Evaluation of Critical Differences of CEA and CA15.3 Levels in Serial Samples from Patients Operated for Breast Cancer

1994 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 135-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Gion ◽  
G. Cappelli ◽  
R. Mione ◽  
M. Pistorello ◽  
S. Meo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Tumor Marker ◽  
Early Identification ◽  
Biological Variability ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Critical Difference ◽  
Blood Samples ◽  
Total Variability ◽  
Serial Samples

In the present investigation we evaluated the variability of tumor marker levels in the follow-up of patients without evidence of disease after resection of primary breast cancer. CEA and CA15.3 were measured using commercially available methods in serial blood samples collected from 170 patients. The coefficient of variation among all samples from each patient, which accounts for the total variability (analytical variability + biological variability), was widely scattered (from 4 to 99% for CEA; from 4 to 52% for CA15.3). The critical difference was calculated using the formula designed by Eraser [CD = 2.77. (CVa2 + CVb2)1/2]. It ranged from 11 to 276 for CEA and from 11 to 144 for CA15.3. From the present findings we conclude that: 1) it is possible to identify individually tailored decision criteria to evaluate tumor marker variations in the follow-up of breast cancer patients; 2) in a considerable number of cases the non-tumor-related variability is too high to allow the early identification of minor tumor marker variations that are of clinical relevance.

Longitudinal follow-up of breast cancer patients with the tumor markers CA 549 and CA 15.3

1995 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Vankrieken ◽  
F. Heureux ◽  
J. Longueville ◽  
R. De Hertogh
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Tumor Marker ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Tumor Markers ◽  
Clinical Situation ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Significant Information ◽  
Ca 15.3 ◽  
Cutoff Levels

In order to verify the efficiency of the tumor markers CA 15.3 and CA 549 in the follow-up of breast cancer patients, it was necessary first to check the cutoff levels of each tumor marker in women with an increased age-related risk, but with no evidence of disease. From 132 serum samples in this age group, we confirmed the CA 549 cutoff level of 12.1 U/ml. However, the cutoff of CA 15.3 was 34 U/ml, which is higher than previously reported in the literature. Fifty-two breast cancer patients with or without metastases at the time of entry into the study were followed for 2 to 3 years with both tumor markers. The sensitivity, specificity and the test efficiency for the presence of metastases were analyzed with each tumor marker. Taking into account the different cutoff levels, we concluded that both tumor markers can be used independently to follow the clinical situation of patients. In several cases an increase in both tumor markers was observed before a clinical diagnosis of metastases could be made. Combination of these two tumor markers gave no more significant information about the patient's clinical situation than each tumor marker alone.

Analytical and clinical evaluation of a new tumor marker in breast cancer: CA 27.29

1992 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Correale ◽  
I. Abbate ◽  
G. Gargano ◽  
A. Catino ◽  
C.D. Dragone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Tumor Marker ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Breast Disease ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Ca 15.3 ◽  
Lower Specificity ◽  
Apparently Healthy

Evaluation of a radioimmunoassay for a new tumor marker, named CA 27.29, recently proposed for use in breast cancer patients, is reported in this study. After considering the analytical performance, the clinical study was directed to a control group of 66 apparently healthy subjects (Controls), a group of 25 women with benign breast disease (BBD) and a group of 164 breast cancer patients divided into primary before any treatment (M-), in follow-up with no evidence of disease (NED) and presence of metastases (M+). When compared to CA 15.3, our results showed similar sensitivity of both markers with a slightly lower specificity for CA 27.29. In some cases, however, CA 27.29 elevation appears earlier than CA 15.3 as a sign of metastases. We thus propose their associated use.

Baseline cancer worry and tumor marker testing among earlier-stage breast cancer patients participating in a Choosing Wisely pilot.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 153-153
Author(s):  
Karma L. Kreizenbeck ◽  
Kathryn Egan ◽  
Tracy Wong ◽  
Barbara Jagels ◽  
Barbara Jensen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Tumor Marker ◽  
Breast Cancer Survivors ◽  
Choosing Wisely ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Cancer Worry ◽  
High Baseline ◽  
The Impact

153 Background: We developed a patient-facing video aimed at raising early breast cancer survivors’ adherence to ASCO’s Choosing Wisely recommendation against surveillance tumor marker testing. To understand the impact of the video on cancer worry regarding recurrence, we surveyed breast cancer survivors before and after viewing the video. Methods: Women with stage I-IIIA breast cancer (N=246) treated at six regional community clinics were surveyed prior to viewing a video at the start of surveillance, then again at follow-up one year later (N=171). Both surveys included the Cancer Worry Scale (CWS-8 items, 4-point Likert scale). Tumor marker (TM) testing during surveillance was collected for 728 patients and linked to surveys among those who provided consent (N=105). Results: Most women (77%) were white age 50+. Among women who completed both questionnaires (N=153), the average CWS summary score was 17.1 at baseline (range=9-29) and 16.9 at follow-up ( p=0.48, range=8-30). Women who did not view the video (A) and those with high baseline cancer worry (B) who viewed the video had similar rates of TM testing (19%) compared to patients with low baseline cancer worry (C) who viewed the video (3%). Cancer worry is highly correlated with the decision to use of TM testing. Viewing an informational video that provided evidence-based advice on follow-up and testing did not impact cancer worry. Enrollment among eligible patients was impacted by challenges to proactively identify and consent patients during their transition to surveillance. Conclusions: Patients with high baseline cancer worry may need different or additional guidance beyond an educational video during their transition to surveillance for breast cancer. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document