黑料网

Minimally invasive surgery; Tumor markers; CYFRA 21-1; Tissue polypeptide specific antigen; TPS

Introduction

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has transformed the landscape of surgical oncology, offering patients less invasive treatment options with reduced morbidity and faster recovery times compared to traditional open surgery. This paradigm shift has been propelled by advancements in surgical techniques, instrumentation, and perioperative care. In parallel, the identification and characterization of tumor markers have revolutionized cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment monitoring. Among these tumor markers, CYFRA 21-1, tissue polypeptide specific antigen (TPS), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) have emerged as valuable tools in the management of various malignancies [1]. These biomarkers provide clinicians with valuable insights into tumor biology, response to therapy, and disease progression. While MIS offers numerous advantages, its integration with tumor marker analysis presents exciting opportunities to optimize patient care further. By combining minimally invasive surgical approaches with the molecular assessment of tumor markers, clinicians can tailor treatment strategies to individual patients, optimize oncologic outcomes, and minimize treatment-related morbidity. This review aims to explore the intersection of MIS and tumor markers, highlighting their synergistic role in modern oncology practice. We will examine the current evidence supporting the use of CYFRA 21-1, TPS, NSE, and CEA in various cancer types and discuss how their integration with MIS can inform clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes. Additionally, we will explore future directions and emerging technologies that hold promise for advancing the field of minimally invasive oncologic surgery in conjunction with tumor marker analysis [2].

Evolution of minimally invasive surgery in oncology

Historical perspective: Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS), also known as laparoscopic or keyhole surgery, has progressively transformed the landscape of surgical oncology over the past few decades. Initially developed for benign conditions, such as cholecystectomy and appendectomy, its application in oncologic procedures was met with skepticism due to concerns about oncologic efficacy and technical feasibility. However, pioneering surgeons demonstrated the feasibility and safety of MIS for various oncologic procedures, including prostatectomy, nephrectomy, and colectomy. These initial successes paved the way for further advancements in MIS techniques and instrumentation [3].

Oncologic equivalency: Subsequent research established the oncologic equivalency of MIS compared to traditional open surgery, with comparable oncologic outcomes, including overall survival, disease-free survival, and recurrence rates. Meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials corroborated these findings across a spectrum of malignancies, including gastrointestinal, urologic, gynecologic, and thoracic cancers. Beyond oncologic efficacy, MIS offers several patient-centered benefits, including reduced postoperative pain, shorter hospital stays, faster recovery times, and improved cosmesis. These advantages have translated into enhanced quality of life and patient satisfaction, positioning MIS as the preferred surgical approach for many oncologic indications.

Technological innovations Technological innovations, such as high-definition cameras, robotic assistance, and advanced energy devices, have further enhanced the feasibility and safety of MIS procedures. Robotic-assisted surgery, in particular, has facilitated complex maneuvers and enabled surgeons to overcome anatomical constraints with greater precision and dexterity. Today, MIS has become the standard of care for numerous oncologic procedures, with ongoing research focusing on expanding its indications, refining surgical techniques, and optimizing perioperative care. Future directions include the integration of advanced imaging modalities, artificial intelligence, and telemedicine to further improve patient outcomes and enhance the delivery of minimally invasive oncologic surgery [4].

Role of tumor markers in cancer management

Tumor markers are substances produced by cancer cells or by the body in response to cancer. They can be detected in blood, urine, or tissue samples and serve as indicators of tumor presence, behavior, and response to treatment. Tumor markers play a crucial role in cancer management by aiding in diagnosis, prognosis, treatment selection, and monitoring of disease progression. Tumor markers are valuable diagnostic tools, helping clinicians identify the presence of cancer and differentiate between benign and malignant conditions. Elevated levels of specific tumor markers, such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in prostate cancer or CA-125 in ovarian cancer, can prompt further diagnostic evaluation, including imaging studies and tissue biopsy, leading to timely diagnosis and treatment initiation [5].

Prognostic significance: Beyond diagnosis, tumor markers provide valuable prognostic information, helping predict disease outcomes and guide treatment decisions. High levels of certain tumor markers, such as HER2/neu in breast cancer or LDH in lymphoma, may indicate aggressive tumor behavior, increased risk of recurrence, or poorer overall prognosis, prompting clinicians to consider more intensive treatment strategies or closer surveillance. Tumor markers also play a critical role in treatment selection and monitoring. They can help identify patients who are likely to benefit from specific therapies, such as targeted agents or immunotherapy, based on the presence of molecular targets or biomarker expression profiles. Additionally, tumor marker kinetics, such as changes in marker levels over time, can serve as indicators of treatment response or disease progression, allowing for timely adjustment of therapeutic regimens. Several tumor markers have been widely studied and incorporated into clinical practice across various cancer types. Examples include prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in prostate cancer, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in colorectal cancer, CA-125 in ovarian cancer, and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) in hepatocellular carcinoma. Each of these markers provides unique insights into tumor biology and clinical behavior, guiding diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making [6].

Significance of CYFRA 21-1 in tumor diagnosis and prognosis

CYFRA 21-1, a soluble fragment of cytokeratin 19, has emerged as a valuable tumor marker in various malignancies, particularly in lung cancer. Its significance in tumor diagnosis and prognosis stems from its association with tumor burden, disease stage, and treatment response. CYFRA 21-1 is commonly used as a diagnostic marker for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), where elevated serum levels are indicative of tumor presence [7]. Its high sensitivity and specificity make it a useful adjunct to imaging studies and tissue biopsies, aiding in the early detection and confirmation of lung cancer. Beyond diagnosis, CYFRA 21-1 levels have prognostic implications, serving as indicators of disease aggressiveness and patient outcomes. Elevated CYFRA 21-1 levels at diagnosis are associated with advanced disease stage, higher tumor burden, and poorer prognosis in lung cancer patients. Additionally, CYFRA 21-1 kinetics, such as changes in levels during treatment, can predict treatment response and overall survival, guiding therapeutic decision-making.

Monitoring disease progression

CYFRA 21-1 is also valuable for monitoring disease progression and treatment response in lung cancer patients. Serial measurements of CYFRA 21-1 levels during therapy can help assess treatment efficacy, detect disease recurrence or metastasis, and guide disease management strategies, including the initiation of salvage therapies or palliative interventions. While CYFRA 21-1 is most commonly associated with lung cancer, its utility extends to other malignancies, including head and neck cancer, bladder cancer, and esophageal cancer. In these tumors, elevated CYFRA 21-1 levels have been correlated with tumor stage, lymph node involvement, and patient prognosis, highlighting its broader applicability in oncology [8].

Tissue polypeptide specific antigen (TPS): Implications for minimally invasive oncologic surgery

Tissue Polypeptide Specific Antigen (TPS) is a glycoprotein derived from cytokeratin 18, predominantly expressed in epithelial tissues. In the context of oncologic surgery, TPS serves as a valuable tumor marker with implications for minimally invasive approaches. TPS levels are elevated in various epithelial malignancies, including lung, breast, colorectal, and gynecologic cancers. In preoperative assessment, TPS measurement can aid in tumor detection, complementing imaging studies and tissue biopsies. Its high sensitivity and specificity make it a useful adjunct to conventional diagnostic modalities, facilitating early cancer diagnosis and treatment initiation [9].

Prognostic significance: Beyond diagnosis, TPS levels have prognostic implications in cancer patients undergoing surgical intervention. Elevated TPS levels are associated with advanced disease stage, increased tumor burden, and poorer prognosis. In the context of minimally invasive oncologic surgery, preoperative TPS assessment can help stratify patients based on their risk profile, guiding surgical decision-making and perioperative management. TPS kinetics, including changes in levels during treatment, can serve as indicators of treatment response and disease progression. Serial measurements of TPS levels postoperatively can help monitor residual disease burden, detect early recurrence or metastasis, and guide adjuvant therapy strategies. In the context of minimally invasive surgery, TPS monitoring can facilitate postoperative surveillance, enabling timely intervention in case of disease recurrence. The incorporation of TPS assessment into the preoperative workup and perioperative management of cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery enhances the oncologic precision and therapeutic efficacy of these procedures. By providing additional information on tumor burden and prognostic risk, TPS complements imaging studies and intraoperative findings, guiding the extent of surgical resection and lymph node dissection.

Neuron-specific enolase (NSE) as a biomarker in neuroendocrine tumors: applications in minimally invasive approaches

Neuron-Specific Enolase (NSE) is a glycolytic enzyme primarily found in neurons and neuroendocrine cells. In the context of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), NSE serves as a valuable biomarker with implications for minimally invasive surgical approaches. Elevated serum levels of NSE are observed in patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms, reflecting the neuroendocrine differentiation of these tumors. In clinical practice, NSE measurement can aid in the diagnosis of NETs, particularly in cases where histological confirmation is challenging or inaccessible. Its high sensitivity and specificity make it a useful adjunct to imaging studies and tissue biopsies, facilitating early detection and characterization of NETs. Beyond diagnosis, NSE levels have prognostic implications in patients with NETs. Elevated NSE levels are associated with advanced tumor stage, aggressive tumor behavior, and poorer prognosis. In the context of minimally invasive surgery for NETs, preoperative NSE assessment can help risk-stratify patients based on their disease severity and prognostic profile, guiding surgical decision-making and perioperative management. NSE kinetics, including changes in levels during treatment, can serve as indicators of treatment response and disease progression in patients with NETs. Serial measurements of NSE levels postoperatively can help monitor residual disease burden, detect early recurrence or metastasis, and guide adjuvant therapy strategies. In the context of minimally invasive surgery, NSE monitoring can facilitate postoperative surveillance, enabling timely intervention in case of disease recurrence [10].

Integration with minimally invasive techniques

The incorporation of NSE assessment into the preoperative evaluation and perioperative management of patients with NETs undergoing minimally invasive surgery enhances the oncologic precision and therapeutic efficacy of these procedures. By providing additional information on tumor biology and prognostic risk, NSE complements imaging studies and intraoperative findings, guiding the extent of surgical resection and lymph node dissection.

Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in colorectal cancer

Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) is a glycoprotein biomarker commonly associated with colorectal cancer (CRC). Its integration with minimally invasive techniques holds significant implications for the diagnosis, staging, and management of CRC patients. CEA levels are frequently elevated in CRC patients, with higher levels correlating with advanced disease stage and tumor burden. In clinical practice, CEA measurement serves as a valuable tool for CRC diagnosis, aiding in disease detection and surveillance. When combined with imaging studies, such as colonoscopy or CT scans, elevated CEA levels can prompt further evaluation, including tissue biopsy, to confirm the presence of CRC [11]. Beyond diagnosis, CEA levels have prognostic implications in CRC patients. Elevated preoperative CEA levels are associated with increased risk of disease recurrence, metastasis, and poorer survival outcomes. In the context of minimally invasive surgery for CRC, preoperative CEA assessment can help risk-stratify patients based on their prognostic profile, guiding treatment planning and perioperative management. CEA kinetics, including changes in levels during treatment, can serve as indicators of treatment response and disease progression in CRC patients [12]. Serial measurements of CEA levels postoperatively can help monitor residual disease burden, detect early recurrence or metastasis, and guide adjuvant therapy strategies. In the context of minimally invasive surgery, CEA monitoring can facilitate postoperative surveillance, enabling timely intervention in case of disease recurrence. The incorporation of CEA assessment into the preoperative evaluation and perioperative management of CRC patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery enhances the oncologic precision and therapeutic efficacy of these procedures. By providing additional information on tumor biology and prognostic risk, CEA complements imaging studies and intraoperative findings, guiding the extent of surgical resection and lymph node dissection [13].

Conclusion

In summary, the evolution of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in oncology represents a significant triumph of surgical innovation and interdisciplinary collaboration. With ongoing advancements and refinement, MIS is poised to play an increasingly prominent role in comprehensive cancer management, providing patients with minimally invasive treatment options and superior oncologic outcomes, ultimately enhancing their quality of life. Tumor markers serve as multifaceted tools in cancer management, offering diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive insights. Their integration into clinical practice enables personalized treatment approaches, leading to improved patient outcomes and enhanced overall quality of cancer care. As our understanding of tumor biology continues to progress, tumor markers will remain integral components of comprehensive cancer management strategies, driving advancements in precision medicine and targeted therapy.

In conclusion, CYFRA 21-1, Tissue Polypeptide Specific Antigen (TPS), Neuron-Specific Enolase (NSE), and Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) each play pivotal roles in oncology, offering valuable diagnostic and prognostic utility in various malignancies. Incorporating these biomarkers into routine clinical practice, particularly in conjunction with minimally invasive surgical approaches, holds promise for optimizing patient outcomes and advancing personalized cancer care.

Acknowledgment

None

Conflict of Interest

None

1. Neefjes JJ, Ploegh HL (1988) . European journal of immunology 18:801-810.

, ,

2. Luoma K, Riihimäki H, Luukkonen R, Raininko R, Viikari-Juntura E, et al. (2000) Spine 487-492.

, ,

3. Roberts S, Evans H, Trivedi J, Menage J (2006) J Bone Jt Surg 88:10-14.

, ,

4. Raj PP (2008) . Pain Pract 8:18-44.

, ,

5. Kos N, Gradisnik L, Velnar T (2019. Med Arch 73:421-424.

, ,

6. Rahmani S, Roohbakhsh A, Karimi G (2023) . Pharmacol Res 188:106672.

, ,

7. Nandhini P, Gupta PK, Mahapatra AK, Das AP, Agarwal SM, et al. (2023) . Chem Biol Inter 374:110383.

, ,

8. Li J, Wang X, Meng X, Zhou X, Huang H, et al. (2023) . Chem Biol Inter 372:110364.

, ,

9. Islam MR, Akash S, Rahman MM, Nowrin FT, Akter T, et al. (2022) . Chem Biol Inter 368:110170.

, ,

10. Nan Y, Su H, Zhou B, Liu S (2022) . Front Oncol 12:1049-888.

, ,

11. Moloudizargari M, Asghari MH, Goel A (2021). Biochem Pharmacol 192:114714.

, ,

12. Kalluri R, LeBleu VS (2020) . Science 367:e6977.

, ,

13. Stanly C, Moubarak M, Fiume I, Turiak L, Pocsfalvi G (2019) . Int J Mol Sci 20:6205.

, ,