Clinical diagnostic utility of CA 15‑3 for the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion: A meta‑analysis

Wu,Qiang; Li,Min; Zhang,Shu; Chen,Lu; Gu,Xingting; Xu,Feng

doi:10.3892/etm.2014.2039

Clinical diagnostic utility of CA 15‑3 for the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion: A meta‑analysis

Authors:
- Qiang Wu
- Min Li
- Shu Zhang
- Lu Chen
- Xingting Gu
- Feng Xu
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P.R. China, Department of Respiratory Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P.R. China
Published online on: October 30, 2014 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2014.2039
Pages: 232-238

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is one of the most common pleura‑associated conditions observed in clinical practice. The development of MPE usually defines advanced cancer with a poor prognosis. Carbohydrate antigen 15‑3 (CA 15‑3), as an effective pleural fluid biomarker, has been an object of ongoing research in the detection of MPE. The aim of this meta‑analysis was to establish the overall diagnostic accuracy of the measurement of pleural CA 15‑3 for diagnosing MPE. The databases Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), Embase, Ovid, Web of Science and Cochrane database (up to December 2013) were searched to identify relevant studies. No lower date limit was applied. All literature published in English was reviewed. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were pooled using a random‑effect model. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve analysis was conducted to evaluate the overall diagnostic value. The methodological quality was assessed in line with the Quality Assessment for Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy statement. Twenty‑one studies with a total of 2,861 cases were included in present meta‑analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and DOR of CA 15‑3 in the diagnosis of MPE were 0.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56‑0.61], 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90‑0.93), 8.93 (95% CI, 4.45‑17.93), 0.46 (95% CI, 0.37‑0.56) and 24.89 (95% CI, 10.39‑59.63), respectively. In addition, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.84. In conclusion, due to the significantly high specificity of pleural CA 15‑3 in detecting MPE, it may play a pivotal role in screening to identify patients who may benefit from further invasive pathologic examination, particularly in those presenting clinical manifestations of MPE but with negative cytological findings of the pleural fluid. However, ruling out MPE by testing CA15‑3 alone is not recommended due to its limited sensitivity, and it is recommended that the results of CA15‑3 assays are interpreted in parallel with conventional test results and other clinical findings.

View Figures

View References

1	American Thoracic Society. Management of malignant pleural effusions. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 162:1987–2001. 2001.
2	Heffner JE: Management of the patient with a malignant pleural effusion. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 31:723–733. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar
3	Light RW: Pleural effusion related to metastatic malignancies. Pleural Diseases. 4th edition. Lippincott; Philadelphia: pp. 133–161. 2001
4	Bennett R and Maskell N: Management of malignant pleural effusions. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 11:296–300. 2005.PubMed/NCBI
5	Prakash UB and Reiman HM: Comparison of needle biopsy with cytologic analysis for the evaluation of pleural effusion: analysis of 414 cases. Mayo Clin Proc. 60:158–164. 1985. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Nance KV, Shermer RW and Askin FB: Diagnostic efficacy of pleural biopsy as compared with that of pleural fluid examination. Mod Pathol. 4:320–324. 1991.PubMed/NCBI
7	Lombardi G, Zustovich F, Nicoletto MO, Donach M, Artioli G and Pastorelli D: Diagnosis and treatment of malignant pleural effusion: a systematic literature review and new approaches. Am J Clin Oncol. 33:420–423. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar
8	Novaković S: Tumor markers in clinical oncology. Radiol Oncol. 38:73–83. 2004.
9	Fenton KN and Richardson JD: Diagnosis and management of malignant pleural effusions. Am J Surg. 170:69–74. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Porcel JM, Vives M, Esquerda A, Salud A, Pérez B and Rodríguez-Panadero F: Use of a panel of tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, cancer antigen 125, carbohydrate antigen 15-3, and cytokeratin 19 fragments) in pleural fluid for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant effusions. Chest. 126:1757–1763. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Light RW: Tumor markers in undiagnosed pleural effusions. Chest. 126:1721–1722. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Buccheri G and Ferrigno D: Lung tumor markers of cytokeratin origin: an overview. Lung Cancer. 34(Suppl 2): S65–S69. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Shimokata K, Totani Y, Nakanishi K, et al: Diagnostic value of cancer antigen 15-3(CA 15-3) detected by monoclonal antibodies (115D8 and DF3) in exudative pleural effusions. Eur Respir J. 1:341–344. 1988.PubMed/NCBI
14	Lotzniker M, Pavesi F, Scarabelli M, Vadacca G, Franchi M and Moratti R: Tumour associated antigens CA 15-3 and CA 125 in ovarian cancer. Int J Bid Markers. 6:115–121. 1991.
15	Romero S, Fernandez C and Arriero JM: CEA, CA15-3 and CYFRA21-1 in serum and pleural fluid of patients with pleural effusions. Eur Respir J. 9:17–23. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Villena V, López-Encuentra A, Echave-Sustaeta J, Martín-Escribano P, Ortuño-de-Solo B and Estenoz-Alfaro J: Diagnostic value of CA 72-4, carcinoembrynic antigen, CA 15-3 and CA 19-9 assay in pleural fluid: A study of 207 patients. Cancer. 78:736–740. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Miédougé M, Rouzand P, Salama G, et al: Evaluation of seven tumor markers in pleural fluid for the diagnosis of malignant effusions. Br J Cancer. 81:1059–1065. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar
18	Zimmerman RL, Fogt F and Goonewardene S: Diagnostic value of a second generation CA 15-3 antibody to detect adenocarcinoma in body cavity effusions. Cancer Cytopathol. 90:230–234. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar
19	Alataş F, Alataş O, Metintaş M, Colak O, Harmanci E and Demir S: Diagnostic value of CEA, CA 15-3, CA 19-9, CYFRA 21-1, NSE and TSA assay in pleural effusions. Lung Cancer. 31:9–16. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar
20	Villena V, López-Encuentra A, Echave-Sustaeta J, Martín-Escribano P, Ortuño-de-Solo B and Estenoz-Alfaro J: Diagnostic value of CA 549 in pleural fluid, Comparison with CEA, CA 15-3 and CA 72-4. Lung Cancer. 40:289–294. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Porcel JM, Vives M, Esquerda A, Salud A, Pérez B and Rodríguez-Panadero F: Use of a panel of tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, cancer antigen 125, carbohy-drate antigen 15-3 and cytokeratin 19 fragments) in pleural fluid for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant effusions. Chest. 126:1757–1763. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Ustün H, Borazan A, Bilgiçli N and Yilmaz A: Diagnostic value of tumoural markers in pleural effusions. Int J Clin Pract. 58:22–25. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Ghayumi SM, Mehrabi S, Doroudchi M and Ghaderi A: Diagnostic value of tumor markers for differentiating malignant and benign pleural effusions of Iranian patients. Pathol Oncol Res. 11:236–241. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar
24	Shitrit D, Zingerman B, Shitrit AB, Shlomi D and Kramer MR: Diagnostic value of CYFRA21-1, CEA, CA 19-9, CA 15-3 and CA 125 assays in pleural effusions: analysis of 116 case and review of the literature. Oncologist. 10:501–507. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Topolcan O, Holubec L, Polivkova V, et al: Tumor markers in pleural effusions. Anticancer Res. 27:1921–1924. 2007.PubMed/NCBI
26	Paşaoğlu G, Zamani A, Can G and İmecik O: Diagnostic value of CEA, CA 19-9, CA 125 and CA 15-3 levels in malignant pleural fluids. Eur J Gen Med. 4:165–171. 2007.
27	Wagner IC, Guimarães MJ, da Silva LK, de Melo FM and Muniz MT: Evaluation of serum and pleural levels of the tumor markers CEA, CYFRA21-1 and CA 15-3 in patients with pleural effusion. J Bras Pneumol. 33:185–191. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Li CS, Cheng BC, Ge W and Gao JF: Clinical value of CYFRA21-1, NSE, CA15-3, CA19-9 and CA125 assay in the elderly patients with pleural effusions. Int J Clin Pract. 61:444–448. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Gaspar MJ, De Miguel J, García Díaz JD and Díez M: Clinical utility of a combination of tumor markers in the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions. Anticancer Res. 28:2947–2952. 2008.PubMed/NCBI
30	Creaney J, Segal A, Sterrett G, et al: Overexpression and altered glycosylation of MUC1 in malignant mesothelioma. Br J Cancer. 98:1562–1569. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Terracciano D, Mazzarelia C, Cicalese M, et al: Diagnostic value of carbohydrate antigens in supernatants and sediments of pleural effusions. Oncol Lett. 1:465–471. 2010.PubMed/NCBI
32	Antonangelo L, Cora AP and Sales MP: Evaluation of pleural fluid levels and Pleural-Serum Ratio of the tumor markers CEA, CA 15-3, CA 19-9, CA 72-4, CA 125 and CYFRA 21-1 in the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion. Braz J Biol. 15:146–152. 2010.
33	Farag DH, El Hadidi E, El Maraghy MO and Hussein MM: Pleural cyfra 21-1 and CA 15-3 in differentiation of malignant from benign pleural effusions. Life Sci J. 9:499–505. 2012.
34	Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM and Kleijnen J: The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 3:252003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
35	Jones CM, Ashrafian H, Skapinakis P, et al: Diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis: a review of the basic principles of interpretation and application. Int J Cardiol. 140:138–144. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar
36	Moses LE, Shapiro D and Littenberg B: Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 12:1293–1316. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
37	Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Balk EM, et al: Diagnosing acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department: a systematic review of the accuracy and clinical effect of current technologies. Ann Emerg Med. 37:453–460. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
38	Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, et al: Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med. 120:667–676. 1994. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
39	Vamvakas EC: Meta-analyses of studies of the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory tests: a review of the concepts and methods. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 122:675–686. 1998.PubMed/NCBI
40	Suzuki S, Moro-oka T and Choudhry NK: The conditional relative odds ratio provided less biased results for comparing diagnostic test accuracy in meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 57:461–469. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
41	Westwood ME, Whiting PF and Kleijnen J: How does study quality affect the results of a diagnostic meta-analysis? BMC Med Res Methodol. 5:202005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
42	Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, et al: Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 7:1–173. 2003.
43	Bielsa S, Esquerda A, Salud A, et al: High levels of tumor markers in pleural fluid correlate with poor survival in patients with adenocarcinomatous or squamous malignant effusions. Eur J Intern Med. 20:383–386. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
44	Tampellini M, Berruti A, Gorzegno G, et al: Independent factors predict supranormal CA 15-3 serum levels in advanced breast cancer patients at first disease relapse. Tumor Biol. 22:367–373. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar
45	Cascinu S, Del Ferro E, Barbanti I, Ligi M, Fedeli A and Catalano G: Tumor markers in the diagnosis of malignant serous effusions. Am J Clin Oncol. 20:247–250. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
46	Moses LE, Shapiro D and Littenberg B: Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 12:1293–1316. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
47	Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ and Bossuyt PM: The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 56:1129–1135. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
48	Deeks JJ: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context. Egger M, Smith GD and Altman DG: 2nd edition. BMJ Publishing Group; London, UK: pp. 248–282. 2001, View Article : Google Scholar
49	Jaeschke R, Guyatt G and Lijmer J: Diagnostic tests. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-based Clinical Practice. Guyatt G and Rennie D: AMA Press; Chicago, IL: pp. 121–140. 2002
50	Liang QL, Shi HZ, Qin XJ, Liang XD, Jiang J and Yang HB: Diagnostic accuracy of tumor markers for malignant pleural effusion: a meta-analysis. Thorax. 63:35–41. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar