Computed tomography with carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 in diagnosing lymph node metastasis of early gastric cancer

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the two groups, mean ± SD

Groups	n	Gender		Age (years)	Site of tumor
		Male	Female		Gastric sinus	Gastric body	Cardia
Non-metastasis group	60	31	29	52.87 ± 12.55	37	13	10
Metastasis group	60	32	28	51.25 ± 13.13	40	14	6
χ2/t		0.33		0.6895
P value		0.855		0.4919

Table 2 Comparison of carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 levels between the two groups, mean ± SD

Groups	n	CEA (ng/mL)	CA19-9 (U/mL)
Non-metastasis group	60	3.27 ± 1.18	23.61 ± 8.33
Metastasis group	60	7.51 ± 2.49	51.29 ± 17.38
t value		11.94	11.13
P value		< 0.0001	< 0.0001

CA19-9: Carbohydrate antigen 19-9; CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen.

Table 3 Positive rates of carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 detection in the two groups, n (%)

Tumor markers	Non-metastasis group (n = 60)	Metastasis group (n = 60)	χ2	P value
CEA	5 (8.33)	46 (76.67)	57.323	< 0.0001
CA19-9	6 (10.00)	45 (75.00)	51.867	< 0.0001

CA19-9: Carbohydrate antigen 19-9; CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen.

Table 4 Comparison of diagnostic results of carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 with pathological diagnosis results

		Pathological diagnosis results		Total	Kappa value	P value
		Positive	Negative
CEA	Positive	46 (TP)	5 (FP)	51	0.683	< 0.0001
	Negative	14 (FN)	55 (TN)	69
Total		60	60	120
CA19-9	Positive	45 (TP)	6 (FP)	51	0.650	< 0.0001
	Negative	15 (FN)	54 (TN)	69
Total		60	60	120

CA19-9: Carbohydrate antigen 19-9; CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen; TP: True positive; FP: False positive; FN: False negative; TN: True negative.

Table 5 Comparison of computed tomography scan parameters between the two groups, mean ± SD

Groups	n	Maximum short diameter	CT value	BF (mL/100 mg/minute)	BV (mL/100 mg)	MTT (second)	PS (mL/100 mg/minute)
Non-metastasis group	60	5.09 ± 0.41	18.33 ± 4.23	63.98 ± 12.44	6.81 ± 2.35	12.65 ± 5.43	23.49 ± 11.24
Metastasis group	60	7.82 ± 1.06	32.51 ± 6.89	60.44 ± 9.95	7.87 ± 2.33	11.58 ± 5.07	34.37 ± 10.65
t value		18.57	13.60	1.721	2.479	1.117	5.442
P value		< 0.0001	< 0.0001	0.0879	0.0146	0.2663	< 0.0001

CT: Computed tomography; BF: Blood flow; BV: Blood volume; MTT: Mean transit time; PS: Permeability.

Table 6 Patients’ computed tomography diagnostic findings against pathologic findings

CT diagnostic findings	Pathologic findings		Total
	Positive	Negative
Positive	51 (TP)	3 (FP)	54
Negative	9 (FN)	57 (TN)	66
Total	60	60	120
Kappa value	0.800
P value	< 0.0001

CT: Computed tomography; TP: True positive; FP: False positive; FN: False negative; TN: True negative.

Table 7 Comparison of the efficacy of different methods in diagnosing lymph node metastasis of early gastric cancer, n (%)

Diagnostic methods, n = 60	Sensitivity	Specificity	False negative rate	False positive rate
CEA	46 (76.67)	55 (91.67)	14 (23.33)	5 (8.33)
CA19-9	45 (75.00)	54 (90.00)	15 (25.00)	6 (10.00)
CT	51 (85.00)	57 (95.00)	9 (15.00)	3 (5.00)
CT combined CEA	55 (91.67)	54 (90.00)	5 (8.33)	6 (10.00)
CT combined CA19-9	54 (90.00)	53 (88.33)	6 (10.00)	7 (11.67)

CT: Computed tomography; CA19-9: Carbohydrate antigen 19-9; CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen.