|
|
||||||||
Ann Thorac Surg 2004;78:216-221
© 2004 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
a Department of Thoracic Surgery, Hyogo Medical Center for Adults, Akashi City, Hyogo, Japan
Accepted for publication February 3, 2004.
* Address reprint requests to Dr Okada, Department of Thoracic Surgery, Hyogo Medical Center for Adults, Kitaohji-cho13-70, Akashi City 673-8558, Hyogo, Japan
e-mail: morihito1217jp{at}aol.com
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
METHODS: We measured serum CEA levels before and after surgery in 1,000 consecutive patients with clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer who underwent resection of tumor. High CEA value was greater than 5.0 ng/mL.
RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-eight patients (36.8%) had high preoperative CEA levels. The CEA levels after surgery were normalized in 242 patients (24.2%) and persistently elevated in 126 patients (12.6%). High CEA levels were seen more frequently in patients with older age, male gender, larger size of tumor, incomplete resection, and advanced pathologic stage. Patients with a high preoperative CEA level had a poor survival. Among these patients, even worse survival was seen for those with a high postoperative CEA level. These prognostic trends were still observed for patients with pathologic stage I disease. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that both preoperative and postoperative CEA levels were independent prognostic determinants (p = 0.0243 and p < 0.0001, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative measurement of serum CEA concentrations yields information valuable for detecting patients at high risk of poor survival. Normalization of CEA levels after surgery was a significant favorable prognostic sign in patients with an elevated CEA level before surgery. Even after apparently successful surgical therapy, patients with a high CEA level should be carefully followed up, and might represent a suitable target for neoadjuvant clinical trials.
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Presently, the idea that serum biomarkers are helpful in the management of lung cancer is not uniformly accepted. In 1997, the American Thoracic Society and The European Respiratory Society jointly published guidelines [1] for assessment of non-small cell lung cancer, indicating that no serum tumor markers had sensitivity and specificity sufficient to reliably detect occult disease or influence treatment. Finally, they did not recommend routine measurement of any biomarkers in the screening, staging, or evaluation of disease progression.
Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) represents a heterogeneous group of oncofetal glycoprotein antigens, which circulate in high concentrations in patients with certain malignancies. Because of reports of its low sensitivity and specificity as a tumor marker, CEAs have played a less valuable role in the diagnosis, management, and prognosis of non-small cell lung cancer than has been the case with most other common cancers [2]. Routine measurement of serum CEA levels is not widely performed before or after resection for non-small cell lung cancer, particularly in the United States. However, several reports suggested that increased preoperative serum CEA levels were associated with more advanced disease and with poor survival after presumptively curative resection [37]. Carcinoembryonic antigen assay may be a useful serum test that could correlate with aspects of tumor biological aggressiveness not measured by conventional modalities. This capacity has yet to be intensively investigated since reports published thus far have dealt with small patient populations. The present study, which consisted of consecutive series of numerous patients, was undertaken to analyze the biology plausibility of CEA as a predictive method by associating increase in its levels with clinical characteristics of patients and pathologic findings, and to evaluate the independent prognostic significance of perioperative CEA values. In addition, some reports indicated that non-small cell lung cancer patients, with a serum CEA level higher than 50 ng/mL, all died within a few years, even if apparently curative surgery was performed [3, 7, 8]; we examined follow-up data for such patients in our series.
| Material and methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
After surgery, the patients were in general examined at 3-month intervals for 5 years and thereafter at 1-year intervals. The evaluations included physical examination, chest roentgenography, and tumor markers. Moreover, chest, abdominal, and brain computed tomographic scans and a bone scintiscan were carried out each year. Whenever any symptoms or signs of recurrence appeared in these examinations, further evaluations to detect disease were performed.
The statistical significance of differences between the classified groups and several clinical-pathologic factors was assessed by the Kruskal-Wallis test. Survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and differences in survival were determined by log-rank analysis. A multivariate analysis of several prognostic factors was carried out using Cox's proportional hazards regression model. Zero time was the date of pulmonary resection, and the terminal event was death attributable to cancer, noncancer, or unknown cause. Significance was defined as p less than 0.05.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Next, we analyzed the affect of serum CEA level on survival. Overall follow-up ranged from 8 to 224 months, with a median of 61 months for surviving patients. The 5-year survival rates were 75.2% and 53.8% for patients with normal and high preoperative CEA levels, respectively (Fig 1A). The survival rate was significantly poorer for patients with a high preoperative CEA level (p < 0.0001). In addition, we investigated the survival rates for groups subdivided by preoperative CEA levels (Fig 1B). The higher the preoperative CEA level, the poorer survival was, even within the normal range. When we also considered postoperative CEA levels, the survival rates for 5 years in the HH group and HN group were 35.2% and 62.6%, respectively (p < 0.0001, Fig 2A). In general, patients with pathologic stage I disease are assumed to have been cured following complete resection of the tumor because lymph nodes are not involved. However, we found that a considerable number of patients with still elevated CEA levels had poor survival despite being postoperatively diagnosed as having pathologic stage I disease. The 5-year survival rates of pathologic stage I patients of the N group, the HL group, and the HH group were 84.2%, 74.2%, and 48.6%, respectively (Fig 2B). These data suggested that failure to normalize CEA levels after surgery was associated with a significantly worse prognosis, and that the survival, even of patients with pathologic stage I disease for 5 years, was less than 50%.
|
|
|
|
|
| Comment |
|---|
|
|
|---|
We have provided powerful evidence that completeness of removal of the tumor is essential. It would be of concern if patients whose disease was judged to be incompletely resected actually had similar survival to those with completely resected disease. As well as the prognostic advantage seen in completely resected patients, a higher proportion of patients with elevated CEA levels before surgery had a return to normal range in CEA level. In our series, CEA levels returned to normal range in approximately 66% of patients, which we believe will get better with further experience and practice. We suspect that failure to achieve normal levels of CEA is caused either by unrecognized extrapulmonary disease or failure to eradicate all pulmonary disease.
Icard and colleagues [7] reported that all patients with preoperative CEA levels higher than 50 ng/mL who underwent seemingly curative resection for non-small cell lung cancer died within 2 years. Earlier, Concannon and colleagues [3] demonstrated that all 47 patients who had resected lung cancer and high CEA levels failed to survive longer than 3 years. The most interesting inquiry was whether a preoperative CEA level higher than 50 ng/mL always indicated metastatic carcinoma, or whether thoracic surgeons would accept the validity of CEA testing to exclude patients who have such an abnormally elevated level from undergoing lung resections. In our analysis, it should be emphasized that 69% (9 of 13) of clinical stage I patients with preoperative CEA greater than 50 ng/mL developed distant metastasis and died of cancer. Despite these poor survival data, we still have concern about giving up surgical therapy in clinical stage I lesions even if they have an excessively high CEA level. To our surprise, among patients with preoperative CEA higher than 50 ng/mL, 3 (23%) were long-term survivors with no recurrence. One patient had a 427.8 ng/mL CEA level before surgery but a remarkable drop after surgery. The CEA levels of the other 2 patients normalized postoperatively. It is of great interest to note that normalization of serum CEA level after surgery was an important prognostic sign even in patients with an abnormally elevated CEA level before surgery.
A point will be reached when the risk signaled by serum CEA value may be greater than the risk indicated by a more advanced TNM stage. In other words, when a patient has had extremely high CEA levels, the influence of CEA on prognosis might be more crucial than the influence of TNM stage. This emphasizes the need to avoid dichotomous results (positive vs negative) at least in cases in which CEA is employed to estimate prognosis. It seems more satisfactory to use CEA as a continuous variable since this would enable any predictive information to be more effectively utilized. Although a cutoff point is usually used to define a high or low risk group of patients, this method tends to oversimplify and even distort the associations between variables and results.
At present, perioperative measurement of serum CEA is not commonly performed during the staging or resection of tumors in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. This study describes the significant independent value of serum CEA in patients undergoing stage determination, undergoing resection, or considering adjuvant therapy for non-small cell lung cancer. Unfortunately, this has not gained universal acceptance with physicians or surgeons, particularly in the United States.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
H. Matsuguma, R. Nakahara, S. Igarashi, Y. Ishikawa, H. Suzuki, N. Miyazawa, S. Honjo, and K. Yokoi Pathologic stage I non small cell lung cancer with high levels of preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen: Clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., January 1, 2008; 135(1): 44 - 49. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Matsuoka, S. Sumitomo, N. Nakashima, D. Nakajima, and N. Misaki Prognostic value of carcinoembryonic antigen and CYFRA21-1 in patients with pathological stage I non-small cell lung cancer Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., September 1, 2007; 32(3): 435 - 439. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Fukai, Y. Sakao, M. Sakuraba, S. Oh, K. Shiomi, S. Sonobe, Y. Saitoh, and H. Miyamoto The prognostic value of carcinoembryonic antigen in T1N1M0 and T2N1M0 non-small cell carcinoma of the lung Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., September 1, 2007; 32(3): 440 - 444. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Okada, S. Tauchi, K. Iwanaga, T. Mimura, Y. Kitamura, H. Watanabe, S. Adachi, T. Sakuma, and C. Ohbayashi Associations among bronchioloalveolar carcinoma components, positron emission tomographic and computed tomographic findings, and malignant behavior in small lung adenocarcinomas J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2007; 133(6): 1448 - 1454. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
W.-H. Hsu, C.-S. Huang, H.-S. Hsu, W.-J. Huang, H.-C. Lee, B.-S. Huang, and M.-H. Huang Preoperative Serum Carcinoembryonic Antigen Level is a Prognostic Factor in Women With Early Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2007; 83(2): 419 - 424. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. A. D'Amico, K. R. Brooks, M.-B. M. Joshi, D. Conlon, J. Herndon II, R. P. Petersen, and D. H. Harpole Jr Serum Protein Expression Predicts Recurrence in Patients With Early-Stage Lung Cancer After Resection Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 2006; 81(6): 1982 - 1987. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Inoue, M. Minami, H. Shiono, N. Sawabata, K. Ideguchi, and M. Okumura Clinicopathologic study of resected, peripheral, small-sized, non-small cell lung cancer tumors of 2 cm or less in diameter: Pleural invasion and increase of serum carcinoembryonic antigen level as predictors of nodal involvement J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., May 1, 2006; 131(5): 988 - 993. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. R. Mulligan, A. D. Meram, C. D. Proctor, H. Wu, K. Zhu, and A. J. Marrogi Unlimited Access to Care: Effect on Racial Disparity and Prognostic Factors in Lung Cancer Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., January 1, 2006; 15(1): 25 - 31. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Tomita, T. Shimizu, Y. Matsuzaki, M. Hara, T. Ayabe, and T. Onitsuka Prognostic Significance of Carcinoembryonic Antigen Level in Pleural Lavage Fluid for Patients With Lung Adenocarcinoma Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2005; 80(1): 276 - 281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |