Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Diagnostic Accuracy of CYFRA21-1 in the Differential Diagnosis of Pleural Effusions

JAUME TRAPÉ, FRANCESC SANT, JESUS MONTESINOS, ANNA ARNAU, MARIA SALA, OSCAR BERNADICH, ESPERANZA MARTÍN, DAMIA PERICH, JOAN LOPEZ, SANDRA ROS, ENRIQUE ESTEVE-VALVERDE, RAFAEL PÉREZ, CAROLINA GONZÁLEZ-FERNÁNDEZ, JORDI ALIGUE, SILVIA CATOT, MONTSERRAT DOMENECH, DOMINGO RUIZ, MARIONA BONET, RAFAEL MOLINA and JOSEP ORDEIG
Anticancer Research September 2019, 39 (9) 5071-5076; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.13700
JAUME TRAPÉ
1Department of Laboratory Medicine, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Spain
2Faculty of Medicine, University of Vic - Central University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: jtrape@althaia.cat
FRANCESC SANT
2Faculty of Medicine, University of Vic - Central University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain
3Department of Pathology, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JESUS MONTESINOS
4Department of Oncology, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ANNA ARNAU
5Clinical Research Unit, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MARIA SALA
1Department of Laboratory Medicine, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
OSCAR BERNADICH
6Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ESPERANZA MARTÍN
6Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DAMIA PERICH
6Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JOAN LOPEZ
1Department of Laboratory Medicine, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SANDRA ROS
6Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ENRIQUE ESTEVE-VALVERDE
7Department Internal Medicine, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
RAFAEL PÉREZ
7Department Internal Medicine, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
CAROLINA GONZÁLEZ-FERNÁNDEZ
1Department of Laboratory Medicine, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JORDI ALIGUE
7Department Internal Medicine, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SILVIA CATOT
4Department of Oncology, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MONTSERRAT DOMENECH
4Department of Oncology, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOMINGO RUIZ
7Department Internal Medicine, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MARIONA BONET
7Department Internal Medicine, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
RAFAEL MOLINA
8Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JOSEP ORDEIG
7Department Internal Medicine, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: Approximately 20% of pleural effusions are associated with cancer; about 50% require invasive procedures to perform diagnosis. Determination of the concentration of soluble cytokeratin 19-fragments (CYFRA21-1) may help identify patients with malignant effusions. However, pathologies other than cancer can increase its concentration. The identification of these possible false positives with routine tests CRP, ADA, % polymorphonuclear cells (PN) may improve diagnostic accuracy. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of CYFRA21-1 in the detection of malignant pleural effusions and the possible false positives. Materials and Methods: Analysis of CYFRA21-1, adenosine deaminase (ADA), C-reactive protein (CRP), and the percentage of polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PN%) in the fluid from 643 consecutive undiagnosed pleural effusions was performed. Results: CYFRA21-1 showed 38.7% sensitivity and 97.3% specificity at 175 ng/ml cut-off. Effusions not suspicious of a false-positive showed 39.0% sensitivity and 98.2% specificity, while effusions suspicious of false positive showed lower sensitivity (36.4%) and specificity (95.0%). Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy of CYFRA21-1 in pleural effusions can be improved by classification according to the possibility of false positives.

  • CYFRA 21-1
  • pleural effusion
  • differential diagnosis
  • malignant effusion

Pleural effusions can be caused by a wide variety of diseases. Among them, cancer is one of the most frequent; with rates between 15% and 27% (1, 2). Differential diagnosis of pleural effusions is not easy. Cytology is the gold standard test for ruling out cancer, but its sensitivity is only moderate (between 45% and 70%) (2, 3). This means that more invasive tests are sometimes necessary, increasing morbidity and raising the economic cost.

Soluble cytokeratin 19-fragments (CYFRA21-1) have been evaluated in the differential diagnosis of cancer in pleural effusions. The results vary widely from study to study; the specificity ranges between 7% and 100% and the sensitivity between 25% and 90%, using discriminant values between 3.3 ng/ml and 175 ng/ml (4-10). Most studies applying highly discriminant values (55-175 ng/ml) obtained sensitivities between 24% and 70% and specificities above 95% (6, 10-13). However, in diseases such as tuberculosis, empyema and parapneumonic effusions, as well as in inflammatory processes of the surrounding tissues, high concentrations of this tumor marker can be found in the pleural fluid (11, 14, 15). Some biomarkers suggest a benign diagnosis: examples are adenosine deaminase (ADA) in tuberculosis and empyema, white blood cell count and the percentage of polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PN%) in empyema and complicated parapneumonic effusions, and C-reactive protein (CRP) in all three of the above conditions, and in the process of necrosis or inflammation of the surrounding tissues.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Etiology of the effusions included in the study.

In a previous work by our group, classifying the effusions with the aid of these biomarkers indicating a benign status, enabled us to differentiate between two groups of patients, presenting pleural effusions with regard to cancer prevalence. Those that were negative for all the benign biomarkers presented higher cancer prevalence and greater diagnostic sensitivity of malignancy (16).

The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of CYFRA21-1 in detecting malignant pleural effusions and to establish the extent to which the identification of possible false positives using benign biomarkers (ADA, CRP and PN%) improves diagnostic accuracy.

Patients and Methods

From January 2005 to December 2012, pleural effusion fluid samples were collected from consecutive patients of all medical specialties at our hospital who presented pleural effusions.

The reference method was pathological confirmation of cancer in serous pleural effusions, or definitive diagnosis assessed during the three months following the determination of CYFRA 21-1. Serous pleural effusions were defined as malignant when the presence of neoplastic cells was detected by cytology, biopsy or autopsy. Paramalignant pleural effusions were defined as effusions in which no neoplastic cells were detected by any of the methods described above in patients diagnosed with cancer. Diagnostic procedures were performed by assessors who were blinded to the study data.

In order to identify benign pleural effusions, the following tests were performed in fluid and/or serum: protein, albumin, N-terminal-pro-brain natriuretic peptide (Nt-ProBNP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), microbiological cultures, and if necessary antinuclear antibodies, anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide, rheumatoid factor, thyrotropin, and serological tests for viruses, bacteria and fungi.

Effusion fluid samples were collected and analyzed on the same day. CYFRA21-1 was determined using an electrochemi-luminescence method on a Cobas 601 analyzer (Roche Diagnostics, Barcelona, Spain). The analytical variation of CYFRA21-1 expressed as the between-assay coefficient of variation was 3.0% at concentrations of 3.2 ng/ml.

The criteria used to suggest that an effusion may be a false positive (i.e., empyema, complicated parapneumonic effusion or tuberculosis) were PN%>90, CRP>5.0 mg/dl (to convert to milligrams per liter multiply per 10) or ADA >45 U/l (16, 17). The use of these biomarkers identified two groups of effusions: group A, effusions with all biomarkers below the cut-off point, and group B, effusions with at least one positive biomarker. ADA (EC3.5.4.4) (ITC Diagnostics, Barcelona, Spain) and CRP (Tina-quant CRP latex, Roche Diagnostics, Barcelona, Spain) were determined in a LX-20 autoanalyzer (Beckman Coulter, Madrid, Spain). Leukocyte count was performed in a Neubauer chamber using May-Grünwald-Giemsa stain. The analytical variation, expressed as the between-assay coefficient of variation, was 7.4% for ADA and 2.3% for CRP at concentrations of 10.3 U/l and 7.66 mg/dl respectively.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Diagnostic accuracy of CYFRA 21-1 at 175 μg/l cut-off.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Sensitivity of CYFRA 21-1 at 100% specificity and fluid concentrations (μg/l) in the different groups.

Statistical analysis. We used the cut-off of 175 μg/l for CYFRA21-1 as described previously by Porcel et al. (7) and by our group in pleural effusions and ascites (13). ROC analysis was used to establish a cut-off for CYFRA21-1 at a specificity of 100%. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive values (NPV), positive predictive values (PPV), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and positive likelihood ratio (PLR) were calculated for CYFRA21-1. The parameters of diagnostic accuracy are shown together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). A two-sided 5% significance level was assumed. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM® SPSS® Statistics for Windows v.22 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA) and Stata® v.14 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

Six hundred forty-three consecutive pleural effusions were included, 253 from women (39.3%) and 390 from men (60.7%), with ages ranging from 11 to 97 years (mean=71.6; SD=14.8). Table I shows the patients' characteristics. The effusions were classified into two groups: group A (78.1%), effusions with all benign biomarkers (ADA, CRP and %PN) below the proposed cut-off point, and group B (21.9%) effusions with at least one of the benign biomarkers above the cut-off.

Table II shows the diagnostic accuracy of CYFRA 21-1 for the whole group and for group A and group B. For a cut-off of 175 μg/l in group A, six false positives (6/502; 1.2%) were found: two parapneumonic effusions, two paramalignant effusions, one asbestosis, and one non-affiliated effusion. In group B, there were 6/141 (4.2%) false positives: four empyema, one complicated parapneumonic effusion, and one paramalignant effusion. Figure 1 shows the ROC analysis for whole group, group A and group B. Table III shows the sensitivity of cytology, the diagnostic performance of CYFRA 21-1 at 100% specificity and the concentrations of CYFRA 21-1 in the different groups of pleural effusions.

Table IV shows the sensitivity of CYFRA21-1 according to tumor type.

Discussion

The data reported for sensitivity and specificity using 175 μg/l as a cut-off point for CYFRA21-1 is in concordance with Porcel et al. (7) who found 35% sensitivity at maximum specificity. Using 150 μg/l as cut-off point, Ferrer et al. (11) obtained a sensitivity of 22.6%. With the same cut-off value, our group (13) obtained 50% sensitivity at maximum specificity in pleural and ascitic effusions, and in our 2015 study, using the same cut-off, we reported sensitivity and specificity of 50% and 97.6% in ascitic effusions (18). With a cut-off point of 163 μg/l, Miédougé et al. (12) have reported 42.8% sensitivity at 99% specificity. The majority of authors that use cut-offs above 100 μg/l have found sensitivities between 2% and 50% at a specificity of more than 95%; other authors who have used cut-offs below 100 μg/l obtained higher sensitivity, but specificity fell below 90% (7, 9, 19, 20). The current study showed that non-malignant effusions with benign positive biomarkers have higher concentrations of CYFRA21-1 than non-malignant effusions with negative benign biomarkers. These results are similar to those obtained previously by our group for CEA, CA15-3, CA19-9 and CA72-4, where the majority of false positive cases were included (16). In group B, the prevalence of empyema, complicated parapneumonic and tuberculous effusions was approximately 50%, but the figure did not reach 2% in group A. This strategy, used previously by our group for other tumor markers, enabled us to identify most of the false positives in the group with positive benign biomarkers. This seems to be a valid way to improve the sensitivity of tumor markers in effusion fluid; the group with benign biomarkers has low prevalence of malignancy and a high prevalence of false positives.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

ROC for CYFRA21-1 in different groups of study.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table IV.

Sensitivity and concentrations of CYFRA 21.1 according to tumor type.

Most of the tumors shown to have increased CYFRA21-1 were epithelial cancers. Increased CYFRA21-1 was found in 44.7% of lung cancers, 60% of ovarian cancers, and 37.5% of breast cancers, and among non-epithelial tumors it was recorded in 31.8% of mesotheliomas and in one multiple myeloma.

The differences between NPV, PPV and PLR in groups A and B should be noted. In group A, PPV was above 90% and PLR+ above 20, indicating that the impact on post-test probability is large; in group B, this impact was only moderate.

In conclusion, the determination of CYFRA 21-1 in pleural effusion shows a high specificity but moderate sensitivity. With our subclassification into two groups, diagnostic performance increased in the group with negative benign biomarkers, and was poorer in the group with at least one positive benign biomarker. These results indicate that CYFRA 21-1 is most effective in effusions with negative benign biomarkers.

Acknowledgments

The Authors thank Michael Maudsley for his help with the translation and editing of the manuscript.

Footnotes

  • Authors' Contributions

    Conception and design: JT, RM; Analysis and interpretation: JT, JM, AA, MS, JL, CG; Histological examination FS; Acquisition data: OB, EM DP, SR, EE, RP, JA, SC, MD, DR, MB, JO; Critical revisions: All Authors. All Authors read and approved the final manuscript.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors declare that they have no conflicts of interests regarding this study.

  • Received July 7, 2019.
  • Revision received July 11, 2019.
  • Accepted July 12, 2019.
  • Copyright© 2019, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. Light RW
    : Pleural Diseases, 6th ed, Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2013.
  2. ↵
    1. Porcel JM,
    2. Esquerda A,
    3. Vives M,
    4. Bielsa S
    : Etiology of pleural effusions: analysis of more than 3,000 consecutive thoracenteses. Arch Bronconeumol 50(5): 161-165, 2014. PMID: 24360987. DOI: 10.1016/j.arbres.2013.11.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Alemán C,
    2. Sanchez L,
    3. Alegre J,
    4. Ruiz E,
    5. Vázquez A,
    6. Soriano T,
    7. Sarrapio J,
    8. Teixidor J,
    9. Andreu J,
    10. Felip E,
    11. Armadans L,
    12. Fernández De Sevilla T
    : Differentiating between malignant and idiopathic pleural effusions: the value of diagnostic procedures. QJM 100(6): 351-359, 2007. PMID: 17525131.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Gu P,
    2. Huang G,
    3. Chen Y,
    4. Zhu C,
    5. Yuan J,
    6. Sheng S
    : Diagnostic utility of pleural fluid carcinoembryonic antigen and CYFRA 21-1 in patients with pleural effusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Lab Anal 21(6): 398-405, 2007. PMID: 18022924.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Volarić D,
    2. Flego V,
    3. Žauhar G,
    4. Bulat-Kardum L
    : Diagnostic value of tumour markers in pleural effusions. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 28(1): 010706, 2018. PMID: 29472801. DOI: 10.11613/BM.2018.010706
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Sharma SK,
    2. Bhat S,
    3. Chandel V,
    4. Sharma M,
    5. Sharma P,
    6. Gupta S,
    7. Sharma S,
    8. Bhat AA
    : Diagnostic utility of serum and pleural fluid carcinoembryonic antigen, and cytokeratin 19 fragments in patients with effusion from nonsmall cell lung cancer. J Carcinog 14: 7, 2015. PMID: 26900349. DOI: 10.4103/1477-3163.170662
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Porcel JM,
    2. Vives M,
    3. Esquerda A,
    4. Salud A,
    5. Pérez B,
    6. 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(6): 1757-1763, 2004. PMID: 15596670.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Feng M,
    2. Zhu J,
    3. Liang L,
    4. Zeng N,
    5. Wu Y,
    6. Wan C,
    7. Shen Y,
    8. Wen F
    : Diagnostic value of tumor markers for lung adenocarcinoma-associated malignant pleural effusion: a validation study and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Oncol 22(2): 283-290, 2017. PMID: 27990560. DOI: 10.1007/s10147-016-1073-y
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Cynowska B,
    2. Słomiński JM,
    3. Goszka LW,
    4. Andrzejewski W,
    5. Wolf H
    : Value of determination of lung cancer marker Cyfra 21-1 for differentiation of pleural fluid – preliminary report. Med Sci Monit 4: 934-937, 1998.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Salama G,
    2. Miédougé M,
    3. Rouzaud P,
    4. Mauduyt MA,
    5. Pujazon MC,
    6. Vincent C,
    7. Carles P,
    8. Serre G
    : Evaluation of pleural CYFRA 21-1 and carcinoembryonic antigen in the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions. Br J Cancer 77(3): 472-476, 1998. PMID: 9472646.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Ferrer J,
    2. Villarino MA,
    3. Encabo G,
    4. Felip E,
    5. Bermejo B,
    6. Vilà S,
    7. Orriols R
    : Diagnostic utility of CYFRA 21-1, carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 125, neuron specific enolase, and squamous cell antigen level determinations in the serum and pleural fluid of patients with pleural effusions. Cancer 86(8): 1488-1495, 1999. PMID: 10526277.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Miédougé M,
    2. Rouzaud P,
    3. Salama G,
    4. Pujazon MC,
    5. Vincent C,
    6. Mauduyt MA,
    7. Reyre J,
    8. Carles P,
    9. Serre G
    : Evaluation of seven tumour markers in pleural fluid for the diagnosis of malignant effusions. Br J Cancer 81(6): 1059-1065, 1999. PMID: 10576665.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Trapé J,
    2. Molina R,
    3. Sant F
    : Clinical evaluation of the simultaneous determination of tumor markers in fluid and serum and their ratio in the differential diagnosis of serous effusions. Tumour Biol 25(5-6): 276-281, 2004. PMID: 15627892.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Valdés L,
    2. San-José E,
    3. Ferreiro L,
    4. González-Barcala FJ,
    5. Golpe A,
    6. Álvarez-Dobaño JM,
    7. Toubes ME,
    8. Rodríguez-Núñez N,
    9. Rábade C,
    10. Lama A,
    11. Gude F
    : Combining clinical and analytical parameters improves prediction of malignant pleural effusion. Lung 191(6): 633-643, 2013. PMID: 24085319. DOI: 10.1007/s00408-013-9512-2
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Barillo JL,
    2. da Silva Junior CT,
    3. Silva PS,
    4. de Souza JBS,
    5. Kanaan S,
    6. Xavier AR,
    7. de Araujo EG
    : Increased cytokeratin 19 fragment levels are positively correlated with adenosine deaminase activity in malignant pleural effusions from adenocarcinomas. Dis Markers 2018: 2609767, 2018. PMID: 29854023. DOI: 10.1155/2018/2609767
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Trapé J,
    2. Sant F,
    3. Franquesa J,
    4. Montesinos J,
    5. Arnau A,
    6. Sala M,
    7. Bernadich O,
    8. Martín E,
    9. Perich D,
    10. Pérez C,
    11. Lopez J,
    12. Ros S,
    13. Esteve E,
    14. Pérez R,
    15. Aligué J,
    16. Gurt G,
    17. Catot S,
    18. Domenech M,
    19. Bosch J,
    20. Badal JM,
    21. Bonet M,
    22. Molina R,
    23. Ordeig J
    : Evaluation of two strategies for the interpretation of tumour markers in pleural effusions. Respir Res 18(1): 103, 2017. PMID: 28545517. DOI: 10.1186/s12931-017-0582-1
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Trapé J,
    2. Molina R,
    3. Sant F,
    4. Montesinos J,
    5. Arnau A,
    6. Franquesa J,
    7. Blavia R,
    8. Martín E,
    9. Marquilles E,
    10. Perich D,
    11. Pérez C,
    12. Roca JM,
    13. Doménech M,
    14. López J,
    15. Badal JM
    : Diagnostic accuracy of tumour markers in serous effusions: a validation study. Tumour Biol 33(5): 1661-1668, 2012. PMID: 22678976. DOI: 10.1007/s13277-012-0422-3
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Trapé J,
    2. Gurt G,
    3. Franquesa J,
    4. Montesinos J,
    5. Arnau A,
    6. Sala M,
    7. Sant F,
    8. Casado E,
    9. Ordeig JM,
    10. Bergos C,
    11. Vida F,
    12. Sort P,
    13. Isava Á,
    14. González M,
    15. Molina R
    : Diagnostic accuracy of tumor markers CYFRA21-1 and CA125 in the differential diagnosis of ascites. Anticancer Res 35(10): 5655-5660, 2015. PMID: 26408739.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Chen M,
    2. Xie S,
    3. Wan C,
    4. Zeng N,
    5. Wu Y,
    6. Qin J,
    7. Shen Y,
    8. Wen F
    : Diagnostic performance of CTLA-4, carcinoembryonic antigen and CYFRA 21-1 for malignant pleural effusion. Postgrad Med 129(6): 644-648, 2017. PMID: 28506100. DOI: 10.1080/00325481.2017.1331112
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Antonangelo L,
    2. Sales RK,
    3. Corá AP,
    4. Acencio MM,
    5. Teixeira LR,
    6. Vargas FS
    : Pleural fluid tumour markers in malignant pleural effusion with inconclusive cytologic results. Curr Oncol 22(5): e336-341, 2015. PMID: 26628873. DOI: 10.3747/co.22.2563
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 39 (9)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 39, Issue 9
September 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Diagnostic Accuracy of CYFRA21-1 in the Differential Diagnosis of Pleural Effusions
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
5 + 5 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Diagnostic Accuracy of CYFRA21-1 in the Differential Diagnosis of Pleural Effusions
JAUME TRAPÉ, FRANCESC SANT, JESUS MONTESINOS, ANNA ARNAU, MARIA SALA, OSCAR BERNADICH, ESPERANZA MARTÍN, DAMIA PERICH, JOAN LOPEZ, SANDRA ROS, ENRIQUE ESTEVE-VALVERDE, RAFAEL PÉREZ, CAROLINA GONZÁLEZ-FERNÁNDEZ, JORDI ALIGUE, SILVIA CATOT, MONTSERRAT DOMENECH, DOMINGO RUIZ, MARIONA BONET, RAFAEL MOLINA, JOSEP ORDEIG
Anticancer Research Sep 2019, 39 (9) 5071-5076; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13700

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Diagnostic Accuracy of CYFRA21-1 in the Differential Diagnosis of Pleural Effusions
JAUME TRAPÉ, FRANCESC SANT, JESUS MONTESINOS, ANNA ARNAU, MARIA SALA, OSCAR BERNADICH, ESPERANZA MARTÍN, DAMIA PERICH, JOAN LOPEZ, SANDRA ROS, ENRIQUE ESTEVE-VALVERDE, RAFAEL PÉREZ, CAROLINA GONZÁLEZ-FERNÁNDEZ, JORDI ALIGUE, SILVIA CATOT, MONTSERRAT DOMENECH, DOMINGO RUIZ, MARIONA BONET, RAFAEL MOLINA, JOSEP ORDEIG
Anticancer Research Sep 2019, 39 (9) 5071-5076; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13700
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Comparative Assessment of Two Strategies for Interpreting Tumor Markers in Ascitic Effusions
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Tumor Budding Grade and T Stage as Recurrence Predictors of High-risk Stage II Colorectal Cancer
  • Pathologic Complete Response (pCR) in Patient With Myxofibrosarcoma Who Underwent Neoadjuvant Radiation Concurrent to Complementary and Alternative Medicine
  • Machine Learning Model to Guide Empirical Antimicrobial Therapy in Febrile Neutropenic Patients With Hematologic Malignancies
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • CYFRA 21-1
  • pleural effusion
  • differential diagnosis
  • malignant effusion
Anticancer Research

© 2025 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire