Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Prognostic significance of postoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels in patients with completely resected pathological-stage I non-small cell lung cancer

  • Yoshiki Kozu1Email author,
  • Tomohiro Maniwa1,
  • Shoji Takahashi1,
  • Mitsuhiro Isaka1,
  • Yasuhisa Ohde1 and
  • Takashi Nakajima2
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery20138:106

https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-8090-8-106

Received: 2 February 2013

Accepted: 15 April 2013

Published: 22 April 2013

Abstract

Background

Until date, there are no clear recommendations for regular perioperative measurements of serum CEA levels for lung cancer in any guidelines. The purpose in the present study is to evaluate the prognostic significance of perioperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels in patients with pathological-stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 263 completely resected pathological-stage I NSCLC patients whose preoperative and postoperative serum CEA levels were measured. Patients were subdivided according to the perioperative change of CEA levels: continuously normal CEA levels (NN group), continuously high CEA levels (HH group), and high preoperative CEA levels that returned to normal levels post-operation (HN group). The clinicopathological factors and overall survival (OS) among these 3 groups were compared. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the correlation between clinicopathological factors and OS were performed.

Results

High preoperative CEA levels significantly correlated with men aged >70 years with smoking history, high serum CYFRA 21–1 levels, greater tumor diameter, presence of visceral pleural invasion (VPI), and moderate-to-poor differentiation. Five-year OS rates in the NN and HH groups were 95.5% and 59.3%, respectively. Four-year OS rate in the HN group was 85.5%. Multivariate analyses indicated tumor diameter of more than 30 mm, presence of VPI, and the HH group were independent unfavorable prognostic factors.

Conclusions

A high postoperative CEA level was an independent unfavorable prognostic factor in pathological-stage I NSCLC patients. Patients with high postoperative CEA levels may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.

Keywords

Non-small cell lung cancerUnfavorable prognostic factorPathological-stage IPostoperative carcinoembryonic antigen levelAdjuvant chemotherapy

Background

In many clinical practices, serum tumor markers are easily and reproducibly evaluated. Measurement of tumor markers in patients with malignancies enables us to diagnose, quantitatively assess cancer cells, predict survival, and monitor the effects of treatment.

Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is one of the most commonly used tumor markers in gastrointestinal and lung cancers. Many reports have already described the significant correlation of preoperative CEA levels with prognosis in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [17]. However, serum CEA levels are known to be affected by the rate of CEA elimination from circulating blood determined by renal function and smoking status [8].

From this perspective, postoperative CEA levels might be a more accurate prognostic factor than preoperative CEA levels, because the former is less affected by preoperative smoking status. Dent et al. initially reported high values of postoperative CEA levels [9]. Subsequent reports demonstrated that high postoperative CEA levels predicted recurrence and prognosis in NSCLC patients [4, 8, 1015]. Until date, however, there are no clear recommendations for regular perioperative measurements of serum CEA levels for lung cancer in any guidelines.

We conducted a retrospective study based on a single institution to evaluate the prognostic importance of perioperative serum CEA levels in patients with completely resected pathological-stage I NSCLC.

Methods

Between September 2002 and December 2009, 545 patients underwent complete surgical resection for pathological-stage I NSCLC at the Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan. Of these, 263 consecutive patients who met all of the following criteria were included and retrospectively reviewed in the present study: (1) those who had their serum CEA concentrations measured within the 1-month period before surgery and again within the 2-month period after surgery (while preoperative serum CEA levels were measured routinely, the measurement of postoperative CEA levels was at the discretion of the attending surgeon), (2) those without multiple lung tumors or malignancies in other organs and (3) those who were anticancer treatment-naïve in both the neoadjuvant setting and adjuvant setting. Approval from the institutional ethics committee was obtained.

The medical records of each patient were examined for age, gender, smoking history, preoperative European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), both preoperative and postoperative serum CEA levels, preoperative serum cytokeratin 19 fragment (CYFRA21-1) levels, tumor location, surgical procedure, tumor histology, tumor diameter, visceral pleural invasion (VPI), angiolymphatic invasion (ALI), differentiation grade, and survival. Staging was determined according to the seventh edition of the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) TNM staging system [16]. Histology was evaluated according to the latest World Health Organization’s classification of lung tumors [17].

We performed lobectomy or pneumonectomy with systemic mediastinal lymph node dissection as the standard surgical treatment. Segmentectomy or wedge resection was performed only on patients with tumors showing a greater proportion of ground-glass opacity on computed tomography or on those with major comorbidities.

Serum CYFRA21-1 concentrations were measured within the 1-month period before surgery (at the same time as CEA). The CEA concentration was measured using an ARCHITECT(r) kit (Abbott Japan, Tokyo, Japan), while the CYFRA21-1 concentration was measured using an Lumipulse Presto(r) kit (FUJIREBIO Inc, Tokyo, Japan). According to the manufacturer of these kits, the upper limits of the percentiles of healthy individuals for CEA and CYFRA21-1 levels were 5.0 ng/mL and 3.5 ng/mL, respectively. Therefore, the cut-off point for these tumor markers was set to the same level as the upper limits in the present study. Patients were subdivided into 3 groups on the basis of their shift of CEA levels by surgery as follows: patients with continuously normal CEA levels (NN group), patients with continuously high CEA levels (HH group), and patients with high preoperative CEA levels that returned to normal levels post-operation (HN group).

ALI was defined as the presence of neoplastic cells within an arterial, venous, or lymphatic lumen during routine histologic evaluation with hematoxylin and eosin, elastic van Gieson (EVG), and D2-40 stains. Because of the retrospective nature of this study, distinction between arterial, venous, or lymphatic invasion were not available in some cases. Therefore, these categories were merged into a single variable (ALI). The presence or absence of ALI was assessed in the largest cross-sections of the tumor in every specimen. VPI was defined as evidence of penetration of the thick outer elastic lamina by the tumor during EVG staining. The grade of differentiation was categorized into well differentiated, moderately differentiated, and poorly differentiated carcinomas according to the degree of structural and cytologic atypia. Differentiation in squamous cell carcinoma was determined on the basis of the degree of keratinization and the presence of intercellular bridges. Poor differentiation in squamous cell carcinoma was defined as a tumor with faint these features and a solid pattern. Adenocarcinoma, which is largely composed of malignant glandular epithelium, was evaluated by lepidic, tubular and papillary structure. Poor differentiation in adenocarcinoma was defined as a solid pattern tumor without any clear gland formation. Pathological evaluation was performed prospectively by 2 or more experienced pathologists.

The clinicopathological factors of the patients (n = 263) are listed in Table 1. There were 132 men and 131 women, with a median age at surgery of 67 years (range, 20–88 years). There were 198, 44, and 21 patients in the NN, HN, and HH groups, respectively. Pathological examinations revealed that there were 213 adenocarcinomas, 46 squamous cell carcinomas, 2 adenosquamous carcinomas, and 2 carcinoids.
Table 1

Clinicopathological factors of the total study population

Factors

Total

NN group

HN group

HH group

p value a

(n = 263)

(n = 198)

(n = 44)

(n = 21)

Age

    

0.010

  ≤70 y

140

116

16

8

 

  >70 y

123

82

28

13

 

Gender

    

0.002

  Male

132

87

30

15

 

Female

131

111

14

6

 

Smoking history

    

< 0.001

  ≥5 PY

135

85

33

17

 

  <5 PY

128

113

11

4

 

ECOG PS

    

0.28

  0

222

169

38

15

 

  1

41

29

6

6

 

Serum CYFRA

    

0.039

  >3.5 ng/mL

12

5

5

2

 

  ≤3.5 ng/mL

251

193

39

19

 

Location

    

0.77

  Right

167

124

30

13

 

  Left

96

74

14

8

 

Surgical procedure

    

0.98

  Sublobar resection

38

29

6

3

 

  Major resection b

225

169

38

18

 

