Original Article
Serum tumor markers predict cancer-related venous thromboembolism in gastric cancer
Abstract
Background: To investigate the relationship between the preoperative level of serum tumor markers and cancer-related venous thromboembolism (CVT) in patients with gastric cancer.
Methods: A total of 1,005 patients with gastric cancer who underwent curative resection were finally enrolled in this study. Serum tumor markers including carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen (CA)19-9, CA242, CA72-4, CA125 were tested within 1 week before curative surgery. Measurement data between groups were compared with t-test. The sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPN), positive predictive values (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV) of five biomarkers and the combination group were calculated, respectively. The odds ratios (ORs) were calculated via both univariate and multivariate logistic regression models.
Results: CVT was found in 540 (53.73%) patients. The increase of each cancer marker is remarkably related with CVT. The more abnormal serum tumor markers come out, the high the risk of positive CVT can be. The possibility of positive CVT would be 2.9 times as much as a normal patient as any of the tumor markers increases. With the increase of any 4 of the tumor markers can make the risk 16.4 times.
Conclusions: The status of postoperative CVT can be predicted from preoperative serum tumor markers. For those patients with a high risk of positive CVT, more aggressive treatment should be arranged.
Methods: A total of 1,005 patients with gastric cancer who underwent curative resection were finally enrolled in this study. Serum tumor markers including carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen (CA)19-9, CA242, CA72-4, CA125 were tested within 1 week before curative surgery. Measurement data between groups were compared with t-test. The sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPN), positive predictive values (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV) of five biomarkers and the combination group were calculated, respectively. The odds ratios (ORs) were calculated via both univariate and multivariate logistic regression models.
Results: CVT was found in 540 (53.73%) patients. The increase of each cancer marker is remarkably related with CVT. The more abnormal serum tumor markers come out, the high the risk of positive CVT can be. The possibility of positive CVT would be 2.9 times as much as a normal patient as any of the tumor markers increases. With the increase of any 4 of the tumor markers can make the risk 16.4 times.
Conclusions: The status of postoperative CVT can be predicted from preoperative serum tumor markers. For those patients with a high risk of positive CVT, more aggressive treatment should be arranged.
