It is advantageous to use both CEA level and the CONUT score to assess the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer, which reflect both tumor-related factors and host-related factors, respectively.
Associations between FITC, CEA, NLR, foxp3+ Treg lymphocytes (both 1- and 3-year OS), CA 19-9, or VEGF and GC OS were supported by highly suggestive evidence, however, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to inadequate methodological quality as deemed by AMSTAR 2.0.
Data from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis disclosed a better diagnostic accuracy of plasma DEK than carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19.9 (CA 19.9), and C-reactive protein (CRP), highlighting its potential as an effective plasma biomarker for GC.
There were significant differences in age, gender, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen (CA) 153 between gastric cancer and healthy controls (<i>P</i><0.05).
Combined measurement of SYT13 and CEA mRNA levels in peritoneal lavage fluid could serve as a promising approach to predict peritoneal recurrence of GC.
Serum TK1, CA 19-9, CA 72-4 and CEA levels were measured in 169 patients with GC, 344 patients with CRC and 75 healthy controls using electro-chemiluminescence.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the significance of perioperative serum levels of CEA and CA19-9 for predicting the recurrence and long-term survival after patients with pT2-4 GC undergo curative gastrectomy.
We developed a dual-label time-resolved fluoroimmunoassay (TRFIA) to simultaneously detect carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in human serum to aid the diagnosis and prognosis of gastric cancer.
This study aims to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of 5 common tumor biomarkers (CA19-9, CA125, PG, IncRNA, and DNA methylation) and CEA and their combinations for diagnosing gastric cancer through network meta-analysis method, and to rank these tests using a superiority index.
sLAG3 in PB was poorly expressed and its expression was positively correlated with IL-12 and IFN-γ expression in GC patients. sLAG3 was proved to have a higher diagnostic value than CEA in GC.
Whereas NLR, PLR and CEA are known to help distinguish GC from benign gastric lesions, combining CEA with PLR or NLR offers better diagnostic value for GC than any of them used alone.
Survival analysis showed that large tumor size (>5 cm), elevated preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level, advanced TNM stage and high CXCR6 expression indicated worse overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in GC, and CXCR6 was an independent predictor for both OS and DFS in GC.
Although carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 are the most commonly used tumor markers in gastric cancer, the differences in the characteristics of these two markers remain unclear, because most previous studies have included many patients who were positive for both markers.
Compared with CEA, CA19-9, CA72-4 and CA50, CFD may prove to be a better biomarker for the screening of GC, thus providing a sensitive biomarker for screening and monitoring progression of GC.
Multivariate survival analysis showed that CEA (OR = 4.924), and T category (OR = 2.214) were significant prognostic factors for stage pN<sub>0</sub> GC (all <i>P</i> < 0.05).