4.5 Article

Prognostic Value of the Combination of CEA and Fibrinogen/Albumin Ratio in Resectable Gastric Cancer

Journal

CANCER MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages 2767-2775

Publisher

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S246566

Keywords

gastric carcinoma; patients; survival; risk factor

Categories

Funding

  1. Medical Health Science and Technology Project of Zhejiang Provincial Health Commission [2017209495]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To investigate the prognostic value of combined serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels and fibrinogen/albumin ratio (FAR) in patients with resectable gastric cancer (GC). Introduction: This retrospective study evaluated the CEA, fibrinogen, and albumin levels and other clinicopathological features of GC patients. The prognostic significance of these factors for overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and univariate and multivariate Cox proportional models. Patients and Methods: A total of 267 patients were included. The optimal cutoff values of CEA and FAR were 3.2 ng/mL and 0.086, respectively. Patients were stratified into three groups based on this cutoff value: CEA-FAR=0 (CEA < 3.2 ng/mL and FAR < 0.086), CEA-FAR=1 (CEA = 3.2 ng/mL or FAR = 0.086), and CEA-FAR=2 (CEA >= 3.2 ng/mL and FAR >= 0.086). Results: Higher CEA-FAR was strongly associated with age, tumor size, tumor invasion, lymph node status, and TNM stage (all P< 0.05). The OS rates differed significantly between these 3 groups (88.9% vs 65.0% vs 46.9%, P< 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that CEA-FAR was an independent prognostic factor for OS (P< 0.001). The area under the curve was larger for CEA-FAR than for either CEA or FAR alone (0.683, 0.644, and 0.669, respectively). Conclusion: Preoperative CEA-FAR could be a potential blood marker for predicting tumor progression and the prognosis of GC patients. Patients with a higher CEA-FAR should undergo extensive follow-up.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available