The significance of elevated tumor markers among patients with interstitial lung diseases

The clinical implication of using serum tumor markers in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) is inconclusive. In this retrospective study, we analyzed the data of 1176 subjects (294 with ILDs and 882 healthy controls). Eligible patients were who had at least one or more available tumor mar...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Scientific reports 2022-10, Vol.12 (1), p.16702-16702, Article 16702
Main Authors: Kwon, Byoung Soo, Kim, Eun Sun, Lim, Sung Yoon, Song, Myung Jin, Kim, Yeon Wook, Kim, Hyung-Jun, Lee, Yeon Joo, Park, Jong Sun, Cho, Young-Jae, Yoon, Ho Il, Lee, Choon-Taek, Lee, Jae Ho
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
692/53/2422
692/699/1785
Antigens
Biomarkers
Carcinoembryonic antigen
Fibrosis
Humanities and Social Sciences
Lung diseases
Medical screening
multidisciplinary
Patients
Respiratory function
Science
Science (multidisciplinary)
Tumor markers
Tumors
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The clinical implication of using serum tumor markers in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) is inconclusive. In this retrospective study, we analyzed the data of 1176 subjects (294 with ILDs and 882 healthy controls). Eligible patients were who had at least one or more available tumor marker results [carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9, CA 125, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)] with no evidence of malignancies or other benign diseases that could be related to the increasing concentration of the values. The healthy controls selected from a health screening program were also screened for the presence of active cancer, and matched at a ratio of 1:3 with age and sex. The proportion of patients with abnormal values in the ILD group (121, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF); 173, non-IPF-ILDs) was higher than in the matched control group (CEA, 21.5% vs. 5.5%; CA 19-9, 27.9% vs. 4.0%; CA 125, 36.4% vs. 2.0%). In the multivariable analysis, higher CEA levels were associated with shorter survival after adjusting for age, sex, lung function, and ILD subtypes (hazard ratio: 2.323, 95% confidence interval: 1.271–4.248, P  = 0.006). In subgroup analysis, CEA remained a prognostic factor in patients with non-IPF-ILDs, but not in those with IPF.
ISSN:2045-2322
2045-2322
DOI:10.1038/s41598-022-20683-w