Tumor markers - Good info!

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20030915/107... /> <br /> The above link is to the American Family Physicians website.
I went looking for this info as my interest was pricked by some of the posts from you all which mention markers and your lack of sensitivity to them. There was a marker mentioned called CA 15 (which I think should be CA 15-3, as I can find no CA 15). I was curious about it as it was not one I had and wanted to know why.
This article as well as others I found indicate that the CA 27-29 is more specific and is a better tool for tracking disease after treatment for mets. This was comforting as my cancer center has a national reputation for being a leader.
The other interesting thing about this link is a table with what other conditions (including BENIGN) could raise the level and how this can interfere with its efficacy in tracking disease. (There were posts from some of you saying that the markers were not good indicators in your case and here could be some reasons why that the docs don't tell us about.)
Hope this bit of research helps answer some of your questions as it did for me.

Thanks, Stephanie, I appreciate you posting that info. My CA 27-29 seems to be on target when it moves, but I'm pleased to read more info about it than I have. It's doing something a little odd now, so maybe this will help me figure out why.
Take care,
Jackie

Thanks Steph, it's an informative article. I was educated!
hugs, Lolly

Thanks, Steph. I was beginning to wonder if we should be using CA-13 (?) since I've seen posts about it being more accurate. My current 27-29 marker was at 51 last week, the lowest ever. Today I find out results of my whole body CT scan. We'll see just how accurate it is...

Love and healing light,

Lisa