Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 20, Issue 12, pp 3905–3911 | Cite as

Prognostic Value of Early Postoperative Tumor Marker Response in Gastric Cancer

  • Dong Hyuk Nam
  • Yong Kang Lee
  • Jun Chul Park
  • Hyuk Lee
  • Sung Kwan Shin
  • Sang Kil Lee
  • Yong Chan Lee
  • Jae-Ho Cheong
  • Woo Jin Hyung
  • Sung Hoon Noh
  • Choong Bai Kim
Gastrointestinal Oncology

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.

References

  1. 1.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma. 2nd English ed. Gastric Cancer. 1998;1:10–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Torre GC, Lucchese V, Rembado R, Barbetti V. Tumour markers: from laboratory to clinical use. Anticancer Res. 1996;16:2215–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fan B, Xiong B. Investigation of serum tumor markers in the diagnosis of gastric cancer. Hepatogastroenterology. 2011;58:239–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dong Hyuk Nam
    • 1
  • Yong Kang Lee
    • 1
  • Jun Chul Park
    • 1
  • Hyuk Lee
    • 1
  • Sung Kwan Shin
    • 1
  • Sang Kil Lee
    • 1
  • Yong Chan Lee
    • 1
  • Jae-Ho Cheong
    • 2
  • Woo Jin Hyung
    • 2
  • Sung Hoon Noh
    • 2
  • Choong Bai Kim
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Internal Medicine and Institute of GastroenterologyYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations