Skip Navigation LinksHome > July 2013 - Volume 8 - Issue 7 > Cytokeratin 19 Fragment Predicts the Efficacy of Epidermal G...
Journal of Thoracic Oncology:
doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31828c3929
Original Articles

Cytokeratin 19 Fragment Predicts the Efficacy of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor–Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Harboring EGFR Mutation

Tanaka, Kosuke MD*; Hata, Akito MD*; Kaji, Reiko MD*; Fujita, Shiro MD, PhD*; Otoshi, Takehiro MD; Fujimoto, Daichi MD; Kawamura, Takahisa MD; Tamai, Koji MD*; Takeshita, Jumpei MD; Matsumoto, Takeshi MD; Monden, Kazuya MD; Nagata, Kazuma MD; Otsuka, Kyoko MD; Nakagawa, Atsushi MD; Tachikawa, Ryo MD; Otsuka, Kojiro MD, PhD; Tomii, Keisuke MD, PhD; Katakami, Nobuyuki MD, PhD*

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

*Division of Integrated Oncology, Institute of Biomedical Research and Innovation, Minatojima-Minamimachi, Chuo-Ku, Kobe, Japan; and Department of Respiratory Medicine, Kobe City Medical Center, General Hospital, Minatojima-Minamimachi, Chuo-Ku, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan.

Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Address for correspondence: Nobuyuki Katakami, MD, Division of Integrated Oncology, Institute of Biomedical Research and Innovation, 2-2 Minatojima-minamimachi, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650-0047, Japan. E-mail: katakami@fbri.org

Collapse Box

Abstract

Background:

EGFR gene mutation is independently associated with a favorable response in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients receiving epidermal growth factor receptor -tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs), regardless of sex or smoking history. Squamous cell carcinoma patients harboring EGFR mutations show a significantly worse response to EGFR-TKIs compared with adenocarcinoma patients. We hypothesized that the serum cytokeratin 19 fragment (CYFRA 21-1) is associated with the efficacy of EGFR-TKIs in EGFR-mutated NSCLC patients.

Methods:

We retrospectively screened 160 NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations, who had received either gefitinib, or erlotinib between 1992 and 2011. Patients were screened for clinical characteristics, the efficacy of EGFR-TKI, and tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA]/CYFRA 21-1) at the initial diagnosis.

Results:

Of 160 eligible patients treated with EGFR-TKIs, 77 patients with high CYFRA 21-1 level (>2 ng/ml) showed significantly shorter progression-free survival (PFS) than the 83 patients with normal CYFRA 21-1 level (median PFS, 7.5 versus 13.3 months; p < 0.001). No significant difference in PFS was observed between the high-CEA group (>5 ng/ml) and the normal-CEA group (median PFS, 8.6 versus 11.2 months; p = 0.242). A multivariate analysis revealed that high CYFRA 21-1 level is independently associated with PFS (hazard ratio, 1.27; p = 0.002). No significant difference in overall survival was observed between the high- and the normal-CYFRA 21-1 groups (median overall survival, 24.8 versus 39.1 months; p = 0.104).

Conclusions:

Patients with a high CYFRA 21-1 level have significantly shorter PFS. CYFRA 21-1 is not a prognostic but a predictive marker of EGFR-TKI treatment in EGFR-mutated NSCLC patients.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 85% of lung cancers.1 Chemotherapy alone, or in combination with other agents, can modestly improve lung cancer outcomes, but at the cost of significant toxicity to patients. In recent years, molecular-targeted therapies, such as epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors, have gained attention for their potential to improve patient survival and reduce toxic side effects.2–4 The efficacy of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in the treatment of NSCLC has been proven, especially in EGFR-mutation–positive patients, and the presence of EGFR mutations is known to predict the efficacy of EGFR-TKIs.5–7

EGFR mutations are usually found in adenocarcinoma and rarely in other histologic subtypes.8–12 The incidence of EGFR mutations in squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is reported to be approximately 5%,12–15 therefore, most SCC patients do not seem to benefit much from major advances in the development of EGFR-gene–targeted therapy. Moreover, a recent pooled analysis showed that nonadenocarcinoma patients harboring EGFR mutations have shorter progression-free survival (PFS) when treated with EGFR-TKIs compared with patients with adenocarcinoma harboring EGFR mutations.16

Cytokeratin 19 fragment (CYFRA 21-1) is both a sensitive and specific tumor marker for NSCLC, especially for SCC.17–21 Shukuya et al.16 reported that SCC patients harboring EGFR mutations exhibit lower response to EGFR-TKIs. We, therefore, hypothesized that the serum CYFRA 21-1 level is related to the efficacy of EGFR-TKIs in NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), recognized as a tumor marker for NSCLC, is also useful for the detection of adenocarcinoma, with approximately 60% sensitivity and 50% specificity for adenocarcinoma,22,23 whereas the sensitivity and specificity is approximately 25% to 40% and 25%, respectively, for squamous cell carcinoma.19,20 Moreover, the serum CEA level at diagnosis is a poor prognostic factor in lung cancer patients.23–25 The aims of our present study were: (1) to analyze the predictive and prognostic value of the serum CYFRA 21-1 level in EGFR-mutant patients treated with EGFR-TKI; (2) to compare the significance of CYFRA 21-1 with that of another tumor marker, CEA; (3) to identify the indicative factors among these tumor markers and the clinical characteristics (i.e., age, sex, smoking history, performance status [PS], and histology) associated therein.

Back to Top | Article Outline

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients and EGFR Mutation Analysis

In this retrospective study, we screened the cases of 160 EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC patients treated with EGFR-TKIs at the Institute of Biomedical Research and Innovation or the Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital (Japan), between 1992 and 2011. All patients with locally advanced (stage IIIB), metastasized (stage IV), or postsurgically relapsed NSCLC were confirmed for EGFR mutations and received either gefitinib 250 mg/d or erlotinib 150 mg/d orally (clinical stage was determined by the 7th edition of tumor, node, metastasis classification). EGFR mutations were identified by the peptide nucleic acid–locked nucleic acid polymerase chain reaction clamp method. One hundred fifty-three patients harbored activated EGFR mutations (either exon 19 deletions or L858R in exon 21). The other seven patients had minor mutations (1 with L861Q in exon 21, and 6 with G719X in exon 18). Histologic subclassification was carried out according to the World Health Organization classification.26 A computed tomography scan was performed for tumor assessment within 28 days before initiating treatment, and was repeated every 2 to 3 months. All responses were defined according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Response was confirmed at least 4 weeks (for a complete or partial response) or 6 weeks (for stable disease) after the first documentation.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Measurement of Serum CEA and CYFRA 21-1 Levels

The serum CEA level was measured within 2 weeks before the initial diagnosis of NSCLC, by a commercial electrochemiluminescence immunoassay on the ARCHITECT i2000SR system (Abbott Diagnostics, Tokyo, Japan). The serum CYFRA 21-1 level was measured simultaneously, by a commercial electrochemiluminescence immunoassay on the ElecSys 2010 system (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN). The standard cutoff values for CEA and CYFRA 21-1 at our institutions are 5.0 ng/ml and 2.0 ng/ml, respectively.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using the JMP statistical software program (9th version; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) to compare patient characteristics and responses with EGFR-TKI treatment. Wilcoxon test was performed to compare serum CYFRA 21-1 levels between the two groups. Survival curves were estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method, and the differences between the two groups were compared with the log-rank test. Single-variable survival analyses were done by means of log-rank tests, and the multivariate regression was done with Cox’s proportional hazard regression model. The PFS was calculated from the date of initiation of EGFR-TKI treatment to, either the date of disease progression, or the date of last contact. The overall survival (OS) was defined as the interval from the date of initiation of EGFR-TKI treatment to the date of death from any cause, or the last follow-up. All tests were two-sided, and a p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.

Back to Top | Article Outline

RESULTS

Patient Characteristics

The clinical characteristics of the 160 patients are shown in Table 1. Ninety-one patients (57%) were women and 97 (61%) were never-smokers, with an age range of 33 to 90 years (median, 67 years). Most patients had adenocarcinoma; only eight patients had SCC, and one had large-cell carcinoma. One hundred thirty-two patients received gefitinib 250 mg/d, and 28 patients were treated with erlotinib 150 mg/d. Fifty-seven patients were treated with EGFR-TKI as a first-line therapy, 67 patients as a second-line therapy, and 36 patients as third-line or thereafter. Seventy-one patients (44%) had a PS of 0, 69 (43%) had a PS of 1, 16 (10%) had a PS of 2, and four (3%) had a PS of 3 to 4.

TABLE 1.
TABLE 1.
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline
Serum CYFRA 21-1/CEA Levels and PFS

Of 160 eligible patients treated with EGFR-TKIs, 83 patients showed serum CYFRA 21-1 level above the normal upper limit of 2.0 ng/ml at initial diagnosis. The serum CEA level in 89 patients at initial diagnosis was elevated (> 5.0 ng/ml). At the time of analysis, the median follow-up time was 32.5 months (range, 23.3–44.6 months). The median duration of PFS in patients with high- and normal-serum CYFRA 21-1 level was 7.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.2–9.1 months) and 13.3 months (95% CI, 10.6–18.2 months), respectively (p < 0.001; Fig. 1A). In addition, there was no significant difference in tumor responses between high- and normal-CYFRA 21-1 groups (response rate, 48.1% versus 42.2%; p = 0.818). The median durations of PFS in the two groups of patients with high- and normal-serum CEA levels were 8.6 months (95% CI, 7.6–11.9 months) and 11.2 months (95% CI, 7.1–16.6 months), respectively (p = 0.242; Fig. 1B).

FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1.
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline
Serum CYFRA 21-1/CEA Levels and OS

As shown in Figure 2A, the median duration of OS in the patients with high- and normal-serum CYFRA 21-1 levels were 24.8 months (95% CI, 20.3–36.5 months) and 37.8 months (95% CI, 26.4–52.7 months), respectively (p = 0.104). The median duration of OS in patients with high- and normal-serum CEA level was 26.0 months (95% CI, 20.3–36.5 months) and 39.0 months (95% CI, 26.5–61.3 months), respectively (p = 0.163; Fig. 2B). There was no significant difference in OS between the high-CYFRA 21-1 group and the normal-CYFRA 21-1 group (median OS, 24.8 versus 37.8 months; p = 0.104; Fig. 2A). Moreover, postprogression survival ([PPS], calculated as OS minus PFS) was almost the same between the two groups (median PPS, 14.7 versus 18.0 months; p = 0.655; Fig. 2C). As for CEA, no significant difference in PPS was shown between the high-CEA group and the normal-CEA group (median OS, 26.0 versus 39.0 months; p = 0.163; Fig. 2B).

FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 2.
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline
Impact of Serum CYFRA21-1/CEA Levels on the Efficacy of EGFR-TKI

To determine the predictive importance of clinical characteristics and the serum CYFRA 21-1/CEA level in the EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients treated with EGFR-TKIs, we performed a Cox proportional hazard regression analysis on the parameters listed in Table 2. The univariate analyses revealed that high-serum CYFRA 21-1 level (p < 0.001), SCC (p = 0.002), and poor PS (p = 0.001) were significant negative predictive factors for PFS. In addition, the multivariate analyses (Table 3) demonstrated that high-serum CYFRA 21-1 level (hazard ratio [HR], 1.27; 95% CI, 1.11–1.40; p = 0.002) was independently a significant predictive factor for PFS.

TABLE 2.
TABLE 2.
Image Tools
TABLE 3.
TABLE 3.
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline
Impact of Serum CYFRA21-1/CEA Levels on Survival

To determine prognostic variant factors, we also performed a Cox proportional hazard regression analysis on the parameters listed in Table 2. The univariate analyses showed that SCC (p = 0.002) and poor PS (p < 0.001) were significantly associated with shorter OS. The multivariate analyses (Table 3) demonstrated that PS (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.14–2.22; p = 0.009) alone was a prognostic factor for OS.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Eight SCC Patients Harboring EGFR Mutations

As shown in Table 2, the eight SCC patients harboring EGFR mutations had significantly shorter PFS than the non-SCC patients harboring EGFR mutations (median PFS, 4.0 months versus 10.2 months; p = 0.002). We compared serum CYFRA 21-1 levels between 151 adenocarcinoma patients and eight SCC patients. CYFRA 21-1 level was significantly higher in SCC patients (median, 5.6 ng/ml; 95% CI, 1.7–8.3) compared with adenocarcinoma patients (median, 2.1 ng/ml; 95% CI, 1.7–2.4; p = 0.014). The four patients with highest CYFRA 21-1 levels did not respond to EGFR-TKIs (disease progression was confirmed within 2 months), whereas the remaining four patients with lower serum CYFRA 21-1 levels had much longer PFS (median PFS, 1.0 months versus 7.0 months; p = 0.007; Table 4).

TABLE 4.
TABLE 4.
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCUSSION

Our findings revealed that high-serum CYFRA 21-1 level at initial diagnosis was related to shorter PFS of EGFR-TKIs in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Several reports have demonstrated that high levels of CEA and CYFRA 21-1 at baseline are correlated with worse OS in advanced NSCLC patients.27,28 In the previous study, CYFRA 21-1 was shown to be significantly more sensitive than CEA for predicting clinical outcome of NSCLC patients (HR, 1.3; p = 0.01).27 Recently, it was found that the factors CYFRA 21-1 and change in CYFRA 21-1 were reliable markers for response to chemotherapy for NSCLC patients.29 To the best of our knowledge, no serum marker for EGFR-mutated NSCLC has been reported to predict the efficacy of EGFR-TKIs, and ours may be the first report that focused on predicting PFS and OS of EGFR-TKI treatment in NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations.

EGFR mutations occur most frequently in female, nonsmoking, East-Asian, and adenocarcinoma patients.30 Several reports have suggested that tumor molecular profiling may supersede these clinical selection factors for EGFR-TKI treatment in NSCLC patients. EGFR mutation was reported to be independently associated with a favorable prognosis in gefitinib-treated patients, regardless of sex or smoking history.31 However, in a pooled analysis,16 gefitinib was less effective in nonadenocarcinoma NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations, than in adenocarcinoma harboring EGFR mutations.

Distinguishing adenocarcinoma from SCC has recently provided clinical benefits for treatment decisions, however, the histologic classification is solely based on small biopsy or cytologic specimens in most cases. Travis et al.32 mentioned the considerable limitation of the diagnosis based on a small biopsy sample, which occasionally leads to controversial diagnosis in NSCLC. They indicated that one major underlying problem is the inherent histologic heterogeneity that exists in a subset of NSCLC. Because of this inherent histologic heterogeneity in NSCLC, and because the structural features of SCC or adenocarcinoma differentiation are focal or not distinguishable in small biopsy or cytologic specimens, 10% of SCCs, 14% of adenocarcinomas, and 50% of large-cell carcinomas were misclassified on the basis of bronchial biopsies.33

CYFRA 21-1 is 40 kD acidic protein that is part of the cytoskeleton of epithelial cells.34 Increased CYFRA 21-1 is the result of not only cytokeratin release as a consequence of cell lysis, or necrosis, but also the generation of cytokeratin filament by activated protease in tumor cells.35 Some studies have shown that CYFRA 21-1 is both a sensitive and specific tumor marker for NSCLC, and especially for SCC.17–21 The sensitivity and specificity of CYFRA 21-1 for SCC were reported to be 66.5% and 95%, respectively, making CYFRA 21-1 a much better diagnostic marker than CEA, for SCC.20 It was reported that the serum CYFRA 21-1 level is associated with the efficacy of pemetrexed in nonsquamous NSCLC and may be a predictive marker for pemetrexed use.36 Considering histologic heterogeneity in NSCLC, we speculated that the serum CYFRA 21-1 level in pretreatment lung cancer patients proportionately represents the extent of the squamous component in the lung tumor. This hypothesis can explain the difference in pemetrexed’s efficacy in nonsquamous NSCLC between normal- and high-CYFRA 21-1 groups, because SCC patients have been reported to respond more poorly to pemetrexed therapy compared with adenocarcinoma patients.37–39 Our study demonstrated the difference in EGFR-TKI treatment efficacy in NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations between normal- and high-CYFRA 21-1 groups. In addition, our multivariate analysis revealed that high CYFRA 21-1 level was an independent negative predictive factor for PFS in the EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.11–1.40), conforming to our speculation that the serum CYFRA 21-1 level is associated with the proportion of the squamous component in NSCLC. As the frequency of SCC is low in EGFR-mutated NSCLC, CYFRA 21-1 is a more valuable predictive marker for EGFR-TKI treatment than squamous histology.

Similar to the Shukuya et al.16 report the eight SCC patients harboring EGFR mutations in our study also had shorter PFS (median PFS, 4.0 months) than the adenocarcinoma patients harboring EGFR mutations. The interesting point is that higher CYFRA 21-1 level was closely related to the worse efficacy of EGFR-TKI even among the SCC patients. The four patients with highest CYFRA 21-1 levels did not respond to EGFR-TKIs (disease progression was confirmed within 2 months), whereas the remaining four patients with lower serum CYFRA 21-1 levels had much longer PFS (Table 4). We observed a strong trend, in which high CYFRA 21-1 level patients with SCC harboring EGFR mutations had significantly worse responses to EGFR-TKI (median PFS, 1.0 months versus 7.0 months; p = 0.007).

In our data, longer PFS in the normal-CYFRA 21-1 group did not directly translate into longer OS compared with the high-CYFRA 21-1 group. The reason may be that the PPS, after EGFR-TKI failure, was almost equal between the high- and normal-CYFRA 21-1 groups (shown in Fig. 2C). This indicates that the serum CYFRA 21-1 level is not a surrogate marker for the efficacy of systemic cytotoxic chemotherapies other than EGFR-TKIs in NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations.

Our study has some limitations. First, we retrospectively screened 195 consecutive EGFR-mutated NSCLC patients treated with EGFR-TKIs, and 35 patients were excluded from our study because their serum CYFRA 21-1 was not examined at the initial diagnosis. This may have led to selection bias. Second, the data for OS were premature, with approximately 50% of the patients still alive, when reported. Third, it is uncertain whether the serum CYFRA 21-1 level actually represents a rich squamous component in each patient. At least, in the literature with which we are familiar, it has not been proven molecularly that serum circulating CYFRA 21-1 is associated with the existence and progression of lung SCC component. We demonstrated, as a whole, a significant trend in which the efficacy of EGFR-TKIs in patients harboring EGFR mutations depends on the initial serum CYFRA 21-1 level, which may represent the presence of a squamous-rich component in NSCLC.

In conclusion, CYFRA 21-1 is a predictive, not a prognostic, marker of PFS in NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations when treated with EGFR-TKIs. An NSCLC patient’s circulating CYFRA 21-1 level should be measured before EGFR-TKI treatment, and this level could be used as a clinically relevant marker in NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations. A prospective clinical trial is needed to test our present findings.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Parkin DM, Bray FI, Devasa SS. Cancer burden in the year 2000: the global picture. Eur J Cancer. 2001; 37:4–66

2. Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R, et al. Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350:2129–2139

3. Paez JG, Jänne PA, Lee JC, et al. EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science. 2004; 304:1497–1500

4. Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, et al. Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2009; 361:947–957

5. Mitsudomi T, Kosaka T, Endoh H, et al. Mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene predict prolonged survival after gefitinib treatment in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with postoperative recurrence. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23:2513–2520

6. Shepherd FA, Rodrigues Pereira J, Ciuleanu T, et al. National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353:123–132

7. Maemondo M, Inoue A, Kobayashi K, et al. North-East Japan Study Group Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362:2380–2388

8. Kang SM, Kang HJ, Shin JH, et al. Identical epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in adenocarcinomatous and squamous cell carcinomatous components of adenosquamous carcinoma of the lung. Cancer. 2007; 109:581–587

9. Toyooka S, Yatabe Y, Tokumo M, et al. Mutations of epidermal growth factor receptor and K-ras genes in adenosquamous carcinoma of the lung. Int J Cancer. 2006; 118:1588–1590

10. Marchetti A, Martella C, Felicioni L, et al. EGFR mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer: analysis of a large series of cases and development of a rapid and sensitive method for diagnostic screening with potential implications on pharmacologic treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23:857–865

11. Rosell R, Moran T, Queralt C, et al. Spanish Lung Cancer Group Screening for epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009; 361:958–967

12. Miyamae Y, Shimizu K, Hirato J, et al. Significance of epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations in squamous cell lung carcinoma. Oncol Rep. 2011; 25:921–928

13. Cappuzzo F, Hirsch FR, Rossi E, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor gene and protein and gefitinib sensitivity in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005; 97:643–655

14. Bell DW, Lynch TJ, Haserlat SM, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations and gene amplification in non-small-cell lung cancer: molecular analysis of the IDEAL/INTACT gefitinib trials. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23:8081–8092

15. Douillard JY, Shepherd FA, Hirsh V, et al. Molecular predictors of outcome with gefitinib and docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer: data from the randomized phase III INTEREST trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28:744–752

16. Shukuya T, Takahashi T, Kaira R, et al. Efficacy of gefitinib for non-adenocarcinoma non-small-cell lung cancer patients harboring epidermal growth factor receptor mutations: a pooled analysis of published reports. Cancer Sci. 2011; 102:1032–1037

17. Pujol JL, Grenier J, Daurès JP, Daver A, Pujol H, Michel FB. Serum fragment of cytokeratin subunit 19 measured by CYFRA 21-1 immunoradiometric assay as a marker of lung cancer. Cancer Res. 1993; 53:61–66

18. Bram W, Christine D, Ashok P, et al. Cyfra21-1 as a biologic marker of non-small cell lung cancer: evaluation of sensitivity, specificity, and prognostic role. Chest. 1995; 108:163–169

19. Nisman B, Lafair J, Heching N, et al. Evaluation of tissue polypeptide specific antigen, CYFRA 21-1, and carcinoembryonic antigen in nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: does the combined use of cytokeratin markers give any additional information? Cancer. 1998; 82:1850–1859

20. Kulpa J, Wójcik E, Reinfuss M, Kołodziejski L. Carcinoembryonic antigen, squamous cell carcinoma antigen, CYFRA 21-1, and neuron-specific enolase in squamous cell lung cancer patients. Clin Chem. 2002; 48:1931–1937

21. Stieber P, Hasholzner U, Bodenmüller H, et al. CYFRA 21-1. A new marker in lung cancer. Cancer. 2006; 72:707–713

22. Bergman B, Brezicka FT, Engström CP, Larsson S. Clinical usefulness of serum assays of neuron-specific enolase, carcinoembryonic antigen and CA-50 antigen in the diagnosis of lung cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1993; 29A:198–202

23. Kleisbauer JP, Castelnau O, Thomas P, Ramirez J, Lanteaume A, Roux F. [Prognostic value of pre-therapeutic levels of carcino-embryonic antigen in primary bronchial carcinoma]. Bull Cancer. 1995; 82:1019–1024

24. Nisman B, Amir G, Lafair J, et al. Prognostic value of CYFRA 21-1, TPS and CEA in different histologic types of non-small cell lung cancer. Anticancer Res. 1999; 19:(4C)3549–3552

25. Cedrés S, Nuñez I, Longo M, et al. Serum tumor markers CEA, CYFRA21-1, and CA-125 are associated with worse prognosis in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Clin Lung Cancer. 2011; 12:172–179

26. Travis WD, Colby TV, Corrin B, Shimosato Y, Brambilla E. World Health Organization International Histological Classification of Tumors Histological Typing of Lung and Pleural Tumors. 1999; 3rd Ed Berlin Springer-Verlag

27. Barlési F, Gimenez C, Torre JP, et al. Prognostic value of combination of Cyfra 21-1, CEA and NSE in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Respir Med. 2004; 98:357–362

28. Pujol JL, Molinier O, Ebert W, et al. CYFRA 21-1 is a prognostic determinant in non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a meta-analysis in 2063 patients. Br J Cancer. 2004; 90:2097–2105

29. Edelman MJ, Hodgson L, Rosenblatt PY, et al. CYFRA 21-1 as a prognostic and predictive marker in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in a prospective trial: CALGB 150304. J Thorac Oncol. 2012; 7:649–654

30. Shigematsu H, Lin L, Takahashi T, et al. Clinical and biological features associated with epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations in lung cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005; 97:339–346

31. Toyooka S, Takano T, Kosaka T, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutation, but not sex and smoking, is independently associated with favorable prognosis of gefitinib-treated patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Cancer Sci. 2008; 99:303–308

32. Travis WD, Rekhtman N, Riley GJ, et al. Pathologic diagnosis of advanced lung cancer based on small biopsies and cytology: a paradigm shift. J Thorac Oncol. 2010; 5:411–414

33. Cataluña JJ, Perpiñá M, Greses JV, Calvo V, Padilla JD, París F. Cell type accuracy of bronchial biopsy specimens in primary lung cancer. Chest. 1996; 109:1199–1203

34. Moll R, Franke WW, Schiller DL, Geiger B, Krepler R. The catalog of human cytokeratins: patterns of expression in normal epithelia, tumors and cultured cells. Cell. 1982; 31:11–24

35. Sugiyama Y, Kitamura S, Kawai T, et al. Clinical usefulness of CYFRA assay in diagnosing lung cancer: measurement of serum cytokeratin fragment. Jpn Cancer Res. 1994; 53:61–66

36. Kaburaki K, Horiike T, Sakatani R, et al. Differential efficacy of pemetrexed in nonsquamous NSCLC based on human cytokeratin antigen 21-1 (CYFRA 21-1) serum levels. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29:

:(suppl; abstr 10612)


37. Scagliotti G, Hanna N, Fossella F, et al. The differential efficacy of pemetrexed according to NSCLC histology: a review of two Phase III studies. Oncologist. 2009; 14:253–263

38. Scagliotti GV, Parikh P, von Pawel J, et al. Phase III study comparing cisplatin plus gemcitabine with cisplatin plus pemetrexed in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26:3543–3551

39. Ciuleanu T, Brodowicz T, Zielinski C, et al. Maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care for non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2009; 374:1432–1440

Keywords:

Cytokeratin 19 fragment; Epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor; Non–small-cell lung cancer

Copyright © 2013 by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer

Login

Article Tools

Images

Share

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.

Other Ways to Connect

Twitter
twitter.com/JTOonline

 



Visit JTO.org on your smartphone. Scan this code (QR reader app required) with your phone and be taken directly to the site.

 For additional oncology content, visit LWW Oncology Journals on Facebook.