Top

Published in:

01-11-2013 | Gastrointestinal Oncology

Prognostic Value of Early Postoperative Tumor Marker Response in Gastric Cancer

Authors: Dong Hyuk Nam, MD, Yong Kang Lee, MD, Jun Chul Park, MD, Hyuk Lee, MD, Sung Kwan Shin, MD, Sang Kil Lee, MD, Yong Chan Lee, MD, Jae-Ho Cheong, MD, Woo Jin Hyung, MD, Sung Hoon Noh, MD, Choong Bai Kim, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 12/2013

Abstract

Background

The clinical usefulness of tumor markers as predictors of treatment outcome in patients with stomach cancer after radical gastrectomy has been poorly defined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a comprehensive understanding of the impact of early postoperative tumor marker normalization on survival after gastrectomy.

Methods

Between January 2001 and December 2007, we enrolled 206 patients who had received radical gastrectomy as an initial treatment and had elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) (>5 ng/mL) or carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 (>37 U/mL) levels. Early tumor marker response was defined as a normalization of preoperative CEA or CA19-9 values 1–2 months after gastrectomy.

Results

The mean patient age was 61 years (range 29–84 years), and 139 patients (67.5 %) were male. Early tumor marker response was identified in 150 of 206 (72.8 %) patients. Of the patients, 49 (23.8 %), 41 (19.9 %), and 116 (56.4 %) were stages I, II, and III, respectively, according to the seventh edition of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) staging system. Both disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly longer in patients with tumor marker response compared with nonresponse (61.5 vs. 37.6 months; P = 0.010 and 71.3 vs. 50.9 months; P = 0.008, respectively). Multivariate analyses showed that high CA19-9 level, early tumor marker response, and tumor, node, metastasis classification system stage were independent predictors of DFS and OS (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Early CEA or CA19-9 normalization after radical gastrectomy is a strong prognostic factor for gastric cancer, especially in patients with high preoperative levels of tumor markers.

Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010;127:2893–917.PubMedCrossRef

Siewert JR, Bottcher K, Stein HJ, Roder JD. Relevant prognostic factors in gastric cancer: ten-year results of the German Gastric Cancer Study. Ann Surg. 1998;228:449–61.PubMedCrossRef

Kim JP, Kim YW, Yang HK, Noh DY. Significant prognostic factors by multivariate analysis of 3926 gastric cancer patients. World J Surg. 1994;18:872–7.PubMedCrossRef

Bidart JM, Thuillier F, Augereau C, et al. Kinetics of serum tumor marker concentrations and usefulness in clinical monitoring. Clin Chem. 1999;45:1695–707.PubMed

Ballehaninna UK, Chamberlain RS. The clinical utility of serum CA 19-9 in the diagnosis, prognosis and management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: an evidence based appraisal. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2012;3:105–19.PubMed

Aloe S, D’Alessandro R, Spila A, et al. Prognostic value of serum and tumor tissue CA 72-4 content in gastric cancer. Int J Biol Markers. 2003;18:21–7.PubMed

Marrelli D, Roviello F, De Stefano A, et al. Prognostic significance of CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 preoperative serum levels in gastric carcinoma. Oncology. 1999;57:55–62.PubMedCrossRef

Nakane Y, Okamura S, Akehira K, et al. Correlation of preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen levels and prognosis of gastric cancer patients. Cancer. 1994;73:2703–8.PubMedCrossRef

Reiter W, Stieber P, Reuter C, et al. Prognostic value of preoperative serum levels of CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 in gastric carcinoma. Anticancer Res. 1997;17:2903–6.PubMed

10.

Safi F, Kuhns V, Beger HG. Comparison of CA 72-4, CA 19-9 and CEA in the diagnosis and monitoring of gastric cancer. Int J Biol Markers. 1995;10:100–6.PubMed

11.

Takahashi Y, Takeuchi T, Sakamoto J, et al. The usefulness of CEA and/or CA19-9 in monitoring for recurrence in gastric cancer patients: a prospective clinical study. Gastric Cancer. 2003;6:142–5.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Ucar E, Semerci E, Ustun H, Yetim T, Huzmeli C, Gullu M. Prognostic value of preoperative CEA, CA 19-9, CA 72-4, and AFP levels in gastric cancer. Adv Ther. 2008;25:1075–84.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Hur H, Song KY, Park CH, Jeon HM. Follow-up strategy after curative resection of gastric cancer: a nationwide survey in Korea. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:54–64.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1471–4.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma. 2nd English ed. Gastric Cancer. 1998;1:10–24.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Torre GC, Lucchese V, Rembado R, Barbetti V. Tumour markers: from laboratory to clinical use. Anticancer Res. 1996;16:2215–9.PubMed

17.

Dilege E, Mihmanli M, Demir U, et al. Prognostic value of preoperative CEA and CA 19-9 levels in resectable gastric cancer. Hepatogastroenterology. 2010;57:674–7.PubMed

18.

Fan B, Xiong B. Investigation of serum tumor markers in the diagnosis of gastric cancer. Hepatogastroenterology. 2011;58:239–45.PubMed

19.

Kim DH, Oh SJ, Oh CA, et al. The relationships between perioperative CEA, CA 19-9, and CA 72-4 and recurrence in gastric cancer patients after curative radical gastrectomy. J Surg Oncol. 2011;104:585–91.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Riaz A, Ryu RK, Kulik LM, et al. Alpha-fetoprotein response after locoregional therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: oncologic marker of radiologic response, progression, and survival. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5734–42.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Ychou M, Duffour J, Kramar A, Gourgou S, Grenier J. Clinical significance and prognostic value of CA72-4 compared with CEA and CA19-9 in patients with gastric cancer. Dis Markers. 2000;16:105–10.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Funada T, Kochi M, Yamazaki S, Fujii M, Takayama T. Prognostic significance of a new system for categorization of the number of lymph node metastases in gastric cancer. Hepatogastroenterology. 2011;58:642–6.PubMed

23.

Yokota T, Ishiyama S, Saito T, et al. Lymph node metastasis as a significant prognostic factor in gastric cancer: a multiple logistic regression analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2004;39:380–4.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Sheen-Chen SM, Chou CW, Chen MC, Chen FC, Chen YS, Chen JJ. Adenocarcinoma in the middle third of the stomach—an evaluation for the prognostic significance of clinicopathological features. Hepatogastroenterology. 1997;44:1488–94.PubMed

25.

Yasuda K, Shiraishi N, Inomata M, Shiroshita H, Izumi K, Kitano S. Prognostic significance of macroscopic serosal invasion in advanced gastric cancer. Hepatogastroenterology. 2007;54:2028–31.PubMed

26.

Kim JP, Lee JH, Kim SJ, Yu HJ, Yang HK. Clinicopathologic characteristics and prognostic factors in 10783 patients with gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 1998;1:125–33.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Park JC, Lee YC, Kim JH, et al. Clinicopathological aspects and prognostic value with respect to age: an analysis of 3,362 consecutive gastric cancer patients. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99:395–401.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Marrelli D, Pinto E, De Stefano A, Farnetani M, Garosi L, Roviello F. Clinical utility of CEA, CA 19-9, and CA 72-4 in the follow-up of patients with resectable gastric cancer. Am J Surg. 2001;181:16–9.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Mattar R, Alves de Andrade CR, DiFavero GM, Gama-Rodrigues JJ, Laudanna AA. Preoperative serum levels of CA 72-4, CEA, CA 19-9, and alpha-fetoprotein in patients with gastric cancer. Rev Hosp Clin Fac Med Sao Paulo. 2002;57:89–92.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Heptner G, Domschke S, Domschke W. Comparison of CA 72-4 with CA 19-9 and carcinoembryonic antigen in the serodiagnostics of gastrointestinal malignancies. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1989;24:745–50.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Guadagni F, Roselli M, Amato T, et al. CA 72-4 measurement of tumor-associated glycoprotein 72 (TAG-72) as a serum marker in the management of gastric carcinoma. Cancer Res. 1992;52:1222–7.PubMed

Title: Prognostic Value of Early Postoperative Tumor Marker Response in Gastric Cancer
Authors: Dong Hyuk Nam, MD
Yong Kang Lee, MD
Jun Chul Park, MD
Hyuk Lee, MD
Sung Kwan Shin, MD
Sang Kil Lee, MD
Yong Chan Lee, MD
Jae-Ho Cheong, MD
Woo Jin Hyung, MD
Sung Hoon Noh, MD
Choong Bai Kim, MD
Publication date: 01-11-2013
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 12/2013
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3066-7

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Prognostic Value of Early Postoperative Tumor Marker Response in Gastric Cancer

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2013

The Role of Lymphadenectomy in Cervical Cancer Patients: The Significance of the Number and the Status of Lymph Nodes Removed in 526 Cases Treated in a Single Institution

Clinically Meaningful Tumor Reduction Rates Vary by Prechemotherapy MRI Phenotype and Tumor Subtype in the I-SPY 1 TRIAL (CALGB 150007/150012; ACRIN 6657)

Rational Study Endpoint(s) for Preoperative Trials in Pancreatic Cancer: Pathologic Response Rate, Margin Negative Resection, Overall Survival or ‘All of the Above’?

Margin Width Should Not Still Enforce a Systematic Surgical Re-excision in the Conservative Treatment of Early Breast Infiltrative Ductal Carcinoma

The Impact of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy on Perioperative Outcomes, Tumor Pathology, and Survival in Clinical Stage II and III Esophageal Cancer

Phase II Study of Induction Fixed-Dose Rate Gemcitabine and Bevacizumab Followed by 30 Gy Radiotherapy as Preoperative Treatment for Potentially Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma