论著

18F-FDG PET/CT联合多种肿瘤标志物在结直肠中分化腺癌术后复发及转移中的应用价值

  • 张旭初 ,
  • 张建华 ,
  • 王荣福 ,
  • 范岩 ,
  • 付占立 ,
  • 闫平 ,
  • 赵光宇 ,
  • 白艳霞
展开
  • 北京大学第一医院核医学科,北京 100034

收稿日期: 2017-10-24

  网络出版日期: 2019-12-19

Diagnostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT and tumor markers (CEA, CA19-9, CA24-2) in recurrence and metastasis of postoperative colorectal moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma

  • Xu-chu ZHANG ,
  • Jian-hua ZHANG ,
  • Rong-fu WANG ,
  • Yan FAN ,
  • Zhan-li FU ,
  • Ping YAN ,
  • Guang-yu ZHAO ,
  • Yan-xia BAI
Expand
  • Department of Nuclear Medicine, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China

Received date: 2017-10-24

  Online published: 2019-12-19

摘要

目的 探讨18F-FDG PET/CT与肿瘤标志物(CEA、CA19-9、CA24-2)在结直肠中分化腺癌患者术后探测及提示复发和转移灶中的应用。方法 对55例结直肠中分化腺癌患者进行 18F-FDG PET/CT显像及肿瘤标志物筛查,并与病理及临床随访结果进行比较。结果18F-FDG PET/CT对于结直肠中分化腺癌术后复发及转移灶的诊断效能为:灵敏度95.74%(45/47),特异性75.00%(6/8),阳性预测值95.74%(45/47),阴性预测值75.00%(6/8),准确率92.73%(51/55),其中假阳性2例,假阴性2例。CEA组、CA19-9组、CA24-2组及肿瘤标记物联合组灵敏度分别为68.09%(32/47)、28.57%(12/42)、40.00%(16/40)及74.47%(35/47),特异性为50.00%(4/8)、66.67%(4/6)、71.73%(5/7)及50.00%(4/8),阳性预测值为88.89%(32/36)、85.71%(12/14)、88.89%(16/18)及89.74%(35/39),阴性预测值为26.67%(4/19)、11.42%(4/34)、17.24%(5/29)及25.00%(4/16),准确率为65.45%(36/55)、32.65%(16/49)、44.68%(21/47)及70.91%(39/55)结论 18F-FDG PET/CT对于结直肠癌术后中分化腺癌患者复发及转移灶的探测具有较高的灵敏度及特异性,各项肿瘤标志物对病灶转移及复发均有一定的提示作用,多项肿瘤标志物联合应用更准确。

本文引用格式

张旭初 , 张建华 , 王荣福 , 范岩 , 付占立 , 闫平 , 赵光宇 , 白艳霞 . 18F-FDG PET/CT联合多种肿瘤标志物在结直肠中分化腺癌术后复发及转移中的应用价值[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2019 , 51(6) : 1071 -1077 . DOI: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2019.06.017

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT and tumor markers (CEA,CA19-9,CA24-2) in detection for recurrence and metastasis of postoperative colorectal moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma.Methods: Fifty-five patients were enrolled in this study. All of the patients were tested with serum CEA within 2 weeks when they underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT scan, and some patients were tested with serum CA19-9 and CA24-2 simultaneously. According to the pathology and clinical results of their follow-up, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT and tumor markers were calculated based on different divided groups, respectively.Results: According to the pathology and the results of their clinical follow-up, the sensitivity of 18F-FDG PET/CT, CEA, CA19-9, CA24-2 and the combination of those three tumor markers were 95.74%, 68.09%, 28.57%, 40.00% and 74.47%, respectively. The specificity of 18F-FDG PET/CT, CEA, CA19-9, CA24-2 and the combination of those three tumor markers were 75.00%, 50.00%, 66.67%, 71.43% and 50.00%, respectively. The positive predictive value of 18F-FDG PET/CT, CEA, CA19-9, CA24-2 and the combination of those three tumor markers were 95.74%, 88.89%, 85.71%, 88.89% and 89.74%, respectively. The negative predictive value of 18F-FDG PET/CT, CEA, CA19-9, CA24-2 and the combination of those three tumor markers were 75.00%, 26.67%, 11.42%, 17.24%, 25.00%, respectively. The accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT, CEA, CA19-9, CA24-2 and the combination of those three tumor markers were 92.73%, 65.47%, 32.65%, 44.68% and 70.91%, respectively. There were 2 cases of false positive and 2 cases of false negative in 18F-FDG PET/CT.Conclusion: 18F-FDG PET/CT has high value in detecting recurrence and metastasis of postoperative colorectal carcinoma. Tumor markers have the positive value to imply the recurrence and metastasis of postoperative colorectal carcinoma and are useful to indicate when to perform the 18F-FDG PET/CT. The combination of tumor markers could improve the diagnostic efficiency to some extent.

