Clinical Chemistry December 2008 vol. 54 no. 12 e11-e79

Background: Updated National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry (NACB) Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for the use of tumor markers in the clinic have been developed.

Methods: Published reports relevant to use of tumor markers for 5 cancer sites—testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian—were critically reviewed.

Results: For testicular cancer, α-fetoprotein, human chorionic gonadotropin, and lactate dehydrogenase are recommended for diagnosis/case finding, staging, prognosis determination, recurrence detection, and therapy monitoring. α-Fetoprotein is also recommended for differential diagnosis of nonseminomatous and seminomatous germ cell tumors. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is not recommended for prostate cancer screening, but may be used for detecting disease recurrence and monitoring therapy. Free PSA measurement data are useful for distinguishing malignant from benign prostatic disease when total PSA is <10 μg/L. In colorectal cancer, carcinoembryonic antigen is recommended (with some caveats) for prognosis determination, postoperative surveillance, and therapy monitoring in advanced disease. Fecal occult blood testing may be used for screening asymptomatic adults 50 years or older. For breast cancer, estrogen and progesterone receptors are mandatory for predicting response to hormone therapy, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 measurement is mandatory for predicting response to trastuzumab, and urokinase plasminogen activator/plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 may be used for determining prognosis in lymph node–negative patients. CA15-3/BR27–29 or carcinoembryonic antigen may be used for therapy monitoring in advanced disease. CA125 is recommended (with transvaginal ultrasound) for early detection of ovarian cancer in women at high risk for this disease. CA125 is also recommended for differential diagnosis of suspicious pelvic masses in postmenopausal women, as well as for detection of recurrence, monitoring of therapy, and determination of prognosis in women with ovarian cancer. Conclusions: Implementation of these recommendations should encourage optimal use of tumor markers.

Clin. Chem., Aug 2002; 48: 1151 – 1159.

Background: Increasing interest in implementing the practice of evidence-based medicine in oncology has encouraged the development of clinical guidelines, many of which include recommendations about the appropriate use of serum tumor markers.

Methods: Recent national and international guidelines relating to the use of tumor markers in germ cell, colorectal, breast, ovarian, prostate, lung, neuroendocrine, and thyroid cancers were identified from the scientific literature and other sources and tabulated.

Results: Guideline recommendations developed by national and international groups and relating to the use of tumor markers for specific cancers are reviewed and compared, considering the recommendations made for their use in screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of therapy. Potential advantages and disadvantages of clinical guidelines, how best to implement them, and means of auditing their effectiveness are also considered.

Conclusions: Excellent clinical guidelines, including recommendations for the most appropriate use of tumor markers, are already available for many cancers. Many questions relating to optimal use of these important tests remain to be answered, but current guidelines already contain much valuable information and advice. Further dissemination and implementation of the guidelines should encourage better use of tumor markers in clinical practice. Careful audit studies are also required to establish the impact of these guidelines on the practice of evidence-based medicine.

Clin. Chem., Mar 2006; 52: 345 – 351.

Background: Although multiple serum-based tumor markers have been described for breast cancer, such as CA 15-3, BR 27.29 (CA27.29), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), tissue polypeptide antigen, tissue polypeptide specific antigen, and HER-2 (the extracellular domain), the most widely used are CA 15-3 and CEA.

Methods: The literature relevant to serum tumor markers in breast cancer was reviewed. Particular attention was given to systematic reviews, prospective randomized trials, and guidelines issued by expert panels.

Results: Because of a lack of sensitivity for early disease and lack of specificity, none of the available markers is of value for the detection of early breast cancer. High preoperative concentrations of CA 15-3 are, however, associated with adverse patient outcome. Although serial determinations of tumor markers after primary treatment for breast cancer can preclinically detect recurrent/metastatic disease with lead times of 2–9 months, the clinical value of this lead time remains to be determined. Serum markers, however, are the only validated approach for monitoring treatment in patients with advanced disease that cannot be evaluated by use of conventional criteria.

Conclusions: CA 15-3 is one of the first circulating prognostic factors for breast cancer. Preoperative concentrations thus might be combined with existing prognostic factors for predicting outcome in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. At present, the most important clinical application of CA 15-3 is in monitoring therapy in patients with advanced breast cancer that is not assessable by existing clinical or radiologic procedures.