![]() | Only 14 pages are availabe for public view |
Abstract Gastrointe: tinal neoplasms still remain a challenge for gastroenterologists and onrologists. The search Continues for an ideal tumor marker that can differeniate quantitively the normal from the neoplastic Condition give organ specificity, show a high degree of sensitivity and be of prognostic and monitoring value. Although t umor markers are now well established in the assessment of postsurgical follow-up of cancer patients, cancer prognosis, detection of tumor recurrence and monitoring of tumor burden changes, but tumor markers testing still has its intrinsic pitfalls. The Concluding remarks of this study could be summarized as follows:- 1- The markers tested in this study is of no value as a predictor marker for site or .aistopathological type of tumor present . 2- FHAP isoenzyne never detected in the healthy control subjects and can be conside:oedas a good positive screening test taking into consideration the presenc e of a great percentage with false negative results . 3- The best c ombination of markers with the highest sansitivity and speci- ficity used for diagnosis of gastrointestinal neoplasms was CEA + AAG + TPA + F’IAP. 4- All markers tested showed tendency for elevation in incidence and concentration ’ilfithstage progression and can be assesed in clinical staging of cancer s :ates . 5- Preoperative elevation of all markers (except TPA) relfects the extent of underlying disease and correlate well with prognosis and survival of cancer parients . 6- Preoperative and postoperative levels of CEA and FHAP could be used as a predictor of recurrence. Persistence of elevated levels of the two markers postoperatively in cancer patients in the follow up programme should be considered as a major alarm sign raising the possibility of existence of live metastasis or tumor recurrence . 7- Serum TI’A level con be considered as a reliable marker for coexis- <lI tence of liver metastasis <b\sed on a case report) . |