Copyright
        ©The Author(s) 2020.
    
    
        World J Gastrointest Oncol. Oct 15, 2020; 12(10): 1167-1176
Published online Oct 15, 2020. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v12.i10.1167
Published online Oct 15, 2020. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v12.i10.1167
            Table 1 Comparison of serum marker levels
        
    | Group | n | HE4 (pmol/L) | CEA (ng/mL) | AFP (ng/mL) | CA19-9 (ng/mL) | 
| Case group | 80 | 5.746 ± 3.360 | 4.274 ± 2.530 | 3.358 ± 1.559 | 8.450 ± 5.157 | 
| Benign control group | 56 | 3.294 ± 1.738 | 2.471 ± 1.702 | 2.561 ± 1.587 | 5.271 ± 4.636 | 
| P value | < 0.0001 | 0.0022 | 0.0042 | 0.0003 | 
            Table 2 Comparison of serum marker levels for diagnosing esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
        
    | Variable | AUC | Standard error | Asymptotic significance | Asymptotic 95%CI | 
| HE4 | 0.795 | 0.038 | 0.000 | 0.717-0.859 | 
| CEA | 0.737 | 0.043 | 0.000 | 0.665-0.809 | 
| AFP | 0.666 | 0.049 | 0.001 | 0.580-0.744 | 
| CA19-9 | 0.697 | 0.047 | 0.000 | 0.612-0.773 | 
            Table 3 Comparison of sensitivity and specificity of serum markers for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (%)
        
    | Variable | HE4 | CEA | AFP | CA19-9 | 
| Sensitivity | 66.2 | 53.7 | 65.0 | 73.1 | 
| Specificity | 85.7 | 82.1 | 66.0 | 60.7 | 
            Table 4 Summary of sensitivity and specificity of each biomarker in combination with each other
        
    | Variable combination | AUC | Standard error | Asymptotic significance | Asymptotic 95%CI | 
| HE4 + CEA | 0.828 | 0.034 | 0.000 | 0.761-0.895 | 
| HE4 + AFP | 0.819 | 0.036 | 0.000 | 0.748-0.890 | 
| HE4 + CA19-9 | 0.837 | 0.034 | 0.000 | 0.770-0.904 | 
| CEA + AFP | 0.775 | 0.041 | 0.000 | 0.696-0.855 | 
| CEA + CA19-9 | 0.790 | 0.039 | 0.000 | 0.713-0.867 | 
| AFP + CA19-9 | 0.717 | 0.045 | 0.000 | 0.635-0.805 | 
            Table 5 Correlation of characteristics of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients with serum human epididymis protein 4 levels, n (%)
        
    | Total | Serum HE4 levels | P value | ||
| ≤ 3.9 ng/mL | > 3.9 ng/mL | |||
| All cases | 80 | 27 | 53 | |
| Gender | 0.4395 | |||
| Male | 56 (70.0) | 17 (63.0) | 39 (73.6) | |
| Female | 24 (30.0) | 10 (47.0) | 14 (26.4) | |
| Tumor location | 0.6777 | |||
| Upper | 16 (23.8) | 5 (18.5) | 11 (20.8) | |
| Middle | 45 (56.4) | 14 (51.9) | 31 (58.4) | |
| Lower | 19 (23.8) | 8 (29.6) | 11 (20.8) | |
| T grade | 0.0002 | |||
| T1-2 | 21 (26.3) | 14 (51.9) | 7 (13.2) | |
| T3-4 | 59 (73.7) | 13 (48.1) | 46 (86.8) | |
| N stage | 0.0017 | |||
| N0 | 26 (32.5) | 15 (55.6) | 11 (20.8) | |
| N1-2 | 54 (67.5) | 12 (44.4) | 42 (79.2) | |
- Citation: Liu SY, Ahsan Bilal M, Zhu JH, Li SM. Diagnostic value of serum human epididymis protein 4 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2020; 12(10): 1167-1176
 - URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5204/full/v12/i10/1167.htm
 - DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v12.i10.1167
 
