Clinical application of serum CST4 combined with tumor markers in the diagnosis of digestive system malignant tumors.

ABSTRACT

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of plasma human cystatin-S (CST4) in patients with digestive system malignant tumors. CST4 and tumor markers, such as α-fetoprotein (AFP), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen (CA)199, CA125, CA153 and CA724, were detected in blood samples from 100 patients with a digestive system malignant tumor and 100 patients with benign digestive system diseases. The tumor markers AFP, CEA, CA199, CA125, CA153 and CA724 were detected using an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay, and CST4 levels were detected using a human CST4 ELISA kit. The results demonstrated that the sensitivities of AFP and CA153 (both 5.00%) were significantly lower than that of CST4 (38.00%) in the diagnosis of digestive system malignancy (P<0.001), and CA724 (18.00%) was also less sensitive than CST4 (P<0.05). The sensitivities of CA199 (26.00%), CEA (31.00%) and CA125 (25.00%) were similar to that of CST4 (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the CEA, CA125, CA724 and CST4 specificities (P>0.05), which were 91.00, 95.00, 94.00 and 83.00%, respectively. The specificities of AFP (99.00%), CA199 (98.00%) and CA153 (100.00%) were significantly higher than that of CST4 (P<0.01). By constructing a receiver operating characteristic curve and comparing the area under the curve as well as sensitivity, the findings of the present study demonstrated that combining CST4 with AFP, CEA, CA199, CA125, CA153 and CA724 can significantly enhance the diagnostic sensitivity for malignancies of the digestive system. However, the introduction of CST4 into the traditional diagnostic groups (CEA + AFP, CA199 + CA125 + CA153 + CA724 and AFP + CEA + CA199 + CA125 + CA153 + CA724) resulted in an increased sensitivity and loss of specificity, thereby not offering significant advantages in terms of comprehensive diagnostic efficiency compared with the traditional diagnostic groups. In conclusion, CST4 detection may be a promising diagnostic tool. Nonetheless, the potential false positive results in tumor diagnosis should be taken into consideration when developing new diagnostic groups involving CST4.