stats on tumor markers

[Lani]

Anticancer Res. 2007 Jul-Aug;27(4A):1963-8.
Importance of CEA and CA 15-3 during disease progression in metastatic breast cancer patients.

Laessig D, Nagel D, Heinemann V, Untch M, Kahlert S, Bauerfeind I, Stieber P.
Department of Internal Medicine III, University Hospital, Munich, Germany.
The aim of this study analysis was to determine the correlation between elevation of CEA and/or CA 15-3 and disease progression of metastatic breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated 119 breast cancer patients who had metachronous metastases. We evaluated levels of CEA and CA 15-3 at the time of first recurrence and at every further disease progression (PD). RESULTS: Increasing value levels of CEA as well as CA 15-3 were found in correlation to the number of PD with a continuously increasing sensitivity in the detection of metastatic disease for each marker alone and especially in combination. At the first time of distant metastasis, CEA and CA 15-3 were above the 95th percentile of healthy individuals in 53.5% and 71.8%, respectively. During disease progression the sensitivities were: 1st PD for CEA/ CA 15-3 54.1%/ 70.6%, 2nd PD 63.5%/ 81.2% and 3rd PD 68.6%/ 90%. CONCLUSION: There is a correlation between elevation of CEA and/or CA 15-3 and disease progression, in breast cancer patients.
PMID: 17649806 [PubMed - in process]

[hutchibk]

Yup. At least for me it is true regarding CA15.3. Luckily. And we always pay very close attention to it as it has always correlated directly to my recurrances...

[suzan w]

would be interested to know if there are similar stats for early stage, tumor markers...CA 27 28 (I think?!)

[tousled1]

Unfortunately I'm one whose tumor markers do not rise. Even in July when advanced to Stage IV tumor markers were still normal. My oncologist said that tumor markers are not a good indicator for me. Upon my original diagnosis of Stage IIIC my tumor marker was 15.3. I relied on the HER2 serum test. My baseline was 10.1 and gradually dropped to 6.3. When it went up to 9.5 in June I asked for a scan and that's when we found the lung mets. My tumor marker is still normal. I do know that there are several women on the board whose tumor markers are a great indicator.

[StephN]

Once my fast progression was getting under control, my med onc decided to test my CEA. It was done a few weeks in a row along with the CA27-29, which had been a good marker for me. They correlated.

Once these markers got into their normal ranges, and I was brewing a couple of brain mets, only the CEA rose that time. I had two distinct brain tumors and not the scattered pinpoint kind.

To this day even my new med onc feels we need to check both markers every 6 weeks as the CEA was so indicative of my brain mets. BTW - it was .6 last time, so we are not looking for any active brain mets when I have the MRI next week.

I know some new and better markers are in development. Hope they will do better for you, Kate!

[Brenda_D]

My CA27-29 markers were checked before and during chemo. They never went above 8.
I guess I'm one that the markers don't work for.

[hutchibk]

I would ask the doc to check CA15.3 also, maybe that is the more sensitive marker for you? I know it is for me.

[Brenda_D]

The Onc told me that the CA27-29 replaces the CA15.3.
I asked about it when I started chemo.

I haven't had bloodwork since March. They haven't been able to draw blood from my port, and tell me we just won't worry about it. I guess because it never was reliable for me anyway.

I get Herceptin next week again, so I'll ask about bloodwork then.
It's been nice not to get stuck so much, but I do wonder if anything's changed.

[Adriana Mangus]

I am interested as well in finding out whether there are stats related to CA 2729..and the relation to bc mets... Let me know if you hear anything. Thanks

[hutchibk]

This article gives a pretty good description of the different roles of CEA, CA 15.3, and CA 27.29...

http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/52/3/345

My onc told me that one does not replace another, that they are both fairly similar in the info they provide. I know that 15.3 has been my life-saver and earliest indicator of all of my mets, so we are not inclined to deviate at all from it unless it stops correlating so closely to my recurrances.