Tumor diameter

    

0.002

  >30 mm

53

30

17

6

 

  ≤30 mm

210

168

27

15

 

Histology

    

0.27

  Adeno

213

165

33

15

 

  Squamous

46

30

11

5

 

  Others

4

3

0

1

 

VPI

    

0.037

Present

50

31

11

8

 

Absent

213

167

33

13

 

ALI

    

0.32

  Present

66

49

9

8

 

  Absent

197

149

35

13

 

Differentiation c

    

< 0.001

  Well

168

140

19

9

 

  Moderate/Poor

91

55

25

11

 

PY, Pack-years; ECOG PS, European cooperative oncology group performance status; CYFRA, Cytokeratin 19 fragment; VPI, Visceral pleural invasion; ALI, Angiolymphatic invasion.

aassociation between the NN group and HN group, the chi-square test.

b Major resection refers to lobectomy or pneumonectomy.

c The grade of differentiation was not determined in 4 patients with adenosquamous carcinoma or carcinoids.

Overall survival (OS) was calculated as the period from surgical resection until death or the date of the last follow-up evaluation. Last actualization of survival data was performed in September 2012. Follow-up was completed in 245 of the patients. The median time for follow-up for surviving patients was 54 months (range, 15–120 months). Of the total, 22 patients (8.4%) died during follow-up. The causes of death were primary disease in 21 patients and comorbid diseases in 1.

Statistical analysis

Counts were compared using the chi-square test. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to generate survival curves, and survival differences were analyzed using the log-rank test. Multivariate analyses of prognostic factors were performed using the Cox proportional hazards model. A p- value of less than 5% was considered significant. All statistical analyses were performed using JMP 9 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).

Results

Patients’ clinicopathological factors according to the CEA group

The HN group significantly correlated to older men (>70 y) with a smoking history (≥5 pack-years), high serum CYFRA 21–1 levels (>3.5 ng/mL), greater tumor diameter (>30 mm), presence of VPI, and moderate-to-poor differentiation compared to the NN group (Table 1).

OS curves according to the CEA group

Five-year OS rates in the NN and HH groups were 95.5% and 59.3%, respectively. Four-year OS rate in the HN group was 85.5%. A significant difference in OS was observed between the HN and NN groups (p = 0.043). A trend toward a decreased survival was observed for the HH group compared to the HN group, but was not statistically significant (p = 0.062). These survival curves are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1

Overall survival curves according to the CEA group. A significant difference in overall survival was observed between the HN group and NN group (p = 0.043). There was a marginally significant difference in overall survival between the HH group and HN group (p = 0.062). CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.

Predictors of OS according to univariate analyses

The results of univariate analyses for survival are summarized in Table 2. The clinicopathological factors of age, ECOG PS, serum CEA levels, tumor diameter, VPI, ALI, and differentiation grade were significant prognostic factors for OS.
Table 2

Predictors of OS according to univariate analysis

Risk factors

Favorable

Unfavorable

p Valuea

Age

≤70 y

>70 y

0.008

Gender

Female

Male

0.12

Smoking history

<5 PY

≥5 PY

0.088

ECOG PS

0

1

0.007

Serum CEA

NN group

HN group

0.043

HN group

HH group

0.062

Serum CYFRA

≤3.5 ng/mL

>3.5 ng/mL

0.90

Location

Left

Right

0.99

Surgical procedure

Major resection b

Sublobar resection

0.57

Tumor diameter

≤30 mm

>30 mm

< 0.001

Histology

Adeno

Others

0.070

VPI

Absent

Present

0.001

ALI

Absent

Present

0.008

Differentiation

Well

Moderate/Poor

0.037

OS, Overall survival; PY, Pack-years; ECOG PS, European cooperative oncology group performance status; CEA, Carcinoembryonic antigen; CYFRA, Cytokeratin 19 fragment level; VPI, Visceral pleural invasion; ALI, Angiolymphatic invasion.

a the log-rank test.

b Major resection refers to lobectomy or pneumonectomy.