参考文献

[1] 吴菲, 林国桢, 张晋昕 . 我国恶性肿瘤发病现状及趋势[J]. 中国肿瘤, 2012,21(2):81-85.
[2] 阮丽琴, 李太原, 周凤凤 . 不同年龄组的结直肠癌临床流行病学分析[J]. 实用临床医学, 2016,17(4):86-87.
[3] 张小龙, 高枫, 陈利生 , 等. 结直肠癌病理组织学类型分析[J]. 广西医学, 2008,30(11):1671-1672.
[4] 陈美玲 . 291例结直肠癌患者的临床病理分析[J]. 大家健康(学术版), 2015,9(8):66-67.
[5] 邱大胜, 胡晓燕, 彭辽河 , 等. 18F-FDG-PET/CT对结直肠癌术后血清CEA升高患者的诊断价值 [J]. 临床放射学杂志, 2013,32(12):1739-1742.
[6] 路晓雯, 刘林祥, 崔新建 , 等. 18F-FDG PET/CT对结直肠癌术后血清CEA升高病例的临床诊断价值 [J]. 泰山医学院学报, 2010,31(2):83-85.
[7] 潘睿. 中国慢性病前瞻性研究队列恶性肿瘤发病与死亡分析[C], 2017.
[8] 黄利娟, 陈继贵, 刘丽 , 等. 结直肠癌患者血清肿瘤标志物水平与预后关系[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2011,27(5):563-566.
[9] Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Adam R , et al. ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer[J]. Ann Oncol, 2016,27(8):1386-1422.
[10] 王贵玉 . 结直肠癌NCCN、NICE及ESMO指南的对比分析和解读[J]. 中国癌症杂志, 2015,25(11):849-853.
[11] Schmoll HJ, Van Cutsem E, Stein A , et al. ESMO Consensus Guidelines for management of patients with colon and rectal can-cer. A personalized approach to clinical decision making[J]. Ann Oncol, 2012,23(10):2479-2516.
[12] Chan K, Welch S, Walker-Dilks C , et al. Evidence-based guideline recommendations on the use of positron emission tomography imaging in colorectal cancer[J]. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol), 2012,24(4):232-249.
[13] 王晶晶, 陈康, 徐万菊 . 直肠癌患者手术前后血清CA199和CA242水平测定及预后评价[J]. 中华肿瘤防治杂志, 2009,14(21):1667-1668.
[14] 刘传, 清水汪, 王宁 , 等. 结直肠癌术前血清CEA、CA199表达水平与临床病理关系的研究[J]. 医学研究杂志, 2012,41(3):27-30.
[15] 周华胜, 梁光林 . 癌胚抗原测定在直肠癌手术前后及药物化疗过程中的追踪研究[J]. 河北医学, 2010,16(4):455-456.
[16] Lim YK, Kam MH, Eu KW . Carcinoembryonic antigen screening: how far should we go?[J]. Singapore Med J, 2009,50(9):862-865.
[17] 陈恺杰 . 3种血清肿瘤标志物在诊断大肠癌中的价值[J]. 广东医学院学报, 2005,23(4):384-385.
[18] 高志海, 田志军, 安燚 . 五种肿瘤标志物联合检测在胃和结直肠癌诊断及随访中的临床意义[J]. 医学综述, 2012,18(10):1595-1597.
文章导航

/