Abstract
Background
There is a scarce data on prognostic relevance of carbohydrate antigen (CA 19-9). This retrospective study was undertaken to evaluate its prognostic relevance in different prognostic subsets of gallbladder carcinoma (GBC).
Materials and Methods
One hundred forty-one patients of GBC treated between January 2012 and December 2014 were the subjects of this retrospective analysis. Baseline CA 19-9 levels of four cohorts of patients: extended cholecystectomy (EC), simple cholecystectomy (SC) with residual or recurrent disease, locally advanced disease (LAGBC) and metastatic disease were ascertained. The difference in its median baseline values among above groups was ascertained. The effect of clinicopathological variables, treatment-related variables and CA 19-9 on overall survival (OS) was also evaluated. AUC curve was computed to evaluate its performance.
Results
The median baseline levels of CA 19-9 were significantly different [10 units/ml, 24 units/ml, 48 units/ml and 75 units/ml in EC (n = 33), SC (n = 21), LAGBC (n = 38) and metastatic disease (n = 49), respectively, (p value 0.001)]. The median OS was also significantly different [24, 15, 7 and 6 months in EC, SC, LAGBC and metastatic disease, respectively, (p value 0.001)]. Univariate analysis revealed a significant influence of log transformed value of CA 19-9, CA 19-9 levels < or >20 units or 35 units, surgery vs. none and chemoradiation vs. chemotherapy on OS. On multivariate analysis, only treatment-related variables were significant (HR 1.1, 95% CI 1.026–1.19, p = 0.009). AUC curve was 0.63 for all patients and 0.72 for EC group.
Conclusions
The median values of baseline CA 19-9 predict the burden of disease. Raised levels of serum CA 19-9 beyond 20 units/ml should be used for prognostication purposes after EC. A level beyond 35 units has a trend towards prognostication in other prognostic groups and needs to be evaluated in large subset of patients.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Three-year report of population based cancer registries 2009–2011, National Cancer Registry Programme (Indian Council of Medical Research), 2013. http://ncrpindia.org
Valle J, Wasan H, Palmer DH, et al. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine for biliary tract cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(14):1273–81.
Shukla VK, Gurubachan SD, et al. Diagnostic value of serum CA242, CA 19-9, CA 15-3 and CA 125 in patients with carcinoma of the gallbladder. Trop Gastroenterol. 2006;27(160–165):2006.
Del Favero G, Fabris C, Panucci A, et al. Carbohydrate antigen 19–9 (CA 19–9) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in pancreatic cancer. Role of age and liver dysfunction. Bull Cancer. 1986;73:251–5.
Rana S, Dutta U, Kochhar R, et al. Evaluation of CA 242 as a tumour marker in gallbladder cancer. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2012;43(2):267–71.
Pais-costa SR, de matos farah JF, Artigiani-neto R, et al. Gallbladder adenocarcinoma: evaluation of the prognostic factors in 100 resectable cases in Brazil. ABCD Archives Braz Cir Dig. 2012;25(1):13–9.
Tunan Y, Hong Y, Xiujun C. Preoperative prediction of survival in resectable gallbladder cancer by a combined utilization of CA 19-9 and carcinoembryonic antigen. Chin Med J. 2014;12:127.
Harder J, Kummer O, Olschewski M, et al. Prognostic relevance of carbohydrate antigen 19–9 levels in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2007;16:2097–100.
Yoshioka Y, Ogawa K, Oikawa H, et al. The Japanese Radiation Oncology Study Group. Factors influencing survival outcome for radiotherapy for biliary tract cancer: a multicenter retrospective study. Radiother Oncol. 2014;110(3):546–52.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Agrawal, S., Lawrence, A. & Saxena, R. Does CA 19-9 Have Prognostic Relevance in Gallbladder Carcinoma (GBC)?. J Gastrointest Canc 49, 144–149 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-016-9914-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-016-9914-5