Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Introduction: Tumor markers have been shown to be closely related to the long-term survival of patients with cancer and the recurrence of various malignant tumors. However, their role in thymic epithelial tumors (TETs) remains to be elucidated. We aimed to investigate whether the preoperative tumor biomarkers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and neuron-specific enolase (NSE) could serve as independent predictors of postoperative prognosis in patients with TETs. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively included a total of 111 patients with TETs who underwent thymectomy at our hospital. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the statistical significance of CEA and NSE as independent predictors of overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Kaplan–Meier curves were used to present the results of our survival analyses. Results: Cox regression analysis showed that T stage, World Health Organization (WHO) histologic type, tumor size, and CEA levels served as independent prognostic factors for OS (P < .05). Whereas for RFS, multivariate analysis showed that only T stage, WHO histologic type, and drinking history were independently associated with it (P < .05). Conclusion: Our study found that preoperative serum CEA levels and tumor size may be strong predictors of postoperative OS in patients with TETs.

Keywords

thymic epithelial tumor tumor biomarker carcinoembryonic antigen overall survival recurrence-free survival prognosis

Introduction

Thymic epithelial tumors (TETs), including thymoma, thymic carcinoma, and thymic neuroendocrine neoplasms, are rare tumors that mainly occur in the mediastinum.^1,2 Their incidence in Europe is only 1.7/million people per year, and the data registered in the United States is 0.13/100000 person-years.^3,4 According to the World Health Organization (WHO) histological classification, TETs can be divided into A, AB, B1-3, and other categories.⁵ The current standard treatment for TETs is surgery.^6–9 A meta-analysis by Tateishi et al showed that postoperative adjuvant therapy can improve the overall survival (OS) of Masaoka stage II/III patients,¹⁰ but the role of postoperative adjuvant therapy remains to be confirmed by prospective studies. A variety of clinical factors have been confirmed to be related to prognosis including tumor size,¹¹ T stage,¹² Masaoka stage,¹³ WHO histologic types,¹⁴ and tumor vascular invasion.¹⁵ However, molecular biomarkers with prognostic value have not yet been identified or confirmed for this type of malignancy.

Since carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) was discovered in intestinal adenocarcinoma in 1965,¹⁶ it has gradually become an important diagnostic and prognostic indicator for patients with colorectal cancer. With the deepening of research, serum CEA levels have been found to increase in various cancers,¹⁷ including pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer,¹⁸ gastric cancer,¹⁹ and others. Meanwhile, CEA has been established as a prognostic marker in a variety of cancers, including colorectal cancer,²⁰ lung cancer,²¹ and breast cancer.²² However, its prognostic value in TETs has not yet been fully studied.

In a similar fashion, neuron-specific enolase (NSE) is often expressed at high levels in the brain and is elevated in some tumors of neuroendocrine cell origin, and it can be used as a prognostic biomarker for small cell lung cancer,²³ non-small cell lung cancer,²⁴ esophageal neuroendocrine cell carcinoma,²⁵ prostate cancer,²⁶ and other diseases. Some studies have shown that the expression of NSE may also be abnormal in TETs,²⁷ but its relationship with OS and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in this type of tumors remains to be elucidated.

Although a variety of tumor markers have prognostic roles in various tumors, given the rarity of TETs, research on their specific markers has not attracted a lot of interest from researchers. Therefore, this study explored the prognostic value of tumor markers CEA and NSE in these rare tumors by collecting patients’ data for more than 10 years.

Materials and Methods

Study Design

This study was approved by the ethics review board of the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (No. B2020-353-01), and we obtained the subject's informed consent exemption, the original dataset was uploaded to the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center database (RDDA2021002090). Our study has de-identified all patient details.

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with TETs who underwent thymoma resection at the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center between May 2004 and August 2015. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age > 18 years, (2) presence of histopathologically confirmed TETs, including thymomas and thymic carcinomas (TCs), (3) complete surgical resection (R0, no residual disease), and (4) complete relevant laboratory tests (serum tumor marker examination) within 7 days before surgery. Patients were excluded if (1) they were administered radiotherapy or chemotherapy prior to surgery, before and after surgery, or in an unknown sequence of treatment with surgery, (2) they were followed-up for less than 5 years, (3) they had more than 1 malignancy or a history of other malignancies, (4) they had a postoperative survival time of less than 3 months, (5) they only underwent thymoma biopsy, (6) they were treated by cryoablation, and (7) or their follow-up information is incomplete (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Flowchart.

Data Collection

Data were collected on the following clinical variables: CEA (ng/mL) and NSE (ng/mL) levels (recorded within 1 week before surgery), sex, age, smoking history, drinking history (alcohol consumption per day, specific alcohol consumption is not limited and described), family history of tumors, tumor size, myasthenia gravis symptoms, T stage, histological subtype, Masaoka stage, comorbidities (hypertension and/or diabetes), tumor capsule status, and other clinical information.

Follow-up

The follow-up strategy was specific for the first 2 years, with follow-up every 6 to 12 months for all postoperative patients, every 12 months for the third to fifth years, and then every year. The follow-up examination items were chest computed tomography plain scan and hematological examination (eg, blood routine, biochemical routine, tumor markers, etc.). The last follow-up encounter was in August 2020. The primary endpoints of this study were OS and RFS.

Data Analysis

In this study, the X-Tile was used to obtain the best cut-off values for CEA and NSE (http://www.tissuearray.org/rimmlab). Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (version 25.0; IBM) and R software (version 4.0.3; https://www.r-project.org/). Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards regression models in SPSS and relying on hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the risk value for each factor. Survival curves were drawn using the Kaplan–Meier method, and the log-rank test was used to compare the survival and recurrence of patients in different groups. All tests were two-way, with a significance level of P < .05.

Results

Patient Characteristics

A total of 111 patients with TETs were included in this study, including 58 men and 53 women, with an average age of 50.72 ± 12.09 years and an average tumor size of 6.63 ± 3.15 cm. Table 1 summarizes the patients’ WHO histologic types, T staging, smoking history, drinking history, myasthenia gravis, and other relevant clinical information.

Table 1.

Basic Demographic Data, Disease Specific Characteristics (n = 111).

Characteristic	N	%
Gender
Male	58	52.3
Female	53	47.7
Age (years)
≤60	87	78.4
>60	24	21.6
Smoking history
Never	84	75.7
Ever	27	24.3
Drinking history
No	96	86.5
Yes	15	13.5
Family history of tumor
No	92	82.9
Yes	19	17.1
Tumor size (cm)
≤6	63	56.8
>6	48	43.2
pT stage
T1	88	79.3
T2-3	23	20.7
Masaoka stage
I	54	48.6
II-III	57	51.4
WHO histologic type
A-B1	67	60.4
B2-B3	35	31.5
C	9	8.1
Underlying diseases
No	86	77.5
Yes	25	22.5
Myasthenia gravis
No	104	93.7
Yes	7	6.3
Tumor capsule status
Complete	66	59.5
Incomplete	45	40.5
CEA
≤ 2.3	71	64.0
> 2.3	40	36.0
NSE
≤ 12.5	55	49.5
> 12.5	56	50.5

Abbreviations: CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; NSE, neuron-specific enolase; pT stage, pathological T stage; WHO, World Health Organization.

Optimal cut-off Values for Preoperative CEA and NSE

Taking OS as the endpoint, the optimal cut-off value for preoperative CEA was 2.3 (P < .01) and the optimal cut-off value for NSE was 12.5 (P = 0.592) determined using X-Tile software. For further analysis, patients were divided into a high or low CEA group (> 2.3 or ≤ 2.3, respectively) and a high or low NSE group (> 12.5 or ≤ 12.5, respectively).

Association of CEA and NSE With Survival Outcomes

Using OS and RFS as endpoints, we compared the OS (Figure 2C; P < .05) and RFS (Figure 4C; P > .05) of patients assigned to the low-and high-level CEA groups.

Figure 2.

KM analysis of T stage (A), WHO (B), CEA (C), and tumor size (D) based on overall survival (OS).

Figure 4.

KM analysis of T stage (A), WHO (B), CEA(C), and drinking history (D) based on relapse-free survival (RFS).

Univariate and Multivariate Survival Analyses Based on OS

Univariate Cox regression analysis showed that 7 variables were significantly associated with OS: WHO histologic types, T stage, Masaoka stage, drinking history, tumor size, CEA levels, and tumor capsule status (Table 2). Four parameters were defined as independent prognostic factors for OS by multivariate Cox regression analysis: WHO histologic types (A-B1 vs B2-B3, HR = 0.456, 95% CI [0.122-1.706]; A-B1 vs C, HR = 6.938, 95% CI [1.814-26.538]), T stage (HR = 12.418, 95% CI [2.610-59.085]), tumor size (HR = 4.995, 95% CI [1.410-17.697]), and CEA (HR = 5.421, 95% CI [1.344-21.858]) (Table 2) and finally the Kaplan-Meier(KM) survival curve was used to show all the significant Cox factors (Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 3.

KM analysis of Masaoka stage (A), tumor capsule status (B), and drinking history (C) based on overall survival (OS).

Table 2.

Univariate and Multivariate Analysis Results in Thymic Epithelial Tumor (TET) Based on Overall Survival (OS) (n = 111).

Variable	Univariate analysis	Multivariate analysis
	P	HR	95% CI	P
Gender	.353
Male versus female	.353
Age(years)	.525
≤60 versus >60	.525
Smoking history	.746
Never versus ever	.746
drinking history	.017			.490
No versus Yes	.017			.490
Family history of tumor	.277
No versus Yes	.277
Tumor size	.030	Reference
≤6 versus >6		4.995	1.410–17.697	.013
pT stage	.000	Reference
T1 versus T2-3		12.418	2.610–59.085	.002
Masaoka stage	.041
I versus II-III				.076
WHO histologic type	.000	Reference
A-B1 versus B2-B3		.100	.015–.683
A-B1 versus C		.966	.196–4.755	.026
Underlying diseases	.510
No versus Yes	.510
Myasthenia gravis,	.506
No versus Yes
Tumor capsule status	.017
Complete versus Incomplete				.692
CEA	.002	Reference
Low level versus high level		5.421	1.344–21.858	.018
NSE	.592
Low level versus high level				.536

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; HR, hazard ratio; NSE, neuron-specific enolase; pT stage, pathological T stage; WHO, World Health Organization.

Univariate and Multivariate Survival Analysis Based on RFS

In the univariate analysis, 5 variables were significantly associated with RFS: WHO histologic types, T stage, drinking history, Masaoka stage, and tumor capsule status (Table 3). However, multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that 4 parameters were defined as independent prognostic factors for RFS: WHO histologic types (A-B1 vs B2-B3, HR = 1.669, 95% CI [.485-5.743]; A-B1 vs C, HR = 6.431, 95% CI [1.675-24.693]), T stage (HR = 4.722, 95% CI [1.580-14.114]), drinking history (HR = 4.227, 95% CI [1.431-12.484]) and NSE(HR = .305, 95% CI [.105–.887]) (Table 3) and finally the KM survival curve was used to show all the significant Cox factors (Figures 4 and 5).

Figure 5.

KM analysis of Masaoka (A) and tumor capsule status (B) based on relapse-free survival (RFS).

Table 3.

Univariate and Multivariate Analysis Results in Thymic Epithelial Tumor (TET) Based on Relapse-Free Survival (RFS) (n = 111)

Variable	Univariate analysis	Multivariate analysis
	P	HR	95% CI	P
Gender	.851
Male versus female
Age(years)	.351
≤60 versus >60
Smoking history	.990
Never versus ever
drinking history	.021	Reference
No versus Yes		4.691	1.523–14.452	.007
Family history of tumor	.933
No versus Yes
Tumor size	.060
≤6 versus >6
pT stage	.000	Reference
T1 versus T2-3		6.090	1.973–18.801	.002
Masaoka stage	.008
I versus II-III				.113
WHO histologic type	.001	Reference
A-B1 versus B2-B3		2.005	.596–6.741
A-B1 versus C		6.728	1.712–26.440	.022
Underlying diseases	.530
No versus Yes
Myasthenia gravis	.463
No versus Yes
Tumor capsule status	.015
Complete versus Incomplete				.537
CEA	.338
Low level versus high level				.321
NSE	.200	Reference
Low level versus high level		.305	.105–.887	.029

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; HR, hazard ratio; NSE, neuron-specific enolase; pT stage, pathological T stage; WHO, World Health Organization.

Discussion

This study confirmed the predictive effect of the tumor marker CEA on OS of patients with TETs through a rigorous Cox regression analysis. Interestingly, we also found that tumor size was an independent predictive factor of OS, and drinking history was an independent predictive factor of postoperative recurrence. However, NSE did not show any prognostic power for patients in our cohort.

It is well known that T stage,¹² WHO histologic types,²⁸ and Masaoka stage¹³ have significant effects on the survival of patients with TETs and the recurrence of these tumors, which was also reflected in our study. In addition, the Masaoka-Koga staging system is widely accepted for the staging of TETs. However, Yanagiya et al found in their cohort that WHO histological type and age were important prognostic factors without including the Masaoka-Koga staging system.²⁹ Similarly, Fukui et al showed that a new classification system had a better prognostic effect than Masaoka-Koga staging for TETs.^30,31 Combined with our findings, T staging may be more accurate in prognostic prediction than Masaoka-Koga staging. This needs to be validated in a larger sample size database. Eriksson et al showed that drinking history may be a risk factor for thymic tumors,³² but due to the rarity of TETs, few studies have investigated the relationship between drinking history and prognosis. Therefore, this may be an interesting research direction, which needs to be further confirmed by studies with larger sample sizes.

Whether tumor size affects the prognosis of TETs remains controversial. Okumura et al analyzed the clinical information of 2083 postoperative patients with thymomas by integrating multiinstitutional data and concluded that tumor size has an important impact on prognosis.³³ In addition, Fukui et al found that patients with tumors larger than 4 cm had worse RFS results, and this relationship was found even in patients with stage I disease.⁹ There are other related studies supporting this conclusion.^34–36 However, Nicholson et al analyzed more than 8000 patients and found that tumor size did not have a prognostic significance in thymic malignancies.³⁷ Similarly, Tseng et al also found that tumor size did not improve the prognostic predictive power of the TNM staging.³⁸ Using the data of more than 2000 patients in the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) database, Ruffini et al found that tumor size did not predict OS and RFS but could predict incomplete resection and recurrence risk.³⁹ Finally, in this study, our data support an independent association between tumor size and OS after R0 resection in patients with TETs.

As a tumor marker first discovered in intestinal adenocarcinoma, CEA has shown a strong prognostic role in lung cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and other tumors.^20–22 In TETs, Savino et al found that CEA may play a role as a thymic epithelial cell growth factor,⁴⁰ and Tomita et al found that the expression of CEA in thymoma was correlated with clinical stage.⁴¹ Additionally, Tomita et al found that CEA is highly expressed in thymic carcinomas, possibly indicating the aggressiveness of these carcinomas.⁴² Due to the rarity of TETs, the sample size of previous studies was extremely limited. Based on previous research and considering that CEA may affect the malignant potential and invasiveness of TETs, the team further explored the value of CEA as a tumor biomarker in the prognosis prediction of patients with these tumors. Although CEA was not significantly associated with postoperative RFS, our team first found that CEA was an independent predictor of postoperative R0 resection of TETs.

Whether for OS or RFS, NSE did not show statistical significance in univariate analysis in this study. However, in multivariate analysis with RFS as the end point of the study, NSE showed a certain prognostic value, but we think it cannot be used as one of the conclusions of this study. First, NSE did not show a prognostic value in univariate analysis, and its reference value in multivariate analysis was limited in this study. Second, due to the small number of NSE patients in this study, the results may have certain errors. Third, as a traditional oncological marker, NSE mainly reflects the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of meningitis, cerebral infarction, cerebral hemorrhage, islet cell tumor, melanoma, neuroblastoma, seminoma, small cell lung cancer, and other diseases, from a clinical point of view, it is not closely related to epithelial tumors. Fourth, it is well known that NSE is a risk factor in many benign and malignant diseases, and in our study, it is a protective factor, which violates the clinical common sense. In summary, we believe that the statistical significance of NSE in RFS should be held with skepticism. It is likely that this is just an accidental result and must be confirmed by a larger sample size or multiple centers to further determine its relationship with prognosis.

Although NSE did not show sufficient prognostic value in this study, it is important to consider the fact that this study mainly included thymoma and thymic carcinoma and did not consider other related thymic tumor types. Whereas NSE is mainly generated from neuroendocrine cells, and it can still show potential significance in future studies on thymic neuroendocrine neoplasms.

There is no doubt that the tumor capsule status is an important prognostic factor, but the prognostic value was not reflected in this study. The reason may be that, first, the tumor status in this study was relatively early, and all patients underwent complete surgical resection, so resection results are consistent regardless of tumor capsule status. Second, the data volume of this study is small, which may cause statistical errors.

This study had some limitations. First, this was a retrospective study conducted at a single center. In the future, multicenter, large sample studies are needed to confirm our results. Second, due to the extremely low incidence of thymic neuroendocrine neoplasms, this study did not include such patients, which may have affected the predictive effect of NSE on prognosis. At last, the dynamic changes in postoperative CEA and NSE levels were not included in the research scope, and their values need to be further explored.

Conclusion

Through retrospective analysis of more than 10 years of patient data, we found that preoperative serum CEA levels, WHO histologic types, and tumor size can independently predict OS in patients with TETs after R0 resection. On the other hand, patient drinking history and Masaoka stage were independently associated with postoperative RFS. Finally, the preoperative CEA level appears to be a powerful biomarker for the postoperative prognosis of TETs.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful for the clinical data provided by the Follow-up Office and Information Section of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center. At the same time, I am very grateful to Professor Long Hao and Professor Zhang Xu for their selfless help in providing the thesis materials. Finally, we are very grateful to Editage () for the meticulous work on document polishing.

Author’s Contribution

Conception and design of the study: MGW and HYY. Provision of study materials or patients: MGW. Acquisition of data: HYY and LSH. Data analysis: HYY and LX. Interpretation of data: MGW and HYY. HYY drafted the manuscript alone. MGW, HY, LSH, LX, and HYY substantially revised the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Wu Jieping Medical Foundation (grant number 320.6750.2020-15-7).

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center (B2020-353-01) and complied with the Declaration of Helsinki. Data were recorded at the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center under the record number: RDDA2021002090. At the same time, this study has obtained the exemption of informed consent application from the Ethics Committee of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center.

ORCID iD

Yang-Yu Huang

Abbreviations

References

Thomas

Wright

Loehrer

. Thymoma: state of the Art . J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(7):2280‐2289.

Marx

Ströbel

Badve

, et al. ITMIG consensus statement on the use of the WHO histological Classification of thymoma and thymic carcinoma: refined definitions, histological criteria, and reporting . J Thorac Oncol. 2014;9(5):596‐611.

Scorsetti

Leo

Trama

, et al. Thymoma and thymic carcinomas . Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2016;99:332‐350.

Engels

. Epidemiology of thymoma and associated malignancies . J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5(10 Suppl 4):S260‐S265.

Marx

Chan

Coindre

, et al. The 2015 World Health Organization classification of tumors of the thymus: continuity and changes . J Thorac Oncol. 2015;10(10):1383‐1395.

Weksler

Dhupar

Parikh

, et al. Thymic carcinoma: a multivariate analysis of factors predictive of survival in 290 patients . Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;95(1):299‐303.

Lee

Bae

Park

, et al. Early Masaoka stage and complete resection is important for prognosis of thymic carcinoma: a 20-year experience at a single institution . Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009;36(1):159‐162.

Ahmad

Yao

Detterbeck

, et al. Thymic carcinoma outcomes and prognosis: results of an international analysis . J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149(1):95‐100.

Fukui

Fukumoto

Okasaka

, et al. Prognostic impact of tumour size in completely resected thymic epithelial tumours . Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;50(6):1068‐1074.

10.

Tateishi

Horita

Namkoong

, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy for completely resected Masaoka/Masaoka-Koga Stage II/III thymoma improves overall survival: an updated meta-analysis of 4746 patients . J Thorac Oncol. 2021;16(4):677‐685.

11.

Okereke

Kesler

Morad

, et al. Prognostic indicators after surgery for thymoma . Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89(4):1071‐1077.

12.

Detterbeck

Stratton

Giroux

, et al. The IASLC/ITMIG thymic epithelial tumors staging project: proposal for an evidence-based stage classification system for the forthcoming (8th) edition of the TNM classification of malignant tumors . J Thorac Oncol. 2014;9(9 Suppl 2):S65‐S72.

13.

Roden

Jenkins

, et al. Modified Masaoka stage and size are independent prognostic predictors in thymoma and modified Masaoka stage is superior to histopathologic classifications . J Thorac Oncol. 2015;10(4):691‐700.

14.

Okumura

Ohta

Tateyama

, et al. The World Health Organization histologic classification system reflects the oncologic behavior of thymoma: a clinical study of 273 patients . Cancer. 2002;94(3):624‐632.

15.

Tseng

Y-L

Wang

S-T

M-H

, et al. Thymic carcinoma: involvement of great vessels indicates poor prognosis . Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;76(4):1041‐1045.

16.

Gold

Freedman

. Demonstration of tumor-specific antigens in human colonic carcinomata by immunological tolerance and absorption techniques . J Exp Med. 1965;121(3):439‐462.

17.

Chevinsky

. CEA in tumors of other than colorectal origin . Semin Surg Oncol. 1991;7(3):162‐166.

18.

Hao

Zhang

. Serum CEA levels in 49 different types of cancer and noncancer diseases . Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. 2019;162:213‐227.

19.

Kornek

Depisch

Rosen

Temsch

Scheithauer

. Comparative analysis of CA72–4, CA195 and carcinoembryonic antigen in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies . J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 1992;118(4):318‐320.

20.

Takagawa

Fujii

Ohta

, et al. Preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen level as a predictive factor of recurrence after curative resection of colorectal cancer . Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(12):3433‐3439.

21.

Grunnet

Sorensen

. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as tumor marker in lung cancer . Lung Cancer. 2012;76(2):138‐143.

22.

Zhou

, et al. Serum levels of CEA and CA15-3 in different molecular subtypes and prognostic value in Chinese breast cancer . Breast. 2014;23(1):88‐93.

23.

Harding

McAllister

Hulks

, et al. Neurone specific enolase (NSE) in small cell lung cancer: a tumour marker of prognostic significance? HardingBr J Cancer. 1990;61(4):605-607.

24.

Liu

Chen

. Prognostic value of tumor markers, NSE, CA125 and SCC, in operable NSCLC Patients . Int J Mol Sci. 2013;14(6):11145‐11156.

25.

Sohda

Saeki

Kuwano

, et al. Diagnostic Immunostaining and tumor markers predict the prognosis of esophageal neuroendocrinecCell carcinoma patients . Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(12):7983‐7989.

26.

Kamiya

Akakura

Suzuki

, et al. Pretreatment serum level of neuron specific enolase (NSE) as a prognostic factor in metastatic prostate cancer patients treated with endocrine therapy . Eur Urol. 2003;44(3):309‐314.

27.

Ebert

Ryll

Muley

Hug

Drings

. Do neuron-specific enolase levels discriminate between small-cell lung cancer and mediastinal tumors? Tumour Biol. 1996;17(6):362‐368.

28.

Kondo

Yoshizawa

Tsuyuguchi

, et al. WHO histologic classification is a prognostic indicator in thymoma . Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;77(4):1183‐1188.

29.

Yanagiya

Nitadori

J-I

Nagayama

, et al. Prognostic significance of the preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio for complete resection of thymoma . Surg Today. 2018;48(4):422‐430.

30.

Fukui

Fukumoto

Okasaka

, et al. Clinical evaluation of a new tumour-node-metastasis staging system for thymic malignancies proposed by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Staging and Prognostic Factors Committee and the International Thymic Malignancy Interest Group . Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;49(2):574‐579.

31.

Ried

Eicher

M-M

Neu

, et al. Evaluation of the new TNM-staging system for thymic malignancies: impact on indication and survival . World J Surg Oncol. 2017;15(1):214.

32.

Eriksson

Kaerlev

Johansen

, et al. Tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption as risk factors for thymoma - A European case-control study . Cancer Epidemiol. 2019;61:133‐138.

33.

Okumura

Yoshino

Yano

, et al. Tumour size determines both recurrence-free survival and disease-specific survival after surgical treatment for thymoma . Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;56(1):174‐181.

34.

Blumberg

Port

Weksler

, et al. Thymoma: a multivariate analysis of factors predicting survival . Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;60(4):908‐913.

35.

Nakagawa

Asamura

Matsuno

, et al. Thymoma: a clinicopathologic study based on the new World Health Organization classification . J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;126(4):1134‐1140.

36.

Wright

Wain

Wong

, et al. Predictors of recurrence in thymic tumors: importance of invasion, World Health Organization histology, and size . J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;130(5):1413‐1421.

37.

Nicholson

Detterbeck

Marino

, et al. The IASLC/ITMIG Thymic Epithelial Tumors Staging Project: proposals for the T Component for the forthcoming (8th) edition of the TNM classification of malignant tumors . J Thorac Oncol. 2014;9(9 Suppl 2):S73‐S80.

38.

Tseng

Hsu

Lin

, et al.

Does size affect the prognosis of resectable thymoma beyond the eighth edition TNM?

Thorac Cancer. 2022;13(3):346‐352.

39.

Ruffini

Detterbeck

Van Raemdonck

, et al. Tumours of the thymus: a cohort study of prognostic factors from the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons database . Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;46(3):361‐368.

40.

Savino

Durand

Dardenne

. Immunohistochemical evidence for the expression of the carcinoembryonic antigen by human thymic epithelial cells in vitro and in neoplastic conditions . Am J Pathol. 1985;121(3):418‐425.

41.

Tomita

Matsuzaki

Onitsuka

. Relationship between expression of cancer-related proteins and tumor invasiveness in thymoma . Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2002;21(3):596.

42.

Tomita

Matsuzaki

Edagawa

, et al. Clinical and immunohistochemical study of eight cases with thymic carcinoma . BMC Surg. 2002;2:3.

Prognostic Value of Preoperative Serum Carcinoembryonic Antigen for Overall Survival and Recurrence-Free Survival in Resectable Thymic Epithelial Tumors

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Study Design

Data Collection

Follow-up

Data Analysis

Results

Patient Characteristics

Optimal cut-off Values for Preoperative CEA and NSE

Association of CEA and NSE With Survival Outcomes

Univariate and Multivariate Survival Analyses Based on OS

Univariate and Multivariate Survival Analysis Based on RFS

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Author’s Contribution

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

ORCID iD

Abbreviations

References