Skip to main content
PMC home page
British Journal of Cancer logoLink to British Journal of Cancer
. 1999 Mar;79(9-10):1419–1427. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6690227

Markov model and markers of small cell lung cancer: assessing the influence of reversible serum NSE, CYFRA 21-1 and TPS levels on prognosis

J-M Boher 1, J-L Pujol 1,2, J Grenier 3, J-P Daurès 1
PMCID: PMC2362697  PMID: 10188885

Abstract

High serum NSE and advanced tumour stage are well-known negative prognostic determinants of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) when observed at presentation. However, such variables are reversible disease indicators as they can change during the course of therapy. The relationship between risk of death and marker level and disease state during treatment of SCLC chemotherapy is not known. A total of 52 patients with SCLC were followed during cisplatin-based chemotherapy (the median number of tumour status and marker level assessments was 4). The time-homogeneous Markov model was used in order to analyse separately the prognostic significance of change in the state of the serum marker level (NSE, CYFRA 21-1, TPS) or the change in tumour status. In this model, transition rate intensities were analysed according to three different states: alive with low marker level (state 0), alive with high marker level (state 1) and dead (absorbing state). The model analysing NSE levels showed that the mean time to move out of state ‘high marker level’ was short (123 days). There was a 44% probability of the opposite reversible state ‘low marker level’ being reached, which demonstrated the reversible property of the state ‘high marker level’. The relative risk of death from this state ‘high marker level’ was about 2.24 times greater in comparison with that of state 0 ‘low marker level’ (Wald's test; P < 0.01). For patients in state ‘high marker level’ at time of sampling, the probability of death increased dramatically, a transition explaining the rapid decrease in the probability of remaining stationary at this state. However, a non-nil probability to change from state 1 ‘high marker level’ to the opposite transient level, state 0 ‘low marker level’, was observed suggesting that, however infrequently, patients in state 1 ‘high marker level’ might still return to state 0 ‘low marker level’. Almost similar conclusions can be drawn regarding the three-state model constructed using the tumour response status. For the two cytokeratin markers, the Markov model suggests the lack of a true reversible property of these variables as there was only a very weak probability of a patient returning to state ‘low marker level’ once having entered state ‘high marker level’. In conclusion, The Markov model suggests that the observation of an increase in serum NSE level or a lack of response of the disease at any time during follow-up (according to the homogeneous assumption) was strongly associated with a worse prognosis but that the reversion to a low mortality risk state remains possible. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaign

Keywords: Markov model, small cell lung cancer, NSE, TPS, CYFRA 21-1, tumour response, prognosis

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (136.1 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Andersen P. K., Hansen L. S., Keiding N. Assessing the influence of reversible disease indicators on survival. Stat Med. 1991 Jul;10(7):1061–1067. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780100706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bates S. E. Clinical applications of serum tumor markers. Ann Intern Med. 1991 Oct 15;115(8):623–638. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-115-8-623. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cooper E. H., Splinter T. A., Brown D. A., Muers M. F., Peake M. D., Pearson S. L. Evaluation of a radioimmunoassay for neuron specific enolase in small cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer. 1985 Sep;52(3):333–338. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1985.198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gentleman R. C., Lawless J. F., Lindsey J. C., Yan P. Multi-state Markov models for analysing incomplete disease history data with illustrations for HIV disease. Stat Med. 1994 Apr 30;13(8):805–821. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780130803. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Grüger J., Kay R., Schumacher M. The validity of inferences based on incomplete observations in disease state models. Biometrics. 1991 Jun;47(2):595–605. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hansen H. H., Kristjansen P. E. Chemotherapy of small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1991;27(3):342–349. doi: 10.1016/0277-5379(91)90543-m. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Iannuzzi M. C., Scoggin C. H. Small cell lung cancer. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1986 Sep;134(3):593–608. doi: 10.1164/arrd.1986.134.3.593. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Jørgensen L. G., Hansen H. H., Cooper E. H. Neuron specific enolase, carcinoembryonic antigen and lactate dehydrogenase as indicators of disease activity in small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol. 1989 Jan;25(1):123–128. doi: 10.1016/0277-5379(89)90059-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jørgensen L. G., Osterlind K., Hansen H. H., Cooper E. H. The prognostic influence of serum neuron specific enolase in small cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer. 1988 Dec;58(6):805–807. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1988.313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kay R. A Markov model for analysing cancer markers and disease states in survival studies. Biometrics. 1986 Dec;42(4):855–865. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Pujol J. L., Cooper E. H., Grenier J., Purves D. A., Lehmann M., Ray P., Aouta M. D., Bashir M., Godard P., Michel F. B. Clinical evaluation of serum tissue polypeptide-specific antigen (TPS) in non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1994;30A(12):1768–1774. doi: 10.1016/0959-8049(94)00232-t. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Pujol J. L., Grenier J., Daurès J. P., Daver A., Pujol H., Michel F. B. Serum fragment of cytokeratin subunit 19 measured by CYFRA 21-1 immunoradiometric assay as a marker of lung cancer. Cancer Res. 1993 Jan 1;53(1):61–66. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Pujol J. L., Grenier J., Parrat E., Lehmann M., Lafontaine T., Quantin X., Michel F. B. Cytokeratins as serum markers in lung cancer: a comparison of CYFRA 21-1 and TPS. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996 Sep;154(3 Pt 1):725–733. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.154.3.8810612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Pujol J. L., Parrat E., Lehmann M., Gautier V., Daurès J. P., Michel F. B., Godard P. Lung cancer chemotherapy. Response-survival relationship depends on the method of chest tumor response evaluation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996 Jan;153(1):243–249. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.153.1.8542123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. van der Gaast A., Schoenmakers C. H., Kok T. C., Blijenberg B. G., Cornillie F., Splinter T. A. Evaluation of a new tumour marker in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: Cyfra 21.1. Br J Cancer. 1994 Mar;69(3):525–528. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1994.95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Cancer are provided here courtesy of Cancer Research UK

RESOURCES