Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • Clinical Chemistry
    • Editorial Board
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Alerts
    • CE Credits
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Early Release
    • Future Table of Contents
    • Archive
    • Browse by Subject
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Permissions & Reprints
  • Resources
    • AACC Learning Lab
    • Clinical Chemistry Trainee Council
    • Clinical Case Studies
    • Clinical Chemistry Guide to Scientific Writing
    • Clinical Chemistry Guide to Manuscript Review
    • Journal Club
    • Podcasts
    • Q&A
    • Translated Content
  • Abstracts
  • Submit
  • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Chemistry
  • Other Publications
    • The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
Clinical Chemistry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • About
    • Clinical Chemistry
    • Editorial Board
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Alerts
    • CE Credits
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Early Release
    • Future Table of Contents
    • Archive
    • Browse by Subject
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Permissions & Reprints
  • Resources
    • AACC Learning Lab
    • Clinical Chemistry Trainee Council
    • Clinical Case Studies
    • Clinical Chemistry Guide to Scientific Writing
    • Clinical Chemistry Guide to Manuscript Review
    • Journal Club
    • Podcasts
    • Q&A
    • Translated Content
  • Abstracts
  • Submit
  • Contact
Research ArticleReviews

Kinetics of Serum Tumor Marker Concentrations and Usefulness in Clinical Monitoring

Jean-Michel Bidart, François Thuillier, Christine Augereau, Jacqueline Chalas, Alain Daver, Nelly Jacob, Françoise Labrousse, Hélène Voitot
Published October 1999
Jean-Michel Bidart
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
François Thuillier
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christine Augereau
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jacqueline Chalas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alain Daver
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nelly Jacob
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Françoise Labrousse
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hélène Voitot
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Only a few markers have been instrumental in the diagnosis of cancer. In contrast, tumor markers play a critical role in the monitoring of patients. The patient’s clinical status and response to treatment can be evaluated rapidly using the tumor marker half-life (t1/2) and the tumor marker doubling time (DT). This report reviews the interest of determining these kinetic parameters for prostate-specific antigen, human chorionic gonadotropin, α-fetoprotein, carcinoembryonic antigen, cancer antigen (CA) 125, and CA 15-3. A rise in tumor markers (DT) is a yardstick with which benign diseases can be distinguished from metastatic disease, and the DT can be used to assess the efficacy of treatments. A decline in the tumor marker concentration (t1/2) is a predictor of possible residual disease if the timing of blood sampling is soon after therapy. The discrepancies in results obtained by different groups may be attributable to the multiplicity of immunoassays, the intrinsic characteristics of each marker (e.g., antigen specificity, molecular heterogeneity, and associated forms), individual factors (e.g., nonspecific increases and renal and hepatic diseases) and methods used to calculate kinetics (e.g., exponential models and timing of blood sampling). This kinetic approach could be of interest to optimize patient management.

Only a few markers have been instrumental in the diagnosis of cancer; they include α-fetoprotein (AFP),1 human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), and calcitonin. Although the concentration of an isolated tumor marker before any treatment may have a prognostic value, they are not widely used in comparison to conventional prognostic factors. In contrast, tumor markers play a critical role in the monitoring of patients. However, recourse to tumor markers as a yardstick of treatment or to signal the emergence of a recurrence or a metastasis has been based only on a succession of values with no regard for knowledge of the exponential nature of tumor growth, which is a theoretical and practical basis of cancer therapy. In an economy-conscious environment in which cost-effective medicine is an overriding concern, physicians treating cancer patients need convenient, efficient methods to rapidly evaluate response to therapy and to offer alternative treatment when appropriate (1)(2)(3)(4). A challenging approach to rapid evaluation of clinical response and monitoring is the determination of tumor marker half-life (t1/2) and tumor marker doubling time (DT), kinetic parameters associated with changes in marker concentrations. The t1/2 is calculated according to the formula dt/log(tm1/tm2), where tm1 and tm2 are the tumor marker values at times 1 and 2, respectively, and dt the interval between the two dates. The DT is determined according to the interval required to double the serum concentration. This report reviews the interest of determining kinetic parameters of the tumor markers that are the most relevant for the monitoring of patients. The main characteristics of prostate-specific antigen (PSA), hCG, AFP, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen (CA) 125, and CA 15-3, are presented in Table 1⇓ .

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Main characteristics of tumor markers.

Dynamic Aspects of Tumor Markers

psa

Serum PSA concentrations increase with age at a rate of 0.04 μg/L per year in healthy adult males (5). The rate at which PSA increases annually is between 0.07 and 0.27 μg/L in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), between 0.47 and 3.08 μg/L for patients with localized cancers, and between 1.02 and 26.49 μg/L for patients with metastatic disease (6). The serum PSA concentration is generally proportional to intra- and extracapsular growth of prostate carcinoma (7). A linear relationship has been reported between serum PSA and the size of prostate cancer (6)(8)(9). BPH provokes a rise of 0.3 μg/L per gram of hyperplastic tissue, whereas a rise of 3.5 μg/L per gram is observed for tumor tissue (8). This relationship between tumor size and PSA production is not unanimously accepted. Brawer et al. (10) reported that the PSAindex, defined as the ratio between the serum PSA value and the tumor mass, is linked to the extent of the cancer but not correlated with the PSA concentration. The PSA concentration is a biological yardstick distinguishing patients with BPH from patients with localized, loco-regional, or advanced metastatic adenocarcinomas (5)(11)(12).

There is a clear relationship between the DT and the International Union against Cancer tumor-node-metastasis classification before any treatment (8). The DT apparently exceeds 48 months in stages T1, T2, and is less than 24 months for stages T3 and T4 (8). This slow progression makes it possible to monitor therapy over 3- to 6-month periods. DT values vary from 73.9 to 98.9 years in controls and from 12.4 to 16.9 years in BPH patients (6). In patients with prostate cancer, the pattern is biphasic. The first phase is linear, with an identical DT for localized and metastatic disease (13.6–18.6 years), and the second phase is exponential, with a DT of 2.4 years for localized cancers and 1.8 years for metastasis. DT values must be determined before starting therapy because prostate tumors grow very slowly, particularly when the initial concentration is low. The initial PSA concentration and DT should not be considered as isolated prognostic factors because their values are correlated with the tumor volume and grade (13). Carter and Pearson (14) focused their study on trends in PSA with age, gland volume (measurement of PSA density), and time (measurement of PSA velocity). These tools are used for the screening of adenomas and localized cancers and to assess tumor extension in conjunction with other variables (e.g., biopsy and Gleason score).

Prostatectomy is appropriate for a tumor recurrence when the DT is <9 months. When the DT is >1 year, antiandrogenic treatment is more appropriate (15). Zagars and Pollack (12) used a percentage of decrease relative to pretreatment concentrations to decide whether additional therapy was required or not. Patients with stages B1, B2, and C prostate cancer whose DT is <3.8 months require prompt surgery. Patients with a DT exceeding 3.8 months can be treated less aggressively (e.g., antiandrogens) (16). A DT attaining 12 months or less should be considered eligible for multimodal therapy, and a slow DT (5 years) eligible for watchful waiting without therapy (17). According to Pollack et al. (18), although a correlation exists between the PSA concentration, the DT, and the time to relapse, it is not considered judicious to select a particular course of treatment on the basis of the DT value given the large number of variables involved.

Radical prostatectomy is indicated for a clinically localized tumor, and the efficiency of the treatment is assessed by long-term monitoring. PSA is undetectable within 21 days after prostatectomy (19)(20)(21), at which point, any PSA concentration above the lower limit of detection signifies the presence of residual tumor. This argues in favor of using ultrasensitive assays. The PSA t1/2, calculated with t0 measured 2 days after prostatectomy, is close to 2.5 days and similar in several studies (21). In contrast, when the t0 value is measured 5 min postoperatively, the t1/2 value is equal to 1.5 days (21)(22). Calculating t1/2 values helps distinguish patients in complete remission from those likely to develop a recurrence (t1/2, 2.98 ± 1.33 days), although they have undetectable concentrations, and from patients in whom PSA will never return to the baseline value. van Straalen et al. (23) found a biphasic pattern for the disappearance of PSA after prostatectomy, with a first phase presenting a t1/2 of 1.6 days and a second phase with a t1/2 of 4.6 days. The PSA concentration should therefore be measured at least 30 days postoperatively. Even with a t1/2 value of 1.6 days, patients may be considered cured if PSA remains undetectable over 24 months postoperatively (24). The elimination of free PSA also exhibits a biphasic kinetic profile (25)(26). The t1/2 of free PSA [0.5–0.8 h in fast phase (first phase), 7–14 h in slow phase (second phase)] is shorter than that of total PSA, and the ratio between free and total PSA can be a useful tool (25). The elimination of PSA complexed to α1-antichymotrypsin is nonexponential, and free PSA released during surgery does not form complexes with α1-antichymotrypsin. Elimination of total PSA is a combination of these mechanisms (26). PSA concentrations are undetectable in patients 3 days after surgery for BPH (open surgery; t1/2, 0.55 ± 0.39 days), 28 days after radical prostatectomy (t1/2, 2.5 ± 1.33 days for one compartment and 0.94 ± 0.8 days and 7.62 ± 6.35 days for two compartments), and 21 days after radical cystectomy (t1/2, 1.92 ± 1.2 d for one compartment). For others, the PSA t1/2 in BPH patients (1.4 days for free PSA; 2.4 days for total PSA) is shorter than the PSA t1/2 in cancer patients (2.1 days for free PSA; 3.4 days total PSA) (27). Cystoprostatectomy is a good model for a pharmacokinetic study of PSA (28). Calculations of t1/2 must take in account blood loss during surgery (29). Adjuvant radiotherapy increases the percentage of patients with undetectable PSA concentrations after prostatectomy (30)(31). All patients with documented clinical recurrences had previously displayed renewed PSA secretion during monitoring. It is therefore of interest to monitor slight variations in PSA. The PSA kinetic profile is a key to differentiation between local and metastatic recurrences (i.e., biological recurrences) several months before clinical signs.

In patients treated with radiotherapy alone, the use of PSA kinetics is controversial (32). The tumor marker t1/2 varies widely (11–275 days) among subjects (33) and is related to the activity of residual surviving cancer cells and to PSA-secreting cancer cells located outside the radiotherapy target volume. Fifty percent of biopsies performed 1 year after irradiation are PSA positive. Stage, grade, and pretreatment PSA concentrations are apparently not linked to PSA kinetics (34)(35). These observations have been challenged by other authors (12)(14)(18)(32)(36). Remission has been associated with normalization of PSA between 6 months and 3 years and recurrence in the absence of normalization (37). A DT of <8 months may predict distant metastasis (32).

In patients treated with hormonal therapy, the regulation of PSA synthesis is dependent on androgen activity. Hormonal therapy thus can modify PSA secretion. The androgen suppression syndrome, corresponding to increased PSA induced by nonsteroid antiandrogens is infrequent; consequently, monitoring of PSA is widely used in hormone therapy. After a treatment failure, the DT may be used for individual patients requiring androgen therapy (17). A decrease in PSA, measured at 3 and 6 months, is a prognostic indicator correlated with survival. After 6 months of treatment, it is possible to separate subjects who are not responders from those who are (38)(39). However, ∼10% of nonresponders do not display an increase in PSA. Furthermore, the absence of a biological response revealed by the PSA concentration preceded clinical unresponsiveness by 6–12 months, over a mean evolution of 20 months.

hCG and afp

In gestational trophoblastic diseases, measurement of both the hCG concentration and the rate at which it decreases after surgery and/or chemotherapy have been demonstrated as essential for the management of patients. After evacuation of a molar pregnancy, the hCG concentration should be monitored every week until normalization and then every month during the first year. The disappearance of hCG is usually achieved within 8 weeks in ∼40% of patients, within 9 to 22 weeks in ∼55% of cases, and in >22 weeks in 5% of patients. In some cases, hCG concentrations remain stable or increase, suggesting the presence of persistent evolutive trophoblastic disease (molar retention, invasive mole, or choriocarcinoma). hCG regression curves have been used in several studies for early recognition of persistent disease in patients. Several reports propose normal regression corridors that allow the detection of 85–90% of patients with persistent disease within 4–6 weeks (40)(41). Similarly, patients are identified within 8 weeks based on regression curves established from data including those of patients with a temporary hCG plateau. Yedema et al. (42) attempted to identify patients with persistent trophoblastic disease, based on a normal hCG regression curve constructed by fitting data from 130 patients with a hydatidiform mole with uneventful hCG regression. A biexponential regression model indicates two median hCG t1/2 of 1.8 and 12.8 days. Using the 95th percentile limit, Yedema et al. (42) identified >90% of the 77 patients with persistent disease within 14 weeks and >50% within 6 weeks. Special attention must be paid to the 5% of disease-free patients who continue to have increased hCG concentrations 22–25 weeks after evacuation and to those who have persistent trophoblastic disease after initially spontaneous hCG regression to the reference value.

Patients who develop high-risk metastatic trophoblastic disease require intensive chemotherapy. These patients present one or several of the following factors: a pretreatment serum hCG concentration >40 000 IU/L, a diagnosis of choriocarcinoma, a history of a nonmolar pregnancy, metastases, and resistance to chemotherapy (43). The ratio of free hCG β subunit (hCGβ) to total hCGβ (free hCGβ + hCG) is often higher in these patients than in patients with a hydatidiform mole or low-risk disease. During the first week of chemotherapy, marker values generally increase initially because of the destruction of tumor cells. Remission is achieved when marker concentrations are undetectable. Both hCG and hCGβ detection tests are among the most sensitive assays because they are capable of detecting 104 cancer cells. However, a recurrent tumor may arise from this small number of cells. Treatment must, therefore, be continued after the normalization of both hCG and hCGβ. Prolonged decay of either hCG or free hCGβ identifies patients who are unlikely to achieve a complete remission or long-term survival and indicates that additional chemotherapy or a switch to a different chemotherapy regimen is required (44).

hCG, free hCGβ, and AFP are also the most useful markers for the diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of patients with testicular germ-cell tumors such as choriocarcinoma, embryonal carcinoma, and teratocarcinoma. Tumors may be located within the gonads or, on rare occasions, extragonadal. In nonseminomatous germ-cell testicular tumor (NSGCTT), increased concentrations of hCG and free hCGβ were found in ∼60% and in 40–70% of cases, respectively (45). Combining the three markers makes it possible to detect ∼90% of patients with NSGCTT. hCG is of less interest as a marker in seminoma because it is increased in only ∼16% of patients; serum values are generally <200 IU/L. Values exceeding 5000 IU/L indicate the presence of NSGCTT. Interestingly, 20–50% and 9–17% of patients with seminoma have increased free hCGβ and hCG α subunit, respectively. The prognostic value of both the hCG concentration before chemotherapy and its t1/2 has been widely investigated, with the aim of identifying the 20–30% of patients with NSGCTT who fail to respond to therapy (46)(47)(48). Several reports have indicated that the kinetics of both hCG and AFP are good indicators of patients likely to be refractory to treatment (49)(50), whereas others conclude that the analysis of tumor marker values cannot be used to predict who is at a higher risk or to tailor treatment accordingly (48)(51). In fact, the tumor marker concentration before therapy appears to be a stronger predictor of treatment failure than marker t1/2 (52). Furthermore, after orchidectomy, patients with increased AFP relapse more frequently than patients with increased hCG (53).

Currently, no firm conclusions can be drawn about the usefulness of markers for identifying poor risk patients. A major explanation for the discrepancies between the conclusions of the different studies is the methodology used. For example, unpredictable transient rises in hCG/hCGβ concentrations after chemotherapy may occur as a result of tumor lysis with a subsequent release of a given marker; consequently, comparisons of t1/2 calculated from marker values before treatment and after the second cycle of chemotherapy are often unreliable. In a retrospective study, Toner et al. (54) showed that a prolonged marker t1/2 (>7 days for AFP; >3 days for hCG) is a reliable indicator of residual tumor and a significant predictor of survival. In contrast to other studies, Toner et al. (54) determined the t1/2 of each marker from the first two values measured within 3 months after the start of the treatment. Although markers were not measured systematically during initial treatment, this study provides a more reliable method for the use of serial measurements of markers in the management of patients with germ-cell tumors. Studies on AFP also confirm that the analytic strategy is crucial in attempts to improve the sensitivity of tests based on marker t1/2. This critical point will be discussed later.

AFP is also used as a marker for both the diagnosis and monitoring of patients suffering from hepatocellular carcinoma (55). Measurement of AFP is used to assess the completeness of surgical resection and response to therapy or recurrences. Hepatocellular carcinoma frequently recurs after surgery; with serial determination of serum AFP, such recurrences could be detected at least 3 and up to 18 months before the onset of symptoms. The interval between surgery and recurrence correlates with the AFP DT. A decrease in serum AFP indicates clinical response to chemotherapy; if DT does not decrease, serial measurement obviates prolonged ineffective therapy. However, a negative value does not exclude the presence of subclinical disease (56). An increase in serum AFP signifies that chemotherapy should be changed (57). Finally, measuring the t1/2 of serum AFP has been useful for the management of patients with malignant germ-cell tumors of the ovary (58) and children presenting with teratoma, endodermal sinus tumor, or hepatoblastoma (59)(60).

cea

CEA is the only useful marker for monitoring colorectal cancer (61). For >25 years now, sequential CEA measurements have been used to monitor the response of colorectal cancer to surgery (62)(63)(64). Serial measurements of serum CEA, instead of a single determination, are recommended for the detection of recurrences in colon cancer (65)(66). The NIH Consensus Conference in 1981 emphasized that serial CEA determination, not a single determination, should be mandatory in clinical decision-making (67). In Dukes stage A disease, which rarely recurs, CEA monitoring is not justified for monitoring purposes. Follow-up of CEA is recommended, however, for patients with Dukes B and C adenocarcinoma (68). Recurrent disease occurs within 30 months and at a median time of 17 months in most patients. It rarely occurs after 5 years (69). The postoperative CEA concentration is a significant prognostic factor for survival. When tumor resection is complete, the postoperative CEA value decreases to 2.5 μg/L or less within the first month (65). When the postoperative CEA concentration falls to <5 μg/L, only 18% of patients will relapse. In contrast, recurrent disease occurs in 63% of the patients when the CEA concentration remains above 10 μg/L (70). The median lead time from increase in marker concentration to clinical recurrence is from 3 to 8 months (71). The sensitivity of postoperative CEA measurements varies according to the site of recurrence. The CEA test is inappropriate for the early diagnosis of localized recurrence (72). CEA kinetics permit differentiation between local and metastatic liver recurrences, with mean slope values attaining, respectively, 0.17 and 2.2 μg/L in 10 days (66). Calculating the CEA ascending slope in a computerized surveillance program has been shown to differentiate types of recurrent tumor (66). Slope analysis has been used to predict the site of recurrence and to plan second-look surgery. Different decision rules have been proposed on the basis of the evolution of the CEA concentration (73)(74). When Denstman et al. (75) compared various rules, they concluded that steadily rising concentrations (>12% per month) clearly indicated tumor recurrence. A linear relationship between log CEA and time exists during the logarithmic growth phase of recurrent tumors. This relationship is expressed by the DT, which varies according to the site of the metastatic lesions. The DT can be used to assess the efficacy of various treatments (76)(77) and is particularly correlated with the duration of survival (78). Monthly CEA measurements during the first 3 years and then at 3-month intervals for 2 years are, therefore, recommended for postoperative monitoring (69).

The calculated t1/2 should be an earlier predictor than analysis of the CEA ascending slope. After complete surgical resection and in the absence of recurrent disease, CEA concentrations decrease exponentially to reference values, with a t1/2 of ∼5 days. In patients with a recurrence, a dissociation from the theoretical line of the t1/2 is observed before the CEA concentration decreases to the reference interval (79).

Postoperative chemotherapy and particularly combination fluorouracil-levamisole may be effective for metastatic tumors (80). CEA appears to be a practical index and a criterion for evaluating the efficacy of treatment. A 20% decrease in the CEA concentration is considered a positive response to treatment, conferring a substantial improvement of survival (81)(82). The efficacy of regional chemotherapy has been assessed in patients with nonresectable liver metastasis from colorectal cancer: because CEA concentrations may vary considerably between patients, an individual reference value is first established as the arithmetical mean of serial CEA values during the first three courses of chemotherapy. The efficacy of the chemotherapy regimen is indicated by a decrease in the CEA curve to below the individual reference value (83). In recurrent or nonresectable colorectal cancer, different indices, devised with serum CEA fluctuations over time, are helpful in assessing and comparing the effects of various treatments, especially the CEA DT ratio when the CEA DT is modified (84). For the management of patients with hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer, measurement of CEA is mandatory before and after surgery to appreciate whether the resection was curative. Furthermore, postoperative CEA concentrations are among the criteria used to stratify patients for adjuvant treatment (85).

Serial measurements of CEA provide a practical tool for patients undergoing chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer. However, scanning techniques are required to confirm the response suggested by any change in marker expression (86).

ca 125

CA 125 is a useful marker for epithelial ovarian tumors (87)(88). The preoperative serum CA 125 concentration is correlated with the tumor burden and stage, but its prognostic significance is controversial (89)(90). The postoperative concentration is highly correlated with the residual tumor mass (89) and has a significant value that is predictive for survival (91). It must be determined at least 3 weeks after surgery because CA 125 is released when the abdominal cavity is opened (92)(93). Disease progression occurs in 61% of patients presenting with increased CA 125 concentrations before chemotherapy and in only 33% patients with values <35 kilounits/L (94). After the first course of chemotherapy, the predictive value of the CA 125 concentration for disease-free survival is highly significant (95).

During chemotherapy, changes in CA 125 concentrations correlate with the evolution of the disease. The median time to normalization is 1.5 months in patients having attained a complete remission and 4 months in patients having achieved partial remission (96). Increased CA 125 concentrations precede clinical detection of disease and are always associated with tumor progression, as substantiated by second-look surgery. However, in patients with normalized CA 125 concentrations, second-look surgery is still necessary because a CA 125 concentration within the reference interval does not exclude tumor. More than 40% of the patients with a serum CA 125 concentration within the reference interval still have microscopic or macroscopic tumor at second-look surgery (87).

The prognostic value of the t1/2 of CA 125 has been analyzed during induction therapy to identify high-risk patients. In patients with stage I and stage II disease whose tumor had been completely resected, the marker t1/2 varied from 5.1 to 12 days in different studies (96)(97)(98)(99)(100)(101). The greatest difference in progression rate was found at a t1/2 of 20 days. The median times to progression were 43–50 months and 11–23 months in stage I and stage II disease, respectively (94). Patients with a marker t1/2 <20 days have a good prognosis, those with a marker t1/2 from 20 to 40 days have an intermediate prognosis, and those with a marker t1/2 >40 days have a poor prognosis, with actuarial survival at 2 years attaining 76%, 48%, and 0%, respectively (102)(103). The CA 125 t1/2 is the most valuable prognostic factor for survival and for the probability of achieving a complete remission in stage III or IV ovarian cancer responding to initial chemotherapy (104). The t1/2 of CA 125 during early chemotherapy is an independent prognostic factor for achieving a complete response and for survival (91). Evaluating the time required for normalization of CA 125 has also been proposed. A final model including the tumor size, performance status, and the time to normalization of CA 125 permits an accurate prediction of the prognosis (105).

Additional monitoring of declining CA 125 concentrations is based on the exponential regression curve proposed by Buller et al. (99), calculated as serum CA 125 = e[i − s(days after surgery)], where i is the y-axis intercept and reflects the initial tumor burden, and s the slope of the regression curve, with s being dependent on the extent of cytoreductive surgery and on response to chemotherapy. In patients whose tumors had been completely removed, the marker t1/2 was 10.4 days (99). Comparing patients results with those obtained by this model permits an evaluation of treatment efficacy. Divergence from the ideal regression curve can be determined within 30 to 60 days of initial surgery and always leads to treatment failure. Therapy can, therefore, be modified without waiting for second-look findings. Comparison with the model also predicts the presence of residual disease, the risk of recurrence, and overall survival (106)(107). After comparing these two exponential regression models, Yedema et al. (100) showed that survival correlates better with the t1/2 calculated according to Buller et al. (99) than according to van der Burg et al. (94). The CA 125 exponential regression curve was the most important prognostic factor for actuarial survival when analyzed with age, disease stage, grade, the intensity of chemotherapy, and residual disease in the Cox model. With the proportional hazard model, the disease stage was the most predictive variable for survival, and the CA 125 t1/2 calculated according to Buller et al. (99) was the only additional prognostic factor for survival in stage III-IV patients early during the course of therapy (100). During salvage treatment with Taxol, the regression rate did not correlate with the progression-free interval or survival (108).

Rustin et al. (109) selected a specific percentage of decrease in the CA 125 concentration during chemotherapy as evidence for response to treatment. In a large retrospective trial, two response rates were defined according to a reduction of either 50% or 75% in the serum CA 125 concentration from baseline. Three or four CA 125 measurements were required at the end of each cycle of chemotherapy to determine the response rates, the last sample being at least 28 days after the previous sample. The definitions proposed were based on 117 patients in a first trial and further tested on several hundred patients. The results showed better correlation with reduction of lesions in the patients than WHO, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, or Gynecologic Oncology Group criteria and were proposed for use in addition to or as replacements for these criteria. A few studies have been devoted to the CA 125 DT at relapse of ovarian cancer. There is no relationship between the t1/2, DT, and survival, but the log cell kill, estimated by combining the marker t1/2 and DT, was correlated with individual survival (96). Riedinger et al. (110) studied the prognostic significance of the initial t1/2 of CA 125 measured during first-line chemotherapy in 62 patients with epithelial stages III and IV ovarian cancer. The results showed a strong correlation between the t1/2 and the DT, the slope representing initial CA 125 regression and disease-free survival as well as overall survival. The initial t1/2, measured during the first cycles of first-line chemotherapy, appeared to be a critical predictor of response to therapy.

ca 15-3

When breast cancer patients are monitored by serum CA 15-3 concentration, the serum antigen profile in each patient is the criterion during follow-up most indicative of recurrent disease and of response to various treatments. And yet, a third of breast cancer patients with metastasis have CA 15-3 concentrations within the reference interval (111). The use of CA 15-3 kinetic parameters was proposed in patients at high risk of relapse: an increase in the tumor marker should be considered an early indicator of relapse. After radical resection of tumor, CA 15-3 exhibits substantial variation at abnormal concentrations (112). CA 15-3 does not have a negative predictive value. The evolution during follow-up is based on the ratio of two serial CA 15-3 measurements over 1 month (113). CA 15-3 is informative and biologically significant in a few cases if the variation between the preoperative determination and the determination 30 days after surgery is higher than threefold the analytical variation of the assay, even if values fall short of the cutoff. Both cutoff-based and dynamic criteria are used during the monitoring of breast cancer patients to detect early metastasis and even to assess the cure of relapses (114). However, a clinical benefit has not been established, although an increasing CA 15-3 concentration can be considered synonymous with recurrence after primary treatment (61).

discussion

Measuring tumor marker kinetics may be a useful way of improving the efficacy of cancer treatment, but at present there is no consensus as to the usefulness of determining marker dynamics during the monitoring of patients. Indeed, as illustrated by this review devoted to the main tumor markers used, the conclusions of distinct studies addressing the interest of measuring kinetics of a particular marker in a given cancer are frequently at variance. The discrepancies in comparisons of the dynamic results obtained by different groups may be attributable to several factors, including (a) the methodological approaches used to measure markers, which are often dependent on the nature and structure of tumor markers; (b) individual factors such as the pathophysiological state of the patient or the treatment regimen; and (c) the methods used to calculate kinetics and the interpretation of data.

Nature and Structure of Tumor Markers

During the last decade, invaluable efforts have been used to enhance the sensitivity and specificity of detection with tumor markers. Markers are now measured by immunochemical methods, most often based on the classic “two-site” sandwich immunoassay procedure. Its characteristics, particularly the affinity and the specificity of the monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies used, play a critical role in the design of the assay. Antibodies are usually selected for their high affinity to ensure better sensitivity in the immunoassay. Specificity is contingent on more selective recognition of the antigen structure by the antibody on the tumor marker molecule. Indeed, antigen proteins have several distinct antigenic determinants or epitopes protruding from their surface. The number of epitopes is roughly related to the molecular size of the protein. Extensive immunochemical analysis of protein antigens is a mammoth task, and only a few immunochemical maps of tumor markers have in fact been raised. These observations partly explain why two separate kits measuring the same molecule can yield different results. This is particularly true for the detection of hCG and PSA, for which ∼40 commercial tests are currently available. Furthermore, the heterogeneous “faces” of tumor markers complicates the interpretation of data. Indeed, these molecules can exist in biological fluids as several entities, including subunits (hCG), associated forms (PSA), and degradation products (Table 1⇑ ). There may also be variations in both their peptidic and carbohydrate structures that are attributable to either physiological or tumor processes. This has been particularly investigated for hCG-related molecules (45). The structure of hCG is close to that of lutropin, which is detectable in healthy individuals. Not only must detection of hCG be specific in regard to potential cross-reactivity with lutropin (i.e., epitopic specificity), but tumors are capable of secreting various hCG-related molecules [free hCGβ, free hCG α subunit, and β-core fragment; for a review, see Ref. (45)], the clinical significance of which differs according to the tumor histologic type (i.e., structural specificity). In testicular and placental tumors, for example, should we analyze the rate at which either hCG or hCGβ declines or both? PSA circulates in both a protein-linked form and as free PSA. The kinetics of PSA analyzed by methods measuring total PSA may differ from those measured by free-PSA assays. This question must be addressed because specific measurement of free PSA is now available (115). Furthermore, part of the PSA is totally masked on the complex and is not accessible to the detection capacity of the kits currently available (116). Changes in the only carbohydrate chain of AFP have also been described in patients with cancer, compared with that present on normal fetal AFP (117). Some immunoassays bind differently to the two AFP molecules (118). Pitfalls in the interpretation of the kinetics of CA markers are probably more related to their structural heterogeneity than to epitope specificity. Indeed, these markers are defined on the basis of their recognition by specific antibodies and their structure, i.e., the structure of the molecule bearing the “CA” determinant, which still remains unknown. These determinants are often large heterogeneous mucin-like molecules that vary in size according to the pathophysiological state of the individual. Thus, although immunoassays are comparable in terms of epitope specificity, the determination of kinetic parameters may be affected by changes in the structure of the CA-bearing molecule during the course of treatment. Improving the comparability of immunoassays, particularly those used to measure tumor markers, remains a challenge for the future. Through undaunted efforts, international societies have given concrete expression to better characterization of antibodies (119)(120).

Individual Factors

Individual factors such as the pathophysiological state of the patient or the treatment regimen may also affect the measurement and interpretation of marker kinetics. During the monitoring of neoplastic disease, nonspecific increases in tumor marker concentrations can be caused by a variety of benign pathologies (121)(122)(123)(124). Inflammatory diseases are frequently the cause of nonspecific increases in the so-called CA markers. Tumor markers often increase after surgery because of a serous response. In contrast, a false decrease in tumor markers may be attributable to procedures leading to hemodilution (e.g., parenteral nutrition and blood transfusion). An increase in serum AFP may occur in cases of hepatic regeneration (56). Kinetics may also be transiently affected by renal and hepatic diseases, because these tissues are involved in the metabolism of markers (125)(126), and by the aging process (127). Furthermore, tumor recurrences and metastasis may exhibit patterns of marker secretion that are different from that of primary tumors. This factor should be taken into account when interpreting the DT. Aggressive chemotherapy and radiotherapy may provoke massive destruction of cancer cells, leading to a transient increase in serum markers that should not be interpreted as the tumor escaping eradication via chemoresistance. Some therapies stimulate synthesis (128). Increased CEA synthesis has been observed during interferon treatment (129). PSA is controlled by androgens and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (130). The potential effects on tumor marker concentrations of conventional drug therapy used to treat benign diseases in cancer patients remain to be established. Taxol is suspected of modifying CA 125 synthesis in ovarian cancer (131). Finally, anti-species human immunoglobulins, particularly anti-mouse antibodies, are encountered in some patients (132)(133). Human anti-mouse antibodies are sometimes observed in patients who have been submitted to immunoscintigraphy for the detection of recurrences. Human anti-mouse antibodies, autoantibodies, anti-idiotypic antibodies, and rheumatoid factor may generate false-positive results and, thus, interfere with marker dynamics.

Surgical intervention itself may amplify the shedding of markers into the circulation and therefore generate false-positive results. After abdominal surgery, CA 125 increases through tumor handling and peritoneal damage. During surgical intervention, the rupture of natural barriers facilitates the transfer of CA 125 into blood. Increases have been observed in postoperative CA 125 concentrations in malignant and benign diseases of the ovary as well as in diseases of the gastrointestinal tract. Consequently, caution should be exercised when interpreting CA 125 concentrations after abdominal surgery, and especially in patients whose pretreatment CA 125 concentrations were within the reference interval or moderately increased (93).

Marker Determination Methods and the Analysis of Kinetics

The t1/2 or DT of a marker can be calculated after repeated measurements only if the tumor marker is determined with the same method to avoid analytical variations attributable to different kits. Discrepancies between the conclusions of clinical studies may also be related to the methods used to evaluate kinetic parameters. Although tumor growth is exponential, most graphic representations are rarely based on logarithmic units. Logarithmic representation eliminates nonspecific variations. Furthermore, kinetics can be represented as a unique parameter, with the slope depicting either the t1/2 or the DT. This parameter is a characteristic of the behavior of tumor growth. It could be included in a Kaplan-Meier model or any other suitable model to evaluate the efficacy of therapy during the monitoring of patients. Studies comparing two models, based on either linear or exponential regression, showed that the exponential model correlates better with clinical factors (99)(107). However, for many authors (111)(134)(135), there is no difference in the mathematical methods used to determine kinetic parameters.

In fact, the number of sequential measurements, the timing, and the interval between the measurements are probably the main source of variation in the establishment of kinetic factors. For example, a comparison of kinetics that were calculated after chemotherapy using either the presurgery or prechemotherapy concentrations as the baseline value and either the first normalized concentration as the second value or all of the data available indicated that the exponential regression model including the presurgery and all other values correlated better with overall survival (100). The timing of blood sampling is also critical, and it should be scrupulously respected. The marker concentration before treatment may have a prognostic significance, but this value should not be considered as the baseline value, i.e., the origin of the slope of the regression curve. Indeed, several factors contribute to the fluctuation of tumor marker concentrations between diagnosis and the beginning of treatment. As noted previously, chemotherapy as well as surgery induces either cytolysis and transient marker secretion or a reduction in the tumor volume. Thus, the kinetics of markers in patients treated with the same protocol may be particularly difficult to interpret (92)(136). For example, kinetics during the monitoring of breast cancer show three distinct patterns: tumor regression, tumor progression followed by tumor regression, and tumor regression followed by resistance to therapy with major tumor progression. Kinetics evaluated immediately after treatment should not be used (137). The first sample, which could be considered a legitimate value for the origin of the slope of the elimination curve, should be obtained after surgical excision or after induction chemotherapy. Other sequential samples can be collected following a sequence that will depend on the t1/2 of the marker. As described previously for the measurement of PSA after radical prostatectomy (21), if the t0 value is measured 5 min after surgery, the PSA concentration will be higher and the t1/2 shorter than if the t0 is measured 2 days after surgery. Many authors do not agree with sampling 5 min after surgery (138).

In conclusion, several questions and issues need to be addressed when applying dynamic evaluation of markers to the monitoring of patients, particularly the method used to calculate the kinetics and the choice of the data to be included in the mathematical model. However, using tumor kinetics appears to be a more rational way of using tumor markers than the common cutoff point. Indeed, the determination of the t1/2 and DT often provides the most relevant predictive factors for the estimation of disease-free and overall survival, treatment efficacy, and for the decision regarding optimal treatment and cost-effectiveness in terms of toxicity and patient benefit. This approach could be a way to optimize patient management by limiting ineffective treatment and, consequently, the clinical costs of what may be pointless therapies once these dynamic data have clarified the clinical picture (139).

Acknowledgments

We thank Lorna Saint-Ange for editing the manuscript and Véronique Letourneur for expert technical assistance.

Footnotes

  • The authors are members of the “Groupe d’Evaluation et de Recherche des Biologistes de l’Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris” (GERBAP-CANCER; Coordinator, F. Thuillier).

  • This review is dedicated to Prof. A. Lemonnier, founder of the GERBAP.

  • ↵1 Nonstandard abbreviations: AFP, α-fetoprotein; hCG, human chorionic gonadotropin; t1/2, half-life; DT, doubling time; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CA, cancer antigen; BPH, benign prostatic hyperplasia; hCGβ, hCG β subunit; and NSGCTT, nonseminomatous germ-cell testicular tumor.

  • 1 hCGα, α subunit of hCG.

  • © 1999 The American Association for Clinical Chemistry

References

  1. ↵
    Gion M, Mione R, Barioli P, Dittadi R. Dynamic use of tumor markers, rationale-clinical applications and pitfalls. Anticancer Res 1996;16:2279-2284.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  2. ↵
    Wu J, Nakamura R. Human circulating tumor markers, current concepts and clinical applications. Chicago, IL: American Society of Clinical Pathologists, 1997:263pp..
  3. ↵
    Hayes DF, Bast RC, Desch CE, Fritsche H, Kemeny NE, Jessup M, et al. Tumor marker utility system: a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:1456-1466.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    Pamies RJ, Crawford DR. Tumor markers: an update. Med Clin N Am 1996;80:185-199.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  5. ↵
    Carter HB, Pearson JD, Metter EJ, Brant LJ, Chan DW, Andres R, et al. Longitudinal evaluation of prostate-specific antigen levels in men with and without prostate disease. JAMA 1992;267:2215-2220.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  6. ↵
    Carter HB, Morrell CH, Pearson JD, Brant LJ, Plato CC, Metter EJ, et al. Estimation of prostatic growth using serial prostate-specific antigen measurements in men with and without prostate disease. Cancer Res 1992;52:3323-3328.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    Stamey TA, Dietrick DD, Issa MM. Large, organ confined, impalpable transition zone prostate cancer: association with metastatic levels of prostate specific antigen. J Urol 1993;149:510-515.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  8. ↵
    Schmid HP, McNeal JE, Stamey TA. Observations on the doubling time of prostate cancer. The use of serial prostate-specific antigen in patients with untreated disease as a measure of increasing cancer volume. Cancer 1993;71:2031-2040.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  9. ↵
    Weber JP, Oesterling JE, Peters CA, Partin AW, Chan DW, Walsh PC. The influence of reversible androgen deprivation on serum prostate-specific antigen levels in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 1989;141:987-992.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  10. ↵
    Brawer MK, Aramburu EA, Chen GL, Preston SD, Ellis WJ. The inability of prostate specific antigen index to enhance the predictive value of prostate specific antigen in the diagnosis of prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 1993;150:369-373.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  11. ↵
    Stamey TA, Kabalin JN. Prostate specific antigen in the diagnosis and treatment of adenocarcinoma of the prostate. I. Untreated patients. J Urol 1989;141:1070-1075.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  12. ↵
    Zagars GK, Pollack A. The fall and rise of prostate-specific antigen. Kinetics of serum prostate-specific antigen levels after radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Cancer 1993;72:832-842.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  13. ↵
    Cadeddu JA, Pearson JD, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Carter HB. Relationship between changes in prostate-specific antigen and prognosis of prostate cancer. Urology 1993;42:383-389.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  14. ↵
    Carter HB, Pearson JD. PSA velocity for the diagnosis of early prostate cancer. A new concept. Urol Clin N Am 1993;20:665-670.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  15. ↵
    Hanks GE, D’Amico A, Epstein BE, Schultheiss TE. Prostatic-specific antigen doubling times in patients with prostate cancer: a potentially useful reflection of tumor doubling time. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993;27:125-127.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  16. ↵
    D’Amico AV, Hanks GE. Linear regressive analysis using prostate-specific antigen doubling time for predicting tumor biology and clinical outcome in prostate cancer. Cancer 1993;72:2638-2643.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  17. ↵
    Hanks GE, Hanlon AL, Lee WR, Slivjak A, Schultheiss TE. Pretreatment prostate-specific antigen doubling times: clinical utility of this predictor of prostate cancer behavior. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996;34:549-553.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  18. ↵
    Pollack A, Zagars GK, Kavadi VS. Prostate specific antigen doubling time and disease relapse after radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Cancer 1994;74:670-678.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  19. ↵
    Oesterling JE, Chan DW, Epstein JI, Kimball AW, Jr, Bruzek DJ, Rock RC, et al. Prostate specific antigen in the preoperative and postoperative evaluation of localized prostatic cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1988;139:766-772.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  20. ↵
    Stamey TA, Graves HC, Wehner N, Ferrari M, Freiha FS. Early detection of residual prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy by an ultrasensitive assay for prostate specific antigen. J Urol 1993;149:787-792.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  21. ↵
    Semjonow A, Hamm M, Rathert P. Half-life of prostate-specific antigen after radical prostatectomy: the decisive predictor of curative treatment?. Eur Urol 1992;21:200-205.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  22. ↵
    Semjonow A, Hamm M, Rathert P. Prediction of tumor recurrence after radical prostatectomy using elimination kinetics of prostate-specific antigen. World J Urol 1993;11:218-220.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  23. ↵
    van Straalen JP, Bossens MM, de Reijke TM, Sanders GT. Biological half-life of prostate-specific antigen after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1994;32:53-55.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  24. ↵
    Semjonow A, Hamm M, Rathert P. Elimination kinetics of prostate-specific antigen in serum and urine. Int J Biol Markers 1994;9:15-20.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  25. ↵
    Lein M, Brux B, Jung K, Henke W, Koenig F, Stephan C, et al. Elimination of serum total and free prostate-specific antigen after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1997;35:591-595.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  26. ↵
    Bjork T, Ljungberg B, Pironen T, Abrahamsson PA, Pettersson K, Cockett AT, et al. Rapid elimination of free prostate-specific antigen contrasts the slow, capacity-limited elimination of PSA complexed to α1-antichymotrypsin in serum. Urology 1998;51:57-62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  27. ↵
    Ravery V, Meulemans A, Boccon-Gibod L. Clearance of free and total PSA after prostatic surgery. Eur Urol 1998;33:251-254.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  28. ↵
    Haab F, Meulemans A, Boccon-Gibod L, Dauge MC, Delmas V, Boccon-Gibod L. Clearance of serum PSA after open surgery for benign prostatic hypertrophy, radical cystectomy, and radical prostatectomy. Prostate 1995;26:334-338.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  29. ↵
    Brandle E, Gottfried HW, Maier S, Flohr P, Steinbach G, Hautmann RE. [Is radical prostatectomy a suitable model for determination of PSA half-life?]. Urologe A 1995;34:419-423.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  30. ↵
    Morgan WR, Zincke H, Rainwater LM, Myers RP, Klee GG. Prostate specific antigen values after radical retropubic prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate: impact of adjuvant treatment (hormonal and radiation). J Urol 1991;145:319-323.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  31. ↵
    Oesterling JE, Andrews PE, Suman VJ, Zincke H, Myers RP. Preoperative androgen deprivation therapy: artificial lowering of serum prostate specific antigen without downstaging the tumor. J Urol 1993;149:779-782.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  32. ↵
    Zagars GK, Pollack A. Kinetics of serum prostate-specific antigen after external beam radiation for clinically localized prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 1997;44:213-221.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  33. ↵
    Vijayakumar S, Quadri SF, Karrison TG, Trinidad CO, Chan SK, Halpern HJ, et al. Localized prostate cancer: use of serial prostate-specific antigen measurements during radiation therapy. Radiology 1992;184:271-274.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  34. ↵
    Zagars GK, von Eschenbach AC. Prostate-specific antigen. An important marker for prostate cancer treated by external beam radiation therapy. Cancer 1993;72:538-548.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  35. ↵
    Ritter MA, Messing EM, Shanahan TG, Potts S, Chappell RJ, Kinsella TJ. Prostate-specific antigen as a predictor of radiotherapy response and patterns of failure in localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:1208-1217.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    Kaplan ID, Cox RS, Bagshaw MA. Prostate specific antigen after external beam radiotherapy for prostatic cancer: follow-up. J Urol 1993;149:519-522.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  37. ↵
    Fijuth J, Chauvet B, Vincent P, Felix-Faure C, Reboul F. Serum prostate-specific antigen in monitoring the response of carcinoma of the prostate to radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol 1992;23:236-240.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  38. ↵
    Stamey TA, Kabalin JN, Ferrari M, Yang N. Prostate specific antigen in the diagnosis and treatment of adenocarcinoma of the prostate. IV. Anti-androgen treated patients. J Urol 1989;141:1088-1090.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  39. ↵
    Stamey TA, Ferrari MK, Schmid HP. The value of serial prostate specific antigen determinations 5 years after radiotherapy: steeply increasing values characterize 80% of patients. J Urol 1993;150:1856-1859.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  40. ↵
    Morrow CP, Kletzy OA, Disaia PJ, Towsend DE, Mishell DR, Nakamura RM. Clinical and laboratory correlates of molar pregnancy and trophoblastic disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1977;128:424-430.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  41. ↵
    Schlaerth JB, Morrox CP, Kletzy OA, Nalick RH, D’Ablaing GA. Prognostic characteristics of serum chorionic gonadotropin titer regression following molar pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1981;58:478-482.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  42. ↵
    Yedema KA, Verheijen RH, Kenemans P, Schijf CP, Borm GF, Segers MF, et al. Identification of patients with persistent trophoblastic disease by means of a normal human chorionic gonadotropin regression curve. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;168:787-792.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  43. ↵
    Mortakis AE, Braga CA. “Poor prognosis” metastatic gestational trophoblastic disease: the prognostic significance of the scoring system in predicting chemotherapy failure. Obstet Gynecol 1990;76:272-277.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  44. ↵
    International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group. International Germ Cell Consensus Classification: a prognostic factor-based staging system for metastatic germ cell cancers. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:594–603..
  45. ↵
    Bidart JM, Bellet D. Human chorionic gonadotropin: molecular forms, detection and clinical implications. Trends Endocrinol Metab 1993;4:285-291.
  46. ↵
    Thompson DK, Haddow JE. Serial monitoring of serum α-fetoprotein and chorionic gonadotropin in males with germ cell tumors. Cancer 1979;43:1820-1829.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  47. ↵
    Picozzi VJ, Freiha FS, Hannigan JF, Torti FM. Prognostic significance of a decline in serum chorionic gonadotropin levels after chemotherapy for advanced germ-cell carcinoma. Ann Intern Med 1984;100:183-186.
  48. ↵
    Culine S, Kramar A, Biron P, Droz JP. Chemotherapy in adult germ cell tumors. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 1996;22:229-263.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  49. ↵
    Germa-Lluch JR, Begent RH, Bagshawe KD. Tumour marker levels and prognosis in malignant teratoma of the testis. Br J Cancer 1980;42:850-855.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  50. ↵
    Gerl L, Lamerz R, Mann K, Clemm C, Wilmanns W. Is serum tumor marker half-life a guide to prognosis in metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumors?. Anticancer Res 1997;17:3047-3049.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  51. ↵
    Stevens MJ, Norman AR, Dearnaley DP, Horwich A. Prognostic significance of early tumor marker half-life in metastatic testicular teratoma. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:87-92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    de Wit R, Sylvester R, Tsitsa C, de Mulder PH, Sleyfer DT, ten Bokkel Huinink WW, et al. Tumour marker concentration at the start of chemotherapy is a stronger predictor of treatment failure than marker half-life: a study in patients with disseminated non-seminomatous testicular cancer. Br J Cancer 1997;75:432-435.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  53. ↵
    Saxman SB, Nichols CR, Foster RS, Messemer JE, Donohue JP, Einhorn LH. The management of patients with clinical stage I nonseminomatous testicular tumors and persistently elevated serologic markers. J Urol 1996;155:587-589.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  54. ↵
    Toner GC, Geller NL, Tan C, Nisselbaum J, Bosl GJ. Serum tumor marker half-life during chemotherapy allows early prediction of complete response and survival in nonseminomatous germ cell tumors. Cancer Res 1990;50:5904-5910.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. ↵
    Shirabe K, Takenaka K, Gion T, Shimada M, Fujiwara Y, Sugimachi K. Significance of α-fetoprotein levels for detection of early recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatic resection. J Surg Oncol 1997;64:143-146.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  56. ↵
    Johnson PJ, Williams R. Serum α-fetoprotein estimations on doubling time in hepatocellular carcinoma: influence of therapy and possible value in early detection. J Natl Cancer Inst 1980;64:1329-1332.
  57. ↵
    Buamah PK, James OFN, Skillen AW, Harris AL. The value of tumor marker kinetics in the management of patients with primary hepatocellular carcinoma. J Surg Oncol 1988;37:161-164.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  58. ↵
    Kawai M, Furuhashi Y, Kano T, Misawa T, Nakashima N, Hattori S, et al. α-Fetoprotein in malignant germ cell tumors of the ovary. Gynecol Oncol 1990;39:160-166.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  59. ↵
    Walhof CM, Van Sonderen L, Voute PA, Delemarre JF. Half-life of α-fetoprotein in patients with a teratoma, endodermal sinus tumor, or hepatoblastoma. Pediatr Hematol Oncol 1988;5:217-227.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  60. ↵
    Han SJ, Yoo S, Choi SH, Hwang EH. Actual half-life of alpha-fetoprotein as a prognostic tool in pediatric malignant tumors. Pediatr Surg Int 1997;12:599-602.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  61. ↵
    American Society of Clinical Oncology. Clinical practice guidelines for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:2843–77..
  62. ↵
    Sorokin JJ, Sugarbaker PH, Zamcheck N, Pisick M, Kupchik HZ, Moore FD. Serial carcinoembryonic antigen assays. Use in detection of cancer recurrence. JAMA 1974;228:49-53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  63. ↵
    Mackay AM, Patel S, Carter S, Stevens U, Laurence DJR, Cooper EH, et al. Role of serial plasma CEA assays in detection of recurrent and metastatic colorectal carcinomas. Br Med J 1974;4:382-385.
  64. ↵
    Sikorska H, Schuster J, Gold P. Clinical applications of carcinoembryonic antigen. Cancer Detect Prev 1988;12:321-355.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  65. ↵
    Minton JP, Martin EW, Jr. The use of serial CEA determinations to predict recurrence of colon cancer and when to do a second-look operation. Cancer 1978;42:1422-1427.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  66. ↵
    Staab HJ, Anderer FA, Stumpf E, Fischer R. Slope analysis of the postoperative CEA time course and its possible application as an aid in diagnosis of disease progression in gastrointestinal cancer. Am J Surg 1978;136:322-327.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  67. ↵
    National Institutes of Health. Carcinoembryonic antigen: its role as a marker in the management of cancer. A National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference. Ann Intern Med 1981;94:407–9..
  68. ↵
    Minton JP, Hoehn JL, Gerber DM, Horsley JS, Connolly DP, Salwan F, et al. Results of a 400-patient carcinoembryonic antigen second-look colorectal cancer study. Cancer 1985;55:1284-1290.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  69. ↵
    Sugarbaker PH, Gianola FJ, Dwyer A, Neuman NR. A simplified plan for follow-up of patients with colon and rectal cancer supported by prospective studies of laboratory and radiologic test results. Surgery 1987;102:79-87.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  70. ↵
    Chu DZJ, Erickson CA, Russell P, Thompson C, Lang NP, Broadwater RJ, et al. Prognostic significance of carcinoembryonic antigen in colorectal carcinoma. Arch Surg 1991;126:314-316.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  71. ↵
    Staab HJ, Anderer FFA, Stumpf E, Hornung A, Fischer R, Kieninger G. Eighty-four potential second-look operations based on sequential carcinoembryonic antigen determinations and clinical investigations in patients with recurrent gastrointestinal cancer. Am J Surg 1985;149:198-204.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  72. ↵
    Moertel CG, Shutt AJ, Go VLW. Carcinoembryonic antigen test for recurrent colorectal carcinoma. Inadequacy for early detection. JAMA 1978;239:1065-1066.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  73. ↵
    Steele G, Jr, Ellenberg S, Ramming K, O’Connell M, Moertel C, Lessner H, et al. CEA monitoring among patients in multi-institutional adjuvant GI therapy protocols. Ann Surg 1982;196:162-169.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  74. ↵
    Boey J, Cheung HC, Lai CK, Wong J. A prospective evaluation of serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels in the management of colorectal carcinoma. World J Surg 1984;8:279-286.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  75. ↵
    Denstman F, Rosen L, Khuchandani IT, Sheets J, Stasik JJ, Riether R. Comparing predictive decision rules in postoperative CEA monitoring. Cancer 1986;58:2089-2095.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  76. ↵
    Staab HJ, Anderer FA, Hornung A, Stumpf E, Fisher R. Doubling time of circulating CEA and its relation to survival of patients with recurrent colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 1982;46:773-781.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  77. ↵
    Umehara Y, Kimura T, Yoshida M, Oba N, Harada Y. Comparison of doubling times of serum carcinoembryonic antigen produced by various metastatic lesions in recurrent gastric and colorectal carcinomas. Cancer 1993;71:4055-4059.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  78. ↵
    Korenaga D, Saeki H, Mawatari K, Orita H, Maekawa S, Ikeda T, et al. Serum carcinoembryonic antigen concentration doubling time correlates with tumor biology and life expectancy in patients with recurrent gastrointestinal carcinoma. Arch Surg 1997;132:188-194.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  79. ↵
    Takahashi Y, Mai M. Usefulness of sequential post-surgical tumor markers monitoring: prediction of remaining cancers by calculating dissociation from a half life period line. Ann Cancer Res Ther 1993;2:87-89.
  80. ↵
    Moertel CG, Fleming TR, MacDonald JS, Haller DG, Laurie JA, Goodman PJ, et al. Levamisole and fluorouracil for adjuvant therapy of resected colon carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1990;322:352-358.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  81. ↵
    Hine KR, Dykes PW. Prospective randomised trial of early cytotoxic therapy for recurrent colorectal carcinoma detected by serum CEA. Gut 1984;25:682-688.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  82. ↵
    Allen-Mersh TG, Kemeny N, Niedzwiecki D, Shurgot B, Daly JM. Significance of a fall in serum CEA concentration in patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy for disseminated colorectal disease. Gut 1987;28:1625-1626.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  83. ↵
    Quentmeier A, Schlag P, Hohenberger P, Schwarz V, Abel U. Assessment of serial carcinoembryonic antigen: determinations to monitor the therapeutic progress and prognosis of metastatic liver disease treated by regional chemotherapy. J Surg Oncol 1989;40:112-118.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  84. ↵
    Iwama T, Mishima Y, Sato H. A proposal of indices to describe the carcinoembryonic antigen time course in order to assess the effects of treating recurrent colorectal carcinoma. Jpn J Surg 1990;20:123-126.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  85. ↵
    Hohenberger P, Schlag PM, Gernerth T, Herfath C. Pre- and postoperative carcinoembryonic antigen determinations in hepatic resection for colorectal metastases. Predictive value and implications for adjuvant treatment based on multivariate analysis. Ann Surg 1994;219:135-141.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  86. ↵
    Ward U, Primrose JN, Finan PJ, Perren TJ, Selby P, Purves DA, et al. The use of tumor markers CEA, CA-195 and CA-242 in evaluating the response to chemotherapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 1993;67:1132-1135.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  87. ↵
    van der Burg MEL, Lammes FB, Verweij J. CA 125 in ovarian cancer. Neth J Med 1992;40:36-51.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  88. ↵
    Kenemans P, Yedema CA, Bon GG, Von Mensdorff Pouilly S. CA 125 in gynecological pathology: a review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1993;49:115-124.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  89. ↵
    Makar AP, Kristensen GB, Kaern J, Bormer OP, Abeler VM, Trope CG, et al. Prognostic value of pre- and postoperative serum CA 125 levels in ovarian cancer: new aspects and multivariate analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1992;6:1002-1010.
    OpenUrl
  90. ↵
    Nagele F, Petru E, Medl M, Kainz C, Graf AH, Sevelda P. Preoperative CA 125. an independent prognostic factor in patients with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1995;86:259-264.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  91. ↵
    Gadducci A, Zola P, Landoni F, Maggino T, Sartori E, Bergamino T, Cristofani R. Serum half life of CA 125 during early chemotherapy as an independent prognostic variable for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: results of a multicentric Italian study. Gynecol Oncol 1995;58:42-47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  92. ↵
    Mogensen O, Brock A, Nyland MH. CA 125 measurements in ovarian cancer patients during their first postoperative week. Int J Gynecol Cancer 1993;3:54-56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  93. ↵
    Yedema CA, Kenemans P, Thomas CM, Massuger LF, Wobbes T, Verstraeten R, et al. CA 125 serum levels in the early post operative period do not reflect tumour reduction obtained by cytoreductive surgery. Eur J Cancer 1993;29:966-971.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  94. ↵
    van der Burg MEL, Lammes FB, Van Putten WLJ, Stoter G. Ovarian cancer: the prognostic value of the serum half-life of CA 125 during induction chemotherapy. Gynecol Oncol 1988;30:307-312.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  95. ↵
    Fisken J, Leonard RCF, Stewart M, Beattie GJ, Sturgeon C, Aspinall L, et al. The prognostic value of early CA 125 serum assay in epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Br J Cancer 1993;68:140-145.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  96. ↵
    Willemse HB, Aalders JG, de Bruyn HWA, Mulder NH, Sleijfer DT, de Vries EGE. CA 125 in ovarian cancer: relation between half-life, doubling time and survival. Eur J Cancer 1991;8:993-995.
    OpenUrl
  97. ↵
    Markowska J, Kopczynski Z, Szewierski Z, Manys G. CA 125 in monitoring chemotherapy of patients with ovarian cancer. Eur J Gynecol Oncol 1990;3:209-214.
  98. ↵
    Markowska J, Manys G, Szewierski Z. CA 125 in monitoring clinical course in ovarian cancer patients. A prospective clinical study. Eur J Gynecol Oncol 1992;2:201-204.
  99. ↵
    Buller RE, Berman ML, Bloss JD, Manetta A, Disaia PJ. CA 125 regression: a model for epithelial ovarian cancer response. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:360-367.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  100. ↵
    Yedema CA, Kenemans P, Voorhorst F, Bon G, Schijf C, Beex L, et al. CA 125 half-life in ovarian cancer: a multivariate survival analysis. Br J Cancer 1993;67:1361-1367.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  101. ↵
    Cruickshank DJ, Terry PB, Fullerton WT. The potential value of CA 125 as a tumour marker in small volume, non-evaluable epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Biol Markers 1991;4:247-252.
  102. ↵
    Hawkins RE, Roberts K, Wiltshaw E, Mundy J, Fryatt IJ, McCready VR. The prognostic significance of the half-life of serum CA 125 in patients responding to chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989;96:1395-1399.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  103. ↵
    Hunter VJ, Daly L, Helms M, Soper JT, Berchuck A, Clarke-Pearson DL, et al. The prognostic significance of CA 125 half-life in patients with ovarian cancer who have received primary chemotherapy after surgical cytoreduction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;163:1164-1167.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  104. ↵
    Meier W, Stieber P, Fateh-Moghadam A, Eiermann W, Hepp H. [Prognostic significance of the CA 125 half-life for the further outcome of ovarian cancer]. Geburtsh Frauenheilkd 1992;52:528-532.
    OpenUrl
  105. ↵
    Frasci G, Conforti S, Zullo F, Mastrantonio P, Comella G, Comella P, et al. A risk model for ovarian carcinoma patients using CA 125. Cancer 1996;77:1122-1130.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  106. ↵
    Buller RE, Berman ML, Bloss JD, Manetta A, DiSaia PJ. Serum CA 125 regression in epithelial ovarian cancer: correlation with reassessment findings and survival. Gynecol Oncol 1992;47:87-92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  107. ↵
    Buller RE, Vasilev S, Disaia PJ. CA 125 kinetics. A cost effective clinical tool to evaluate clinical trial outcomes in the 1990s. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:1241-1254.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  108. ↵
    Pearl ML, Yashar CM, Johnston CM, Reynolds RK, Roberts JA. Exponential regression of CA 125 during salvage treatment of ovarian cancer with taxol. Gynecol Oncol 1994;53:339-343.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  109. ↵
    Rustin GJS, Nelstrop AE, McClean P, Brady MF, McGuire WP, Hoskins WJ, et al. Defining response of ovarian carcinoma to initial chemotherapy according to serum CA 125. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:1545-1551.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  110. ↵
    Riedinger JM, Barillot I, Coudert B, Fargeot P, Berrioolo-Riedinger A, Guerrin J. Valeur pronostique de la demi-vie initiale du CA 125 mesurée au cours de la chimiothérapie d’induction chez 62 patientes porteuses de tumeur épithéliale ovarienne stade III et IV. Bull Cancer 1996;83:654-663.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  111. ↵
    Schmidt-Rhode P, Schultz KD, Sturm G, Raab-Frick A, Prinz H. CA 15.3 as a tumor marker in breast cancer. Int J Biol Markers 1987;3:33-38.
  112. ↵
    Gion M, Fila G, Biasoli R, Vignati G, Mione R, Saracchini S, et al. Kinetic use of tumor markers in the follow-up of patients operated for primary breast cancer. J Nuclear Med Allied Sci 1990;34:1-7.
  113. ↵
    Dnistrian AM, Schwartz MK, Greenberg EJ, Smith CA, Schwartz DC. CA 15.3 and carcinoembryonic antigen in the clinical evaluation of breast cancer. Clin Chim Acta 1991;200:81-94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  114. ↵
    Gion M, Ruggeri G, Mione R, Marconato R, Casell A, Nosadini A, et al. A new approach to tumor marker assessment by perioperative determination in breast and colorectal cancer. Int J Biol Markers 1993;1:8-13.
    OpenUrl
  115. ↵
    Jung K, Stephan C, Lein M, Henke W, Schnorr D, Brux B, et al. Analytical performance and clinical validity of two free prostate-specific antigen assays compared. Clin Chem 1996;42:1026-1033.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  116. ↵
    McCormack RT, Rittenhouse HG, Finlay JA, Sokoloff RL, Wang TJ, Wolfert RL, et al. Molecular forms of prostate-specific antigen and the human kallikrein gene family: a new era. Urology 1995;45:729-744.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  117. ↵
    Aoyagi Y, Saitoh A, Susuki Y, Igarashi K, Oguro M, Yokota T, et al. Fucosylation index of alphafoetoprotein, a possible aid in the early recognition of hepatocellular carcinoma, a possible patients with cirrhosis. Hepatology 1993;17:50-52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  118. ↵
    Bellet DH, Wands JR, Isselbacher KJ, Bohuon C. Serum α-fetoprotein levels in human disease: perspective from a highly specific monoclonal radioimmunoassay. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1984;81:3869-3873.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  119. ↵
    Nap M, Vitali A, Nustad K, Bast RC, Jr, O’Brien TJ, Nilsson O, et al. Immunohistochemical characterization of 22 monoclonal antibodies against the CA125 antigen: 2nd report from the ISOBM TD-1 Workshop. Tumour Biol 1996;17:325-331.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  120. ↵
    Sokoloff RL, Wolfert RL, Rittenhouse HG. Standardization of PSA immunoassays: proposals and practical limitations. J Clin Ligand Assay 1995;:1886-1892.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  121. ↵
    Ferrero JM, Largillier R, Ramaioli A, Heudier P, Teissier E, Namer M. Valeur pronostique de la normalisation précoce du CA 125 au cours de la chimiothérapie des tumeurs de l’ovaire stades III et IV. Bull Cancer 1997;84:722-728.
  122. ↵
    Daoud E, Bodor G, Weaver C, Ladenson JH, Scott MG. CA 125 concentrations in malignant and non malignant disease. Clin Chem 1991;37:1968-1974.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  123. ↵
    Ruibal Morell A. CEA serum levels in non-neoplastic diseases. Int J Biol Markers 1992;7:160-166.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  124. ↵
    Liaw YF, Tai DI, Chen JJ, Chu CM, Huang MJ. α-Fetoprotein changes in the course of chronic hepatitis: relation to bridging hepatic necrosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver 1986;6:133-137.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  125. ↵
    Oberbauer R, Banyai S, Schmidt A, Kornek G, Scheithauer W, Mayer G. Serum tumor markers after renal transplantation. Transplantation 1996;62:1506-1509.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  126. ↵
    Lye WC, Tambyah P, Leong SO, Lee EJ. Serum tumor markers in patients on dialysis and kidney transplantation. Adv Perit Dial 1994;10:109-111.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  127. ↵
    Lopez LA, Del Villar V, Ulla M, Fernandez F, Fernandez LA, Santos I, et al. Prevalence of abnormal levels of serum tumour markers in elderly people. Age Ageing 1996;25:45-50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  128. ↵
    Wadler S, Schwartz EL, Golman M, Lyver A, Rader M, Zimmerman M, et al. Fluorouracil and recombinant α-2a-interferon; an active regimen against advanced colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1989;7:1769-1775.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  129. ↵
    Greiner JW, Guadagni F, Goldstein D, Borden EC, Ritts RE, Jr, Witt P, et al. Evidence of serum carcinoembryonic antigen and tumor associated glycoprotein-72 in patients administered interferons. Cancer Res 1991;51:4155-4163.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  130. ↵
    Ruckle HC, Oesterling JE. Prostate-specific antigen and androgen deprivation therapy. World J Urol 1993;11:227-232.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  131. ↵
    van der Burg MEL, Myles JD, Hoskins PJ, Ten Bokkel Huinink WW, Eisenhauer E. CA125 is an unreliable marker for monitoring response to Taxol therapy in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer [Abstract]. Eur J Cancer 1993;29A:133.
  132. ↵
    Boerman OC, Segers MF, Poels LG, Kenemans P, Thomas CMJMB. Heterophilic antibodies in human sera causing falsely increased results in the CA 125 immunofluorometric assay. Clin Chem 1990;36:888-891.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  133. ↵
    Reinsberg J. Interference by human antibodies with tumor marker assays. Hybridoma 1995;4:205-208.
  134. ↵
    Cruickshank DJ, Paul J, Lewis CR, McAllister EJ, Kaye SB. An independent evaluation of the potential clinical usefulness of proposed CA-125 indices previously shown to be of prognostic significance in epithelial ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer 1992;65:597-600.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  135. ↵
    Rustin GJ, Nelstrop AE, McClean P, Brady MF, McGuire WP, Hoskins WJ, et al. Defining response of ovarian carcinoma to initial chemotherapy according to serum CA 125. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:1545-1551.
  136. ↵
    van der Zee AG, Duk JM, Aalders JG, Boontje AH, ten Hoor KA, de Bruijn HW. The effect of abdominal surgery on the serum concentration of the tumour-associated antigen CA 125. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;97:934-941.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  137. ↵
    Kiang DT, Greenberg LJ, Kennedy BJ. Tumor marker kinetics in the monitoring of breast cancer. Cancer 1990;65:193-199.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  138. ↵
    Stamey TA. Lower limits of detection, biological detection limits, functional sensitivity, or residual cancer detection limit ? Sensitivity reports on prostate specific antigen assays mislead clinicians. Clin Chem 1996;42:849-852.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  139. ↵
    Leaning MS, Gallivan S, Newlands ES, Dent J, Brampton M, Smith DB, Bagshawe KD. Computer system for assisting with clinical interpretation of tumour marker data. Br Med J 1992;305:804-807.
  140. Hara M, Koyamagi Y, Inoue T, Fukuyama T. Some physicochemical characteristics of γ-seminoprotein; an antigenic component specific for human seminal plasma. Jpn J Legal Med 1971;25:322-324.
    OpenUrl
  141. Ascheim S, Zondek B. Das Hormon Der Hypophysenvorderlapens: Testobjeckt zum Nachweis des Hormons. Klin Wochenschr 1927;6:248-252.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  142. Bergstrand CG, Czar B. Demonstration of a new protein fraction in serum from the human fetus. Scand J Clin Lab Investig 1956;8:1070-1077.
    OpenUrl
  143. Armbruster DA. Prostate-specific antigen: biochemistry, analytical methods and clinical application. Clin Chem 1993;39:181-195.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  144. Pierce JG, Parsons TF. Glycoprotein hormones: structure and function. Annu Rev Biochem 1981;50:465-495.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  145. Deutsch HF. Chemistry and biology of a fetoprotein. Adv Cancer Res 1991;56:253-311.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  146. Chu TM, Kawinski E, Hibi N, Crogham G, Wiley J, Killian CS, et al. Prostate-specific antigen domain of human prostate-specific antigen identified with monoclonal antibodies. J Urol 1989;141:151-155.
    OpenUrl
  147. Jameson JL, Hollenberg AN. Regulation of chorionic gonadotropin gene expression. Endocr Rev 1993;14:203-221.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  148. Korhonen J, Alfthan H, Ylostalo P, Veldhuis J, Stenman UH. Disappearance of human chorionic gonadotropin and its α- and β-subunits after term pregnancy. Clin Chem 1997;43:2155-2163.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  149. Keller RH, Lyman S. α-Fetoprotein: biological and clinical potential. Rhodes BA eds. Tumor imaging 1982:41-52 Masson Publishing New York. .
  150. Oesterling JE. Prostate-specific antigen: a critical assessment of the most useful tumor marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1991;145:907-923.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  151. Stenman UH, Bidart JM, Birken S, Mann K, Nisula B, O’Connor J. Standardization of protein immunoprocedures. Choriogonadotropin (CG). Scand J Clin Lab Investig Suppl 1993;216:42-78.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  152. Alfthan H, Stenman UH. Pathophysiological importance of various molecular forms of human choriogonadotropin. Mol Cell Endocrinol 1996;125:107-120.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  153. Lamerz R. AFP isoforms and their clinical significance. Anticancer Res 1997;17:2927-2930.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  154. Gold P, Freedman SO. Demonstration of tumor-specific antigens in human colonic carcinoma by immunological tolerance and adsorption techniques. J Exp Med 1965;21:439-462.
  155. Bast RC, Freeney M, Lazarus H, Nadler LM, Colvin RB, Knapp RC. Reactivity of a monoclonal antibody with human ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Investig 1981;68:1331-1337.
  156. Kufe D, Imghirami G, Miyako A. Differential reactivity of a novel monoclonal antibody (DF3) with human malignant versus benign breast tumors. Hybridoma 1984;3:223-232.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  157. Hilkens J, Hilgers J, Buijs F. Monoclonal antibodies against human milk fat globule membranes detecting differentiation antigens of mammary gland and its tumors. Int J Cancer 1984;34:197-206.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  158. Thomas P, Toth CA, Saini KS, Jessup JM, Steele G, Jr. The structure, metabolism and function of the carcinoembryonic antigen gene family. Biochim Biophys Acta 1990;1032:177-189.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  159. Yamashita K, Totami K, Kuroki M, Ueda I, Kobata A. Structural studies of the carbohydrate moieties of carcinoembryonic antigens. Cancer Res 1987;47:3451-3459.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  160. Siddiqui J, Abe M, Hayes DF, Shani E, Yunis E, Kufe DW. Isolation and sequencing on and cDNA coding for human DF3 breast carcinoma associated antigen. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1988;85:2320-2323.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  161. Verheist J, Van den Broecke E, Van Meerbeeck J, De Backer W, Blockx P, Vermeire P. Calculation of half-life of carcinoembryonic antigen after lung tumor resection: a case report. Eur Respir J 1991;4:374-376.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  162. Hammarstrom S, Shively JE, Paxton RJ, Beatty BG, Larsson A, Ghosh R, et al. Antigenic sites in carcinoembryonic antigen. Cancer Res 1989;49:4852-4858.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  163. O’Brien T, Raymond LR, Bannon GA, Ford DH, Hardadottir H, Miller FC, et al. New monoclonal antibodies identify the glycoprotein carrying the CA 125 epitope. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:1857-1864.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  164. Tobias R, Rothwel C, Wagner J, Green A, Liu YSV. Development and evaluation of radioimmunoassay for the detection of a monoclonal antibody defined breast cancer associated antigen 115D8/DF3 [Abstract]. Proceeding of the Symposium of the American Association for Analytical Clinical Chemistry, 24 July 1985, Atlanta, GA:73–4..
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Vol. 45, Issue 10
October 1999
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Share
Kinetics of Serum Tumor Marker Concentrations and Usefulness in Clinical Monitoring
Jean-Michel Bidart, François Thuillier, Christine Augereau, Jacqueline Chalas, Alain Daver, Nelly Jacob, Françoise Labrousse, Hélène Voitot
Clinical Chemistry Oct 1999, 45 (10) 1695-1707;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Kinetics of Serum Tumor Marker Concentrations and Usefulness in Clinical Monitoring
Jean-Michel Bidart, François Thuillier, Christine Augereau, Jacqueline Chalas, Alain Daver, Nelly Jacob, Françoise Labrousse, Hélène Voitot
Clinical Chemistry Oct 1999, 45 (10) 1695-1707;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Dynamic Aspects of Tumor Markers
    • Nature and Structure of Tumor Markers
    • Individual Factors
    • Marker Determination Methods and the Analysis of Kinetics
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • A New Era in Liquid Biopsy: From Genotype to Phenotype
  • Clinical Massively Parallel Sequencing
  • Molecular and Functional Characterization of Circulating Tumor Cells: From Discovery to Clinical Application
Show more Reviews

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • SUBJECT AREAS
    • Proteomics and Protein Markers
    • Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine and Test Utilization

Options

  • Home
  • About
  • Articles
  • Information for Authors
  • Resources
  • Abstracts
  • Submit
  • Contact
  • RSS

Other Publications

  • The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
Footer logo

© 2019 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Powered by HighWire