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

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


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.

Introduction

Pleural effusion is commonly found in patients suffering from various kinds of disease, and malignancy is one of the most frequent causes of pleural effusion (1). Pleural effusion may occur with almost all types of cancers, of which lung cancer is responsible for ~30% of cases (2). The etiological diagnosis and differential diagnosis between malignant pleural effusion (MPE) and benign pleural effusion is of significant importance due to the differences in treatment and prognosis between these two types of pleural effusions. Development of MPE usually defines advanced cancer with a poor prognosis, and moreover, current strategies for the diagnosis of MPE are clearly inadequate (3). As a standard method for the diagnosis of MPE, conventional pleural fluid cytology findings are positive in only 60% of cases on average (4). Additionally, closed pleural biopsy merely confers a small additive diagnostic value (5,6). Thoracoscopy has a high diagnostic accuracy and is able to establish the diagnosis in ~95% of cases; however, this interventional procedure may not be well accepted among patients and may not be available at all facilities (7).

Carbohydrate antigen 15-3 (CA 15-3), a glycoprotein expressed in normal and malignant tissues, including breast, lung and ovary cancer, has been found to be associated with malignancy and its secretion is increased in the presence of a tumor (8). It is easily detected in various biological specimens such as blood, serous liquid and tissue samples (9). Thus an increasing number of studies consider it to be a biomarker for diagnosing MPE (1012). Although the accuracy of CA 15-3 in detecting MPE has been extensively studied, the precise diagnostic value remains unclear. Therefore, the present meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the overall accuracy of pleural CA 15-3 for diagnosing MPE.

Materials and methods

Identification of studies

The databases Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), Embase, Ovid, Web of Science and Cochrane database were searched to identify relevant studies published up to December 2013. No lower date limit was applied. Relevant references of articles were also searched manually. Relevant studies were identified using any of the following keywords: ‘tumor marker’, ‘carbohydrate antigen 15-3’, ‘CA 15-3’, ‘malignant pleural effusion’, ‘sensitivity’, ‘specificity’ and ‘accuracy’. The language of publication was limited to English. A study was included in the present meta-analysis if it provided both sensitivity and specificity data of CA 15-3 for the diagnosis of MPE. Letters to journal editors and conference abstracts, however, were excluded due to limited data. Two authors independently identified eligible studies when screening the searched studies. Any disagreements were arbitrated by a third author.

Quality assessment

To assess the methodology of the included studies (1333), the present meta-analysis was conducted in line with the Quality Assessment for Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS) statement (34). Two authors independently evaluated all included studies based on randomized sequence generation. Any disagreements were arbitrated by a third author.

Data extraction

The data was extracted by two authors. The reviewers were blinded to publication details, such as author details, journal, patient characteristics, test method, cut-off value, sensitivity, specificity and methodological quality. Additionally, the following characteristics of study design for each article were retrieved: a) cross-sectional design (versus case-control design); b) consecutive or random sampling of patients; c) blinded (single or double) interpretation of determination and reference standard results; and d) prospective data collection. If no data on the above criteria were reported in the primary studies, these were treated as ‘Unknown’. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. When multiple publications of the same study were identified, data was extracted as a single study.

Statistical analysis

Standard methods recommended to provide diagnostic accuracy in meta-analyses were used (35). Then, the following indices of test accuracy were calculated for each study: sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR).

The sensitivity and specificity of each single test threshold identified for each study were used to plot a summary ROC (SROC) (36,37). Spearman’s rank correlation was performed as a test for threshold effect. The χ2 and Fisher’s exact tests were used to detect statistically significant heterogeneity across the studies. The average sensitivity, specificity and other related measurements of the studies were calculated using a random-effects model (38,39). To assess the effects of QUADAS score on the diagnostic ability of CA 15-3, it was included as a covariate in the meta-regression analysis (inverse-variance weighted). Effects of other covariates on DOR (cross-sectional design, consecutive or random sampling of patients, blind design, prospective data collection and assay method) were also analyzed. The relative DOR (RDOR) was calculated according to standard methods to analyze the change in diagnostic precision in the study per unit increase in the covariate (40,41). Publication bias was tested using funnel plots and the Deeks’ test (42). Statistical software packages were used to perform the analysis (Stata, version 8.2, Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA; Meta-Test version 0.6, New England Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA; and Meta-DiSc for Windows, XI Cochrane Colloquium, Barcelona, Spain).

Results

Description of studies

Following the literature search, a total of 164 studies regarding CA 15-3 and pleural effusion were considered to be eligible for the present meta-analysis. Of these publications, 140 literature items that were beyond the scope of the present study were excluded and three articles without a control group were also excluded (4345). Ultimately, 21 studies were selected with a total of 2,861 patients. A flow chart showing the selection of references for meta-analysis is shown in Fig. 1.

Quality of included studies

In present meta-analysis, the average sample size of the included studies was 136 (range, 39 to 416). The diagnosis of MPE was made based on cytological or/and pathological findings, as the gold standard. Among the 21 studies, 15 (71.4%) had a cross-sectional design; in 16 studies (76.2%), the samples were collected from consecutive patients; 13 studies (61.9%) reported blinded interpretation of CA 15-3 assays independent of the reference standard; and 20 studies (95.2%) had a prospective study design. There were 13 studies with QUADAS scores ≥10 (Table I). As shown in Table I, P≥0.05 indicates values that did not reach statistical significance and these factors did not affect diagnostic accuracy. The clinical characteristics and other information are outlined in Tables II and III.

Table I

Weighted meta-regression of the effects of methodological quality, study design and assay method on diagnostic precision of pleural CA 15-3 in 21 assays.

Table I

Weighted meta-regression of the effects of methodological quality, study design and assay method on diagnostic precision of pleural CA 15-3 in 21 assays.

CovariatesNo. of studiesCoefficientRDOR (95% CI)P-value
QUADAS ≥1013−1.7880.17 (0.01–3.50)0.226
Cross-sectional design150.5151.67 (0.21–13.22)0.599
Consecutive or random161.3513.86 (0.22–66.57)0.324
Blinded132.35310.51 (0.72–153.81)0.080
Prospective19−1.1540.32 (0.01–11.65)0.502
Assay method (EIA/non-EIA)7/140.1981.22 (0.16–9.24)0.836

[i] CA 15-3, carbohydrate antigen 15-3; QUADAS, Quality Assessment for Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy; EIA, enzyme immunoassay; RDOR, relative diagnostic odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

Table II

Summary of included studies.

Table II

Summary of included studies.

Study/year (ref.)Patient no.Assay methodCut-offTest resultsQUADAS score


MPEnon-PETPFPFNTN
Shimokata/1988 (13)4041RIA16 U/ml150254112
Lotzniker/1991 (14)2217EIA25 U/ml10212157
Romero/1996 (15)4273EIA25 U/ml202247112
Villena/1996 (16)65142EIA42 U/ml3617512912
Miédougé/1999 (17)215121RIA36.2 U/ml1401751209
Zimmerman/2000 (18)7240EIAUnknown65473610
Alataş/2001 (19)4430RIA14 U/ml35292813
Villena/2003 (20)101151EIA45 U/ml4415715012
Porcel/2004 (21)166250RIA75U/ml50011625012
Ustün/2004 (22)4140EIA30 U/ml211020308
Ghayumi/2005 (23)4037EIA21.1 U/ml286123112
Shitrit/2005 (24)4472EIA30 U/ml172246211
Topolcan/2007 (25)8177EIA7.6 kIU/l77437410
Paşaoğlu/2007 (26)3554EIA53 U/ml13022549
Wagner/2007 (27)3630ECIA22.38 ng/ml243122713
Li/2007 (28)3230EIA35 kU/l177152310
Gaspar/2008 (29)4084EIA62.4 IU/l1655242911
Creaney/2008 (30)7630EIA53 kU/l24052308
Terracciano/2010 (31)10332EIA41 kU/l9904329
Antonangelo/2010 (32)11362ECIA27 kU/l64549578
Farag/2012 (33)2020ECIA35 kU/l1674137

[i] MPE, malignant pleural effusion; RIA, radioimmunoassay; EIA, enzyme immunoassay; ECIA, electrochemiluminescence method; TP, true-positive; FP, false-positive; FN, false-negative; TN, true-negative; QUADAS, Quality Assessment for Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy.

Table III

Characteristics of included studies.

Table III

Characteristics of included studies.

Study/year (ref.)CountryReference standardCross-sectional designConsecutive and/or random?Blinded designProspective
Shimokata/1988 (13)JapanHistologyYesYesYesYes
Lotzniker/1991 (14)ItalyHistologyUnknownUnknownUnknownUnknown
Romero/1996 (15)SpainHistologyUnknownYesYesYes
Villena/1996 (16)SpainHistologyUnknownYesYesYes
Miédougé/1999 (17)FranceHistologyYesYesNoNo
Zimmerman/2000 (18)USAHistologyYesYesUnknownYes
Alataş/2001 (19)TurkeyHistologyNoYesYesYes
Villena/2003 (20)SpainHistologyUnknownYesYesYes
Porcel/2004 (21)IranHistologyYesYesYesYes
Ustün/2004 (22)TurkeyHistologyUnknownNoUnknownYes
Ghayumi/2005 (23)IranHistologyYesYesYesYes
Shitrit/2005 (24)IsraelHistologyYesYesYesYes
Topolcan/2007 (25)CzechHistologyYesYesYesYes
Paşaoğlu/2007 (26)TurkeyHistologyYesYesUnknownYes
Wagner/2007 (27)BrazilHistologyYesYesYesYes
Li/2007 (28)ChinaHistologyYesUnknownYesYes
Gaspar/2008 (29)SpainHistologyYesYesUnknownYes
Creaney/2008 (30)AustraliaHistologyYesYesYesYes
Terracciano/2010 (31)ItalyHistologyYesUnknownYesYes
Antonangelo/2010 (32)BrazilHistologyYesYesUnknownYes
Farag/2012 (33)EgyptHistologyYesUnknownNoYes
Diagnostic accuracy

The forest plots of sensitivity and specificity of CA 15-3 assays in the various studies for the diagnosis of MPE are shown in Fig. 2. The sensitivity varied between 0.30 and 0.96 [pooled 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.560–0.61], while the specificity ranged from 0.35 to 1.00 (pooled 0.91, 95% CI, 0.90–0.93). The PLR was 8.93 (95% CI, 4.45–17.93), the NLR was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.37–0.56) and the DOR was 24.89 (95% CI, 10.39–56.63). χ2 values of sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR were 314.02, 312.53, 201.71, 214.78 and 163.24, respectively, with all P-values <0.001, indicating significant heterogeneity between all studies.

The Fig. 3 shows the SROC curve, which summarizes the test performance, and shows the balance between sensitivity and specificity. The Q-value is a global measure of test efficacy. It is the point of intersection of the SROC curve with a diagonal line from the left upper corner to the right lower corner of the ROC space, and corresponds to the highest common value of sensitivity and specificity for the test. This point does not indicate the only or even the best combination of sensitivity and specificity for a particular clinical setting, but represents an overall measure of the discriminatory power of a test. In present meta-analysis, the maximum joint sensitivity and specificity (the Q-value) was 0.77. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.84.

When evaluating the publication bias, Deeks’ test was performed and it was significant (P=0.01). The funnel plot for publication bias (Fig. 4) is also essentially asymmetric. Thus, the results suggest a potential for publication bias.

Discussion

MPE is one of the most common pleura-associated problems encountered in clinical practice. The diagnosis of malignancy in pleural effusions continues to be challenging (4). Finding an effectively diagnostic tool for MPE is of great importance. The detection of tumor markers such as CA 15-3 in the pleural fluid has been proposed as an alternative non-invasive method for the diagnosis of MPE (11).

The present meta-analysis investigated the overall diagnostic value of CA 15-3 measurements in pleural effusions in the diagnosis of MPE. The specificity was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.91–0.93), indicating a potential role for CA 15-3 analysis in the confirmation of MPE. In contrast with the high specificity, the sensitivity was only 0.58 (95% CI, 0.56–0.61), which is insufficient to exclude MPE. Thus, negative tests do not clearly indicate the absence of MPE, and patients with negative CA 15-3 results have a fairly high chance of having MPE. This trade-off has significant clinical implications.

To summarize the test performance, an SROC curve was generated, which indicates the balance between sensitivity and specificity (46). The SROC curve for the present meta-analysis revealed that the maximum joint sensitivity and specificity (Q value) was 0.77 and the AUC was 0.84, indicating that the overall accuracy was not very high.

The DOR, which is the ratio of the odds of a positive test result in the diseased relative to that in the non-diseased state, is an alternative indicator of test accuracy. The higher the DOR value, the more discriminatory the test (47). In the present meta-analysis, the mean DOR was found to be 24.89 (95% CI, 10.39–59.63), suggesting that CA 15-3 testing is a useful tool for aiding the diagnosis of MPE.

The PLR and NLR were also determined as measures of diagnostic accuracy in the present study, as likelihood ratios are considered to be more clinically meaningful than the DOR (48,49). A PLR value of 8.93 in the present study suggested that patients with MPE have an ~9-fold higher chance of testing positive in the CA 15-3 assay than patients without MPE, which should be helpful for in clinical practice. However, the NLR value of 0.46 determined in the present study meant that if the CA 15-3 assay result was negative, the probability that a patient was affected by MPE was ~46%, which is too high to rule out MPE.

In present study, QUADAS scores were used in the meta-regression to assess the effect of study quality on RDOR. As shown in Table I, the studies with higher quality (QUADAS ≥10) produced lower RDORs than those with lower quality. The meta-regression also indicated that differences between CA 15-3 assay methods (EIA versus non-EIA), studies with or without blinded design, cross-sectional, consecutive/random and prospective design, did not reach statistical significance. Thus, these factors do not affect diagnostic accuracy.

Notably, the results of the present study were consistent with those of a previous meta-analysis conducted by Liang et al (50). This earlier meta-analysis included 11 related studies prior to 2005. Since that time, additional studies on this field have been reported and are included in the present study. The search strategy and data extraction methods used in the present meta-analysis were more comprehensive than those in the previous meta-analysis, which was an important strength. Literature selection, quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently and in a blinded fashion by five reviewers. By meta-regression, the current study assessed the effects of covariates such as CA 15-3 assay methods on the RDOR, which was not performed in the previous meta-analysis (50). However, the present study had certain limitations. Firstly, studies published in languages other than English, unpublished studies and abstracts from conference proceedings were not included, which was probably a cause of publication bias. Secondly, issues such as the exact condition of the patients and laboratory infrastructure were not analyzed due to limited data.

The present meta-analysis suggested that the diagnostic value of CA 15-3 for MPE was far from perfection. Combining CA 15-3 with other markers may be an appropriate method for improving the diagnostic accuracy. The study by Romero et al found that the sensitivity and specificity of carcinoembryonic antigen combined with CA 15-3 in pleural fluid were 71% and 96%, respectively, which was better than testing CA 15-3 alone (15). Another study reported that the combination of thymidine kinase with CA 15-3 and procalcitonin appeared to be an optimal combination, nearly enabling differential diagnosing in all types of effusion (25).

In conclusion, with significantly high specificity in the detection of MPE, pleural CA 15-3 analysis is likely to be a effective assay to ascertain the potential existence of MPE in patients, particularly those who present clinical manifestation of MPE but with negative cytological findings of the pleural fluid, and thus provide the benefit of further invasive pathologic examination when elevated CA 15-3 levels are found in pleural effusions. However, ruling out MPE by testing CA15-3 alone is not recommended due to its limited sensitivity, and the results of CA15-3 assays should be interpreted in parallel with conventional test results and other clinical findings.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a grant from the National Basic Research Program of China (no. 2011CB935800).

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

Related Articles

Journal Cover

January-2015
Volume 9 Issue 1

Print ISSN: 1792-0981
Online ISSN:1792-1015

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Wu Q, Li M, Zhang S, Chen L, Gu X and Xu F: Clinical diagnostic utility of CA 15‑3 for the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion: A meta‑analysis. Exp Ther Med 9: 232-238, 2015
APA
Wu, Q., Li, M., Zhang, S., Chen, L., Gu, X., & Xu, F. (2015). Clinical diagnostic utility of CA 15‑3 for the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion: A meta‑analysis. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, 9, 232-238. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2014.2039
MLA
Wu, Q., Li, M., Zhang, S., Chen, L., Gu, X., Xu, F."Clinical diagnostic utility of CA 15‑3 for the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion: A meta‑analysis". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 9.1 (2015): 232-238.
Chicago
Wu, Q., Li, M., Zhang, S., Chen, L., Gu, X., Xu, F."Clinical diagnostic utility of CA 15‑3 for the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion: A meta‑analysis". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 9, no. 1 (2015): 232-238. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2014.2039