Predictors of OS according to multivariate analyses

Multivariate analyses for OS were performed using these factors, and the results are summarized in Table 3. Tumor diameter of more than 30 mm (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.35–8.98, p = 0.010), presence of VPI (HR = 3.18, 95% CI: 1.11–8.84, p = 0.032), and the HH group (HR = 7.69, 95% CI: 2.46–23.7, p < 0.001) were found to be independent unfavorable prognostic factors.
Table 3

Predictors of OS according to multivariate analysis

Risk factors

HR

95% CI

p valuea

Age

   

  ≤70 y

1

Reference

 

  >70 y

2.29

0.87–6.72

0.095

ECOG PS

   

  0

1

Reference

 

  1

1.33

0.47–3.53

0.59

Tumor diameter

   

  ≤30 mm

1

Reference

 

  >30 mm

3.47

1.35–8.98

0.010

VPI

   

  Absent

1

Reference

 

  Present

3.18

1.11–8.84

0.032

ALI

   

  Absent

1

Reference

 

  Present

1.06

0.38–3.15

0.91

Differentiation

   

  Well

1

Reference

 

  Moderate/Poor

1.14

0.42–3.01

0.80

Serum CEA

   

  NN group

1

Reference

 

  HN group

2.52

0.72–8.11

0.14

  HH group

7.69

2.46–23.7

< 0.001

OS, Overall survival; HR, Hazard ratio; CI, Confidence interval; ECOG PS, European cooperative oncology group performance status; VPI, Visceral pleural invasion; ALI, Angiolymphatic invasion; CEA, Carcinoembryonic antigen.

a the log-rank test.

OS curves according to the number of unfavorable prognostic factors

Figure 2 shows OS curves according to the number of independent unfavorable prognostic factors (tumor diameter of more than 30 mm, presence of VPI, and the HH group) on the basis of the results of multivariate analyses. Five-year OS rate was 58.0% for those harboring 2 or more unfavorable prognostic factors (n = 25).
Figure 2

Overall survival curves according to the number of independent unfavorable prognostic factors (tumor diameter of more than 30 mm, presence of VPI, and the HH group) on the basis of the results of multivariate analyses. Five-year overall survival rate was 58.0% for those harboring 2 or more unfavorable prognostic factors (n = 25). VPI, visceral pleural invasion.

Discussion

There have been 3 reports published, which were similar in design to the present study [4, 11, 15] and subdivided pathological-stage I NSCLC patients into 3 groups, viz. the NN, HN, and HH groups (Table 4). These previous reports have demonstrated that the worst prognosis correlates to the HH group, consistent with results of the present study. Taken together, these results suggest that failure to normalize CEA levels after surgery is associated with a significantly worse prognosis. Okada et al. speculated that failure to achieve normal levels of CEA levels is caused either by unrecognized extrapulmonary disease or failure to eradicate all pulmonary diseases [4]. The results in the current study show that the 5-year OS rate in the HH group was 59.3%, the highest compared to those in previous reports (range, 36.0%–48.6%). A similar trend was observed among the HN and NN groups as well. The previous reports included incomplete resections [4] and higher percentages of pathological-stage IB patients (60.3% vs. 33.0% compared with the present study) [15], and these differences could be the possible reason for decreased survival.
Table 4

Comparison of the previous reports analyzing the perioperative change of serum CEA levels in patients with pathological stage-I NSCLC

Author

Okada[4]

Matsuguma[11]

Wang[15]

Present study

Year

2004

2008

2010

2013

CEA measurement period

Before surgery

Within 1 M

Within 1 M

Within 2 W

Within 1 M

After surgery

Within 1 M

Within 1–3 M

Within 1–3 M

Within 2 M

Cut-off point (ng/mL)

5.0

5.0

6.0

5.0

Total number

722 a

455

257

263

NN group

(5-ys)

472 (84.2%)

323 (85.9%)

173 (71.1%)

198 (95.5%)

HN group

154 (74.2%)

112 (56.2%)

56 (54.6%)

44 (85.5%) b

HH group

96 (48.6%)

20 (43.1%)

28 (36.0%)

21 (59.3%)

  

Independent prognostic factor

N/A

Age

Age

Tumor diameter

 

Histology

HH group

VPI

 

VPI

 

HH group

 

HN/HH group

  

CEA, Carcinoembryonal antigen; NSCLC, Non-small cell lung cancer; M, Month; W, Week; N/A, Not analyzed; VPI, Visceral pleural invasion.

a including incomplete resections.

b 4-ys.

Matsuguma et al. reported that preoperative high CEA levels significantly correlated with smoking-related factors such as increased age, male gender, squamous cell carcinoma, pathological T2 status, vascular invasion, VPI, and moderate-to-poor differentiation (only in adenocarcinomas) [11]. These observations are mostly consistent with those reported in the present study. Wang et al. reported that histologic adenocarcinomas significantly correlated with high preoperative CEA levels, whereas age, smoking status, tumor diameter, VPI, and pathological-stage did not [15]. One of the most notable differences between the current study and previous reports is that we did not observe any significant correlation between CEA levels and histologic type. Although CEA was initially investigated in colon adenocarcinoma, it has been known to be elevated in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung, uterine cervix, and esophagus [1822]. The correlation of CEA levels and histologic subtype of NSCLC remained still controversial.

Our results indicate that tumor diameter of more than 30 mm, presence of VPI, and the HH group were independent unfavorable prognostic factors. The former 2 factors are the most representative determinants for lung cancers to be categorized as T2a according to the seventh edition of the UICC TNM staging system [16]. Since T2aN0M0 lung cancers are staged as pathological-stage IB, our results confirmed the prognostic value of pathological-stage classification, which is the most widely-used prognosticator in lung cancer.

We also highlighted the prognostic significance of continuously high perioperative CEA levels (HH group), consistent with the results by Wang et al. [15]. Because all of the patients with postoperative high CEA levels had preoperative high CEA levels as well, the results indicate the need for measuring postoperative CEA levels rather than preoperative CEA levels. On the other hand, Matsuguma et al. reported that both HN and HH groups were independent unfavorable prognostic factors [11], indicating the need for measuring preoperative CEA levels. In the Western countries, however, regular perioperative measurement of serum CEA levels in patients with lung cancer is not commonly performed and is considered less convincing than in patients with colorectal cancer [4, 23].

In Japan, adjuvant chemotherapy with UFT is recommended in pathological-stage IB NSCLC patients because the occurrence of postoperative death was found to have decreased in the UFT group as compared to the control group in previous studies [24, 25]. As mentioned earlier, our results indicate the prognostic significance of discriminating pathological-stage IB from IA, supporting this recommendation. The most important clinical implications emerging from this study is that patients with postoperative high CEA levels are also good candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy in addition to pathological-stage IB patients. Although in-anatomical factors of tumor markers are not reflected in the current TNM staging system, the results of our study indicate that postoperative high CEA levels can predict survival, representing micrometastases or residual tumor cells, which may not be detected by radiological images and pathological examination.

Independent prognostic significance of postoperative high CEA levels is yet to be proved in advanced NSCLC patients. Sawabata et al. speculated that this might be attributable to the stronger prognostic impact of anatomic factors such as lymph node metastases than tumor markers [13]. On the other hand, Fukai et al. reported that an elevated preoperative CEA levels (≥5 ng/mL) was an independent predictor of survival even in pT1-2N1M0 NSCLC patients [26]. These studies therefore suggest that the prognostic significance of high postoperative CEA levels should also be validated in advanced NSCLC patients.

The present study has several limitations: First is its retrospective nature; second, postoperative CEA levels were measured at the discretion of the attending surgeon, adding significant selective bias into the present study; third, there was a small sample size of the HH group (n = 21) and observed events, making it statistically difficult to interpret results.

Conclusions

A high postoperative CEA level was an independent unfavorable prognostic factor in completely resected pathological-stage I NSCLC patients. Those with postoperative high CEA levels may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.

Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this report and any accompanying images.

Abbreviations

CEA: 

Carcinoembryonic antigen

NSCLC: 

Non-small cell lung cancer

ECOG PS: 

European cooperative oncology group performance status

CYFRA21-1: 

Cytokeratin 19 fragment

OS: 

Overall survival

VPI: 

Visceral pleural invasion

ALI: 

Angiolymphatic invasion

UICC: 

International union against cancer

EVG: 

Elastic van Gieson.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank Ichiro Ito, Division of Pathology, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan, for his critical review of the manuscript.

Mitsuru Takahashi, the Chairman of the Ethics Committee, approved this study.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Division of Thoracic Surgery, Shizuoka Cancer Center
(2)
Division of Pathology, Shizuoka Cancer Center

References

  1. Inoue M, Minami M, Shiono H, Sawabata N, Ideguchi K, Okumura M: 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. 2006, 131: 988-993. 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.12.035.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Matsuoka K, Sumitomo S, Nakashima N, Nakajima D, Misaki N: Prognostic value of carcinoembryonic antigen and CYFRA21-1 in patients with pathological stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2007, 32: 435-439. 10.1016/j.ejcts.2007.05.014.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Muley T, Dienemann H, Ebert W: CYFRA 21–1 and CEA are independent prognostic factors in 153 operated stage I NSCLC patients. Anticancer Res. 2004, 24: 1953-1956.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Okada M, Nishio W, Sakamoto T, Uchino K, Yuki T, Nakagawa A, Tsubota N: Prognostic significance of perioperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen in non-small cell lung cancer: analysis of 1,000 consecutive resections for clinical stage I disease. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004, 78: 216-221. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.02.009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Sakao Y, Tomimitsu S, Takeda Y, Natsuaki M, Itoh T: Carcinoembryonic antigen as a predictive factor for postoperative tumor relapse in early-stage lung adenocarcinoma. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2004, 25: 520-522. 10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.01.029.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Sawabata N, Ohta M, Takeda S, Hirano H, Okumura Y, Asada H, Maeda H: Serum carcinoembryonic antigen level in surgically resected clinical stage I patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002, 74: 174-179. 10.1016/S0003-4975(02)03662-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Suzuki K, Nagai K, Yoshida J, Moriyama E, Nishimura M, Takahashi K, Nishiwaki Y: Prognostic factors in clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999, 67: 927-932. 10.1016/S0003-4975(99)00140-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Yoshimasu T, Kokawa Y, Oura S, Hirai I, Sasaki R, Tanino H, Sakurai T, Okamura Y: Time course of carcinoembryonic antigen after resection of lung cancer: a predictor of recurrence. Cancer Sci. 2003, 94: 741-744. 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2003.tb01512.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dent PB, McCulloch PB, Wesley-James O, MacLaren R, Muirhead W, Dunnett CW: Measurement of carcinoembryonic antigen in patients with bronchogenic carcinoma. Cancer. 1978, 42: 1484-1491. 10.1002/1097-0142(197809)42:3+<1484::AID-CNCR2820420819>3.0.CO;2-J.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kashiwabara K, Saeki S, Sasaki J, Nomura M, Kohrogi H: Combined evaluation of postoperative serum levels of carcinoembryonic antigen less than or equal to 2.5 ng/ml and absence of vascular invasion may predict no recurrence of stage I adenocarcinoma lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2008, 3: 1416-1420. 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31818dda85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Matsuguma H, Nakahara R, Igarashi S, Ishikawa Y, Suzuki H, Miyazawa N, Honjo S, Yokoi K: Pathologic stage I non-small cell lung cancer with high levels of preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen: clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008, 135: 44-49. 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.09.032.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Nonaka M, Kataoka D, Yamamoto S, Bito A, Matsuoka J, Kawada T, Takaba T: Pre- and post-operative serum carcinoembryonic antigen in primary lung adenocarcinoma. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004, 10: 281-284.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Sawabata N, Maeda H, Yokota S, Takeda S, Koma M, Tokunaga T, Ito M: Postoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels in patients with pathologic stage IA nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: subnormal levels as an indicator of favorable prognosis. Cancer. 2004, 101: 803-809. 10.1002/cncr.20421.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Tomita M, Matsuzaki Y, Shimizu T, Hara M, Ayabe T, Onitsuka T: Prognostic determinants for lung cancer patients with preoperative high serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005, 53: 300-304. 10.1055/s-2005-865671.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Wang CY, Huang MS, Huang MH, Lee HC, Hsu HS: Persistently high serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels after surgery indicate poor prognosis in patients with stage I non-small-cell lung cancer. J Surg Res. 2010, 163: e45-e50. 10.1016/j.jss.2010.04.039.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldstraw P, Crowley J, Chansky K, Giroux DJ, Groome PA, Rami-Porta R, Postmus PE, Rusch V, Sobin L: The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: proposals for the revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the TNM Classification of malignant tumours. J Thorac Oncol. 2007, 2: 706-714. 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31812f3c1a.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Travis WD BE, HK M-H, Harris CC: World Health Organization classification of tumors: pathology and genetics of tumors of the lung, pleura, thymus and heart. 2004, Lyon: IARC PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Bae SN, Namkoong SE, Jung JK, Kim CJ, Park JS, Kim JW, Lee JM, Kim SJ: Prognostic significance of pretreatment squamous cell carcinoma antigen and carcinoembryonic antigen in squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 1997, 64: 418-424. 10.1006/gyno.1996.4589.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kosugi S, Nishimaki T, Kanda T, Nakagawa S, Ohashi M, Hatakeyama K: Clinical significance of serum carcinoembryonic antigen, carbohydrate antigen 19–9, and squamous cell carcinoma antigen levels in esophageal cancer patients. World J Surg. 2004, 28: 680-685.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Chen SW, Liang JA, Hung YC, Yeh LS, Chang WC, Yang SN, Lin FJ: Clinical implications of elevated pretreatment carcinoembryonic antigen in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Tumour Biol. 2008, 29: 255-261. 10.1159/000152943.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Nagashima T, Sakao Y, Mun M, Ishikawa Y, Nakagawa K, Masuda M, Okumura S: A Clinicopathological Study of Resected Small-Sized Squamous Cell Carcinomas of the Peripheral Lung: Prognostic Significance of Serum Carcinoembryonic Antigen Levels. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012Google Scholar
  22. Shimada H, Nabeya Y, Okazumi S, Matsubara H, Shiratori T, Gunji Y, Kobayashi S, Hayashi H, Ochiai T: Prediction of survival with squamous cell carcinoma antigen in patients with resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Surgery. 2003, 133: 486-494. 10.1067/msy.2003.139.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Buccheri G, Ferrigno D: Identifying patients at risk of early postoperative recurrence of lung cancer: a new use of the old CEA test. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003, 75: 973-980. 10.1016/S0003-4975(02)04638-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hamada C, Tanaka F, Ohta M, Fujimura S, Kodama K, Imaizumi M, Wada H: Meta-analysis of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with tegafur-uracil in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005, 23: 4999-5006. 10.1200/JCO.2005.09.017.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kato H, Ichinose Y, Ohta M, Hata E, Tsubota N, Tada H, Watanabe Y, Wada H, Tsuboi M, Hamajima N: A randomized trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with uracil-tegafur for adenocarcinoma of the lung. N Engl J Med. 2004, 350: 1713-1721. 10.1056/NEJMoa032792.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Fukai R, Sakao Y, Sakuraba M, Oh S, Shiomi K, Sonobe S, Saitoh Y, Miyamoto H: The prognostic value of carcinoembryonic antigen in T1N1M0 and T2N1M0 non-small cell carcinoma of the lung. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2007, 32: 440-444. 10.1016/j.ejcts.2007.06.011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Kozu et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement