liver cancer group had significantly higher positive rates of AFP, CA19-9, and CEA than the non-tumor liver disease group and the normal control group (all P<0.05) , and the positive rates of these tumor markers were significantly higher when measured in combination than when measured alone (all P<0.05) .In the primary liver cancer group, a combination of the three tumor markers had a sensitivity of 86.36% and a specificity of 92.35%, while AFP, CA19-9, and CEA measured alone had sensitivities of 71.59%, 52.27%, and 39.77%, respectively.In the patients with primary liver cancer, the areas under the ROC curve for serum AFP, CA19-9, CEA, and a combination of them were 0.776, 0.704, 0.681, and0.817, respectively.AFP was positively correlated with gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase in the primary liver cancer group (r=0.54, P=0.04) and was positively correlated with indirect bilirubin (IBil) in the normal control group (r=0.50, P=0.01) .In the primary liver cancer group, CA19-9 was positively correlated with alanine aminotransferase (ALT) , direct bilirubin (DBil) , IBil, total bilirubin (TBil) , and total bile acid (TBA) (r=0.58, 0.63, 0.61, 0.65, and 0.58, all P<0.05) , and in the non-tumor liver disease group, CA19-9 was positively correlated with ALT, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) , DBil, IBil, TBil, and TBA (r=0.51, 0.63, 0.66, 0.64, 0.70, and 0.59, all P<0.05) .Conclusion AFP can well reflect liver injury, but it may yield false-negative results in the diagnosis of primary liver cancer.A mild increase in CEA does not strongly indicate primary cancer.CA19-9 is easily influenced by the factors including ALP and bilirubin and has a high false-positive rate.Combined measurement of AFP, CA19-9, and CEA can improve the sensitivity of the diagnosis of primary liver cancer and is better than single measurement of AFP, CA19-9, or CEA.Therefore, it provides a strong basis for early diagnosis and treatment.
-
Key words:
- liver neoplasms /
- alpha-fetoproteins /
- CA-19-9 antigen /
- carcinoembryonic antigen /
- diagnosis
-
全世界约有一半新诊断的肝细胞癌(hepatocellular cell carcinoma，HCC)病例发生在我国，其中HBV感染是主要危险因素，占全球HCC病例的50%~80%[1]。HBV通过多种机制在宿主细胞中持续存在，从而导致慢性HBV感染[2]，并且诱导HCC发生[3]。超过80%的HCC在肝硬化基础上发展，这表明肝硬化在肝癌前环境中起着重要作用[4]。因此慢性HBV感染和肝硬化是肝癌发生的高风险因素。由于缺乏明显的症状和有效的筛查策略，80%的HCC患者被诊断时已为中晚期，其中仅有30%~40%患者符合当前有效治疗方案的条件[5]，故在早期将慢性HBV感染、肝硬化与HCC区分诊断是延长患者生存期甚至根治HCC的关键。现急需一种检测方式能够在患有良性肝病的肝癌高危人群中早期筛查出HCC，从而降低病死率。影像学检查作为有效筛查方法被应用于临床，但是受限于设备以及检测人员。实验室检测则更能筛查大量人群，目前主要的早期实验室筛查方法为检测患者血清AFP，但单一指标检测的敏感度与特异度存在限制。考虑联合指标检测能够提高诊断效率，本文将探究AFP与GGT/AST联合检测在良性肝病和HCC区别诊断中发挥的作用，以期为临床诊断提供新的参考依据。
1. 资料与方法
1.1 研究对象
选取2019年1月15日—6月15日于本院诊治的慢性乙型肝炎患者(CHB组)、乙型肝炎肝硬化患者(LC组)、HBV相关HCC患者(HCC组)，另选取同期健康体检者作为对照(HC组)。纳入标准：(1)HCC组患者HBsAg为阳性且诊断完全符合《原发性肝癌诊疗规范(2017年版)》[6]; (2)HCC组、CHB组和LC组患者均为首次诊断，在接受治疗前收集生化指标; (3)临床资料完整。排除标准：(1)排除HCC之外的恶性肿瘤; (2)排除HBV以外的其他肝炎病毒感染; (3)排除患有严重糖尿病、甲状腺亢进以及心血管疾病等患者; (4)排除妊娠患者。研究对象均自愿参与本项研究。
1.2 研究方法
采集所有研究对象空腹6~8 h后的静脉血5 ml，以转速3500 r/min(离心半径=16 cm)离心5 min，分离血清后-80 ℃冷冻备用。采用Siemens公司ADVIACENTUAR XP全自动化学发光免疫分析仪及配套试剂盒检测血清AFP水平，参考区间为0~8.0 ng/ml。使用Siemens公司ADVIA2400全自动生化分析仪检测AST、ALT、GGT水平，参考区间分别为15~40、5~40、10~60 U/L。以上操作严格依据说明书进行，所有检测均在试剂盒说明书规定时间内完成，且严格遵守试验相关操作规程。
1.3 伦理学审查
本研究方案经由武汉大学人民医院临床研究伦理委员会审批，批号：WDRY2018-K047。
1.4 统计学方法
采用SPSS 23.0软件、GraphPad Prism 6.0和MedCalc 18.2.1对数据进行统计分析。正态分布计量资料以x±s表示，多组间比较采用方差分析，进一步两两比较采用LSD-t检验。偏态分布计量资料以M(P25~P75)表示，多组间比较采用Kruskal-Wallis H检验，进一步两两比较采用Nemenyi检验。计数资料组间比较采用χ2检验。通过二元logistic回归分析，计算出预测变量，并绘制AFP、GGT/AST以及预测变量单独或联合检测的受试者工作特征曲线(ROC曲线)，计算曲线下面积(AUC)及敏感度、特异度，采用Z检验对AUC进行比较。P＜0.05为差异有统计学意义。
2. 结果
2.1 一般资料
共纳入研究对象352例，其中HC组86例，男42例，女44例，年龄23~82岁，平均(55.90±15.19)岁; CHB组68例，男38例，女30例，年龄22~77岁，平均(51.40±10.59)岁，HBV DNA阳性50例; LC组69例，男34例，女35例，年龄28~79岁，平均(53.49±11.35)岁，HBV DNA阳性36例，Child-Pugh A级25例，B级32例，C级12例; HCC组129例，男70例，女59例，年龄24~78岁，平均(54.60±11.17)岁，HBV DNA阳性50例，Child-Pugh A级79例，B级41例，C级9例，BCLC分期A期21例，B期31例，C期77例。4组研究对象年龄(F=1.455，P=0.227)与性别分布(χ2=1.346，P=0.718)差异均无统计学意义。
2.2 各指标检测结果比较
HCC组与HC组、CHB组、LC组之间患者的AFP、GGT/AST、GGT比较差异均有统计学意义(P值均＜0.05)(表 1)。
表 1 各组AFP、GGT、AST及GGT/AST血清学水平比较组别 例数 AFP(ng/ml) GGT/AST GGT(U/L) AST(U/L) HC组 86 3.35(2.20~4.70) 0.98(0.71~1.36) 20.00(15.00~27.00) 21.00(18.00~24.00) CHB组 68 4.35(2.35~15.75) 0.82(0.46~1.25) 51.00(23.75~140.75)1) 61.00(34.25~125.00)1) LC组 69 8.60(2.70~54.20)1) 0.97(0.55~1.81) 69.00(27.00~113.00)1) 47.00(31.00~88.00)1) HCC组 129 157.10(9.90~6126.40)1)2)3) 2.00(1.19~3.11)1)2)3) 98.00(45.00~207.00)1)2)3) 46.00(29.00~88.00)1)2) H值 124.018 70.202 126.282 135.987 P值 ＜0.001 ＜0.001 ＜0.001 ＜0.001 注：与HC组比较，1)P＜0.05;与CHB组比较，2)P＜0.05;与LC组比较，3)P＜0.05。 2.3 ROC曲线分析AFP与GGT/AST单独或联合检测诊断HCC的价值
采用二元logistic回归分析得到不同组别之间两种指标的联合回归模型，然后进一步绘制其ROC曲线(图 1)，计算AUC(表 2)，结果显示，在HCC组与LC组、HCC组与HC组+CHB组+LC组、HCC组与CHB组+LC组中，AFP与GGT/AST联合诊断的AUC均显著高于AFP单独诊断的AUC(Z值分别为2.684、2.241、2.415，P值分别为0.007、0.025、0.016)。
图 1 AFP与GGT/AST单独或联合检测诊断HCC的ROC曲线注：a，HCC组与CHB组; b，HCC组与LC组; c，HCC组与HC组+CHB组+LC组; d，HCC组与CHB组+LC组。表 2 AFP与GGT/AST单独或联合检测在辅助HCC诊断中的价值分组 标志物 AUC 95%CI 敏感度(%) 特异度(%) P值 HCC组vs CHB组 AFP 0.803 0.742~0.864 72.9 72.1 ＜0.05 GGT/AST 0.789 0.717~0.861 67.4 83.8 ＜0.05 联合 0.846 0.790~0.910 79.8 77.9 ＜0.05 HCC组vs LC组 AFP 0.760 0.693~0.826 55.8 84.1 ＜0.05 GGT/AST 0.727 0.650~0.803 90.7 46.4 ＜0.05 联合 0.802 0.741~0.862 48.1 97.1 ＜0.05 HCC组vs HC组+CHB组+LC组 AFP 0.835 0.791~0.879 86.0 68.2 ＜0.05 GGT/AST 0.768 0.718~0.817 67.4 74.9 ＜0.05 联合 0.843 0.802~0.885 73.6 78.5 ＜0.05 HCC组vs CHB组+LC组 AFP 0.781 0.727~0.835 55.8 85.4 ＜0.05 GGT/AST 0.758 0.700~0.815 67.4 77.5 ＜0.05 联合 0.823 0.775~0.871 81.4 66.4 ＜0.05 3. 讨论
HCC的发生通常伴有前期的慢性HBV感染和肝硬化，在慢性HBV感染以及患有肝硬化的高危人群中，利用有效的筛查方式早期发现HCC至关重要，是患者可能获得根治的关键[7]。本文纳入352例研究对象，基于相关纳排标准将其分为4组，统计分析结果发现HCC组与HC组、CHB组、LC组AFP和GGT/AST比较，差异均有统计学意义(P值均＜0.05)，此结果与以往研究结果[8]相符。
AFP作为最早被发现的蛋白肿瘤标志物之一[9]，其可反映肝功能情况，因此广泛用于实验室检查。综合全球多种指南，AFP在我国可作为良好的血清学指标[10]，但其特异度低，易引起误判[11]。在CHB、LC患者中AFP水平也会升高，因此鉴别诊断HBV相关HCC患者时，AFP具有一定局限性，且部分HBV相关HCC患者的AFP水平并未达到筛查标准，因此容易漏查[12]。
GGT在哺乳动物组织中广泛分布，是一种质膜结合蛋白，血清中的GGT主要来源于肝胆系统[13]。已有研究[14]表明GGT通过诱导DNA损伤来促进肿瘤进展和不良预后，释放活性氧以激活与入侵相关的信号通路，与HCC发展关联密切。AST主要分布于肝细胞线粒体内，当肝脏严重病变坏死时，血清中AST水平会显著升高[15]，作为肝功能检查常用生化指标，GGT与AST在临床中应用广泛[16]。本研究计算GGT/AST比值并发现其单独或联合AFP时在HBV相关HCC的诊断中具有一定价值，且该指标计算简单，不用另增检验项目，便于在HCC诊断过程中应用。
本研究ROC曲线分析结果显示，在HCC组与LC组中，GGT/AST联合AFP后AUC明显提高，表明GGT/AST与AFP联合在鉴别HCC与LC时有良好的诊断效果; 在HCC组与HC组+CHB组+LC组以及CHB组+LC组分别区别诊断时，二者联合的AUC均明显高于AFP单独诊断的AUC，进一步说明GGT/AST联合AFP在鉴别HCC与良性肝病患者中有较好的诊断价值。
综上所述，本研究表明GGT/AST联合AFP在HBV相关HCC的临床诊断中具有一定价值，提高了AFP的单独诊断效率。由于本研究样本量较小，因此相关研究结果仍需未来增加样本量予以验证。
-
[1]ZHAO YS, ZHANG LN, LI HC, et al.Clinical significance of serum GP73, AFP, and CA199 test in the diagnosis of hepatic cancer[J].Chin J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2013, 40 (1) :29-32. (in Chinese) 赵运胜, 张丽娜, 李洪臣, 等.血清GP73联合AFP和CA199检测在肝癌诊断中的临床意义[J].中国肿瘤临床, 2013, 40 (1) :29-32. [2]ZENG YL, MA QF, XIONG W, et al.Relationships between HBV-M patterns and liver function, HBV-DNA in patients with chronic HBV infection of different stages[J].Int J Lab Med, 2015, 36 (4) :433-435. (in Chinese) 曾雅莉, 马清峰, 熊微, 等.不同病期慢性HBV感染者肝功能、HBV-DNA与HBV-M模式的关系[J].国际检验医学杂志, 2015, 36 (4) :433-435. [3]RAIN AJ, CHAN DW.Cancer proteomics:serum diagnostics for tumor marker discovery[J].Ann N Y Acad Sci, 2004, 1022:286-294. [4]SI X, TAN GJ.Value of tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen, alpha-fetoprotein, and carbohydrate antigen 199 in diagnosis of liver cancer[J].Jilin Med J, 2008, 29 (16) :1392-1393. (in Chinese) 司序, 谭桂菊.探讨肿瘤标志物CEA、AFP、CA199在肝癌诊断中的应用价值[J].吉林医学, 2008, 29 (16) :1392-1393. [5]TIAN MF, HAN B.The clinical value of the detections of CA199, CA125, CA153 and CEA in malignant tumors[J].J Clin Exp Med, 2010, 9 (7) :483-485. (in Chinese) 田满福, 韩波.检测CA199、CA125、CA153及CEA在肿瘤诊断中的意义[J].临床和实验医学杂志, 2010, 9 (7) :483-485. [6]ZHANG N, WANG YX, HU J, et al.Application of levels of serum CA199, C3, C4 and lipid metabolism in clinical diagnosis of pancreatic cancer[J].J Jilin Univ:Med Edit, 2016, 42 (2) :295-300. (in Chinese) 张宁, 王颖娴, 胡健, 等.血清CA199、C3、C4及脂类代谢水平在胰腺癌临床诊断中的应用[J].吉林大学学报, 2016, 42 (2) :295-300. [7]GUO HM.Value of measurement of serum CA199 levels for diagnosis of hepatocirrhosis and carcinoma of liver[J].J Radioimmunol, 2003, 16 (4) :207-208. (in Chinese) 郭红梅.血清CA199在肝硬化与肝癌诊断中的价值[J].放射免疫学杂志, 2003, 16 (4) :207-208. [8]HUANG HT, ZHANG XF.CA199 Clinical significance of carbohydrate antigen 199 in liver cirrhosis and liver cancer[J].J Clin Hepatol, 2006, 22 (5) :379-380. (in Chinese) 黄海涛, 张筱风.CA199在肝硬化和肝癌中的临床意义[J].临床肝胆病杂志, 2006, 22 (5) :379-380. [9]DONG JZ, DENG ZY, ZHANG F, et al.Diagnostic value of combined detection of AFP, CEA and CA199 in primary liver cancers[J].Med J Natl Defend Forces Northwest China, 2011, 32 (4) :276-277. (in Chinese) 董菊子, 邓芝云, 张峰, 等.AFP、CEA和CA199联合检测在原发性肝癌诊断中的应用[J].西北国防医学杂志, 2011, 32 (4) :276-277. [10]ZHU W, GE JL, ZHANG LQ, et al.Clinical value of combined determination of alpha-fetoprotein, carcinoembryonic antigen, carbohydrate antigen 199, and cancer antigen 125 in diagnosis of liver cancer and liver cirrhosis[J].Int J Lab Med, 2012, 33 (15) :1902-1904. (in Chinese) 朱薇, 葛君琍, 张利强, 等.AFP、CEA、CA199、CA-125联合检测对肝癌、肝硬化诊断的临床价值[J].国际检验医学杂志, 2012, 33 (15) :1902-1904. [11]MEI Y, PENG CJ, CHEN L, et al.Early detective value of serum CA199 levels for concomitant acute cholangitis in obstructive jaundice[J].Chin J Pract Surg, 2015, 35 (4) :445-447. (in Chinese) 梅永, 彭瓷军, 陈丽, 等.血清CA199早期预判梗阻性黄疸发生急性胆管炎临床价值研究[J].中国实用外科杂志, 2015, 35 (4) :445-447. [12]RUAN SL, BI J.Influence of liver function on the detection of common tumor markers[J].World Chin J Dig, 2008, 16 (24) :2780-2784. (in Chinese) 阮水良, 毕军.肝功能生化指标对常用肿瘤标志物检测的影响[J].世界华人消化杂志, 2008, 16 (24) :2780-2784. [13]XIN WJ, ZHAO WJ.Combined detection of GP73, AFP and CA-199 in the diagnosis of primary liver cancer[J].Mod Oncol, 2016, 24 (7) :1083-1084. (in Chinese) 辛文娟, 赵文静.GP73、AFP、CA-199联合检测在原发性肝癌诊断中的应用价值[J].现代肿瘤医学, 2016, 24 (7) :1083-1084. [14]ZHENG HL, ZHAO R, LI DP, et al.Utility of DCP and AFP in diagnosis of primary liver cancer[J].Chin J Gen Prac, 2016, 14 (1) :29-31. (in Chinese) 郑海伦, 赵睿, 李大鹏, 等.肿瘤标志物DCP和AFP在原发性肝癌中的诊断价值[J].中华全科医学, 2016, 14 (1) :29-31. [15]ASUM N, CHOWDHURY HUA, CHOWDHURY MR, et al.Correlation of serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level with liver function parameters in hepatitis B virus (HBV) infected patients in Bangladeshi population[J].Int JBiosci, 2012, 2 (9) :13-19. 期刊类型引用(3)
1. 姚爱武，廖和壁，张璟. 血清AFP、AFP-L3与肝细胞癌经肝动脉化疗栓塞术后疗效的关系分析. 分子诊断与治疗杂志. 2023(04): 690-693+698 . 
百度学术2. 朱富平，刘红强，常清，冷伟业. miR-222-3p在乙型肝炎病毒相关肝细胞癌血清外泌体中的表达及临床意义. 局解手术学杂志. 2022(08): 702-708 . 百度学术3. 高武林，韦超，郭晓烨. 术前血清MMP-9水平对HBV相关肝细胞癌患者肝切除术后生存的预测作用. 东南大学学报(医学版). 2022(05): 652-659 . 百度学术其他类型引用(2)
-
下载:
百度学术
下载:
