CEA 1.4: ng/ml CA-19.9: 7.2U/ml - chance for Metastasis in liver?

[rom_a]

Hi. The case is as follows:
A week ago a 3-4 cm tumor was identified in the colon. There is some suspicious 1.6 cm lump in the liver, which could be metastasis, but not necessarily as there is uncertainty (both ultrasound as well as the CT check could not approve/disprove it). CT PET check will be held on Sunday.

However the blood test shows the liver is ok; more importantly indicators for Metastasis look good: CEA 1.4: ng/ml & CA-19.9: 7.2U/ml.

Does the above decrease the chances for metastasis in the liver (especially the fact that both indicators are good)? is anyone familiar with a study/statistics on the topic?

[veckon]

Hi. The case is as follows:
A week ago a 3-4 cm tumor was identified in the colon. There is some suspicious 1.6 cm lump in the liver, which could be metastasis, but not necessarily as there is uncertainty (both ultrasound as well as the CT check could not approve/disprove it). CT PET check will be held on Sunday.

However the blood test shows the liver is ok; more importantly indicators for Metastasis look good: CEA 1.4: ng/ml & CA-19.9: 7.2U/ml.

Does the above decrease the chances for metastasis in the liver (especially the fact that both indicators are good)? is anyone familiar with a study/statistics on the topic?

I have liver metastases and my blood work does not show tangible signs of liver disease (yet). CEA is similar. I’m not sure any of this really indicates anything one way or the other.

[rom_a]

Thanks for this. I would appreciate any other thoughts?

Hi. The case is as follows:
A week ago a 3-4 cm tumor was identified in the colon. There is some suspicious 1.6 cm lump in the liver, which could be metastasis, but not necessarily as there is uncertainty (both ultrasound as well as the CT check could not approve/disprove it). CT PET check will be held on Sunday.

However the blood test shows the liver is ok; more importantly indicators for Metastasis look good: CEA 1.4: ng/ml & CA-19.9: 7.2U/ml.

Does the above decrease the chances for metastasis in the liver (especially the fact that both indicators are good)? is anyone familiar with a study/statistics on the topic?

I have liver metastases and my blood work does not show tangible signs of liver disease (yet). CEA is similar. I’m not sure any of this really indicates anything one way or the other.

[rp1954]

Single low readings are limited, preliminary information cancerwise, although statistically the odds are much more favorable with low values. Also the CEA and CA19-9 by themselves are a limited picture. If you have been diagnosed with CRC, hopefully you are still lower stage and curable. However, various data can refine the picture over time. You can improve baseline data at strategic points, like before and after surgery, in essence "scanning" for (monitorable) anomalies or documenting "good behavior" on various elements.

Gathering better data is like building the structure of a building. They work best all together and complete, less likely to fail catastrophically without warning in a storm. We've used better data to get early warnings, improve treatment and performance, and prepare followup steps, literal life savers.

We use other indicators serially for mets and liver issues. Beside the usual SGPT, SGOT, ALP panel, we include GGTP, LDH, AFP (a liver cancer marker fairly common for CRC), bilirubin, PT/INR, and Total protein A/G. Inflammatory conditions are reflected in ESR and hsCRP, which are helpful whether due to cancer or to promote it. Inflammation can be modified even before surgery.

We were able to establish highly stable baseline behavior for over a year with the immune components, mild drugs, supplements and IV vitamin C. Our experience with AFP, CEA, CA19-9 included serial elevations or initial elevations reduced by surgery.

One possible important difference is that CEA, AFP and/or CA19-9 go higher when things are looking iffy. Sometimes we can watch liver stuff dissolve on +- annual and extra scans with high enough intensity immunochemo, long after the real decisions were made based on blood work.

[veckon]

Single low readings are limited, preliminary information cancerwise, although statistically the odds are much more favorable with low values. Also the CEA and CA19-9 by themselves are a limited picture. If you have been diagnosed with CRC, hopefully you are still lower stage and curable. However, various data can refine the picture over time. You can improve baseline data at strategic points, like before and after surgery, in essence "scanning" for (monitorable) anomalies or documenting "good behavior" on various elements.

Gathering better data is like building the structure of a building. They work best all together and complete, less likely to fail catastrophically without warning in a storm.

We use other indicators serially for mets and liver issues. Beside the usual SGPT, SGOT, ALP panel, we include GGTP, LDH, AFP (a liver cancer marker fairly common for CRC), bilirubin, PT/INR, and Total protein A/G. Inflammatory conditions are reflected in ESR and hsCRP, which are helpful whether due to cancer or to promote it. Inflammation can be modified even before surgery.

We were able to establish highly stable baseline behavior for over a year with the immune components, mild drugs, supplements and IV vitamin C. Our experience with AFP, CEA, CA19-9 included serial elevations or initial elevations reduced by surgery.

One possible important difference is that CEA, AFP and/or CA19-9 go higher when things are looking iffy. Sometimes we can watch liver stuff dissolve on +- annual and extra scans with high enough intensity immunochemo, long after the real decisions were made based on blood work.

This is an amazing answer.

[missjv]

when I was diagnosed stage 4 I had four tumors in my liver and my cea was 2. scans are the only way to tell or a biopsy you can't rely on bloodwork.


missjv

[rom_a]

Thanks very much for the comprehensive answers. I can also comment that all the following indicators are fine: GPT, GOT, PT, INR, Lymphocytes, ALKP-Alkaline Phosphatase, Albumin (B).
What is less good is the CRP which is 1.5 mg/dl.

This person will have PET CT scan next week, so will update...

Single low readings are limited, preliminary information cancerwise, although statistically the odds are much more favorable with low values. Also the CEA and CA19-9 by themselves are a limited picture. If you have been diagnosed with CRC, hopefully you are still lower stage and curable. However, various data can refine the picture over time. You can improve baseline data at strategic points, like before and after surgery, in essence "scanning" for (monitorable) anomalies or documenting "good behavior" on various elements.

Gathering better data is like building the structure of a building. They work best all together and complete, less likely to fail catastrophically without warning in a storm. We've used better data to get early warnings, improve treatment and performance, and prepare followup steps, literal life savers.

We use other indicators serially for mets and liver issues. Beside the usual SGPT, SGOT, ALP panel, we include GGTP, LDH, AFP (a liver cancer marker fairly common for CRC), bilirubin, PT/INR, and Total protein A/G. Inflammatory conditions are reflected in ESR and hsCRP, which are helpful whether due to cancer or to promote it. Inflammation can be modified even before surgery.

We were able to establish highly stable baseline behavior for over a year with the immune components, mild drugs, supplements and IV vitamin C. Our experience with AFP, CEA, CA19-9 included serial elevations or initial elevations reduced by surgery.

One possible important difference is that CEA, AFP and/or CA19-9 go higher when things are looking iffy. Sometimes we can watch liver stuff dissolve on +- annual and extra scans with high enough intensity immunochemo, long after the real decisions were made based on blood work.

[rp1954]

...all the following indicators are fine: GPT, GOT, PT, INR, Lymphocytes, ALKP-Alkaline Phosphatase, Albumin (B).

ALP/ALKP stats about the"good" range change after a cancer dx but are not commonly interpreted according to the specific CRC data in the literature.

What is less good is the CRP which is 1.5 mg/dl.

Most of us have massively incomplete blood data at a cancer diagnosis. (hs)CRP and ESR are usually missing then. Later, we learn to wheedle the others or order them ourselves. What data are usually available and somewhat statistically prognostic are neutrophils, platelets and lymphocytes (combined as ratios), which you will already have. Other inflammation markers commonly available are fibrinogen and ferritin.

Basically, inflammation markers are elevated at CRC dx, and statistically, more elevated is less good. What's perhaps more important is what they are long term, since inflammation both feeds cancer and often reflects cancer.

[rom_a]

Thank you for the answer. I have checked this person's results for the below indicators (neutrophils, platelets and lymphocytes) - all are fine and within the range.

Overall blood is perfect apart from one indicator (CRP which is at 1.5 mg / dl).

I hope this is a good sign? I am reminding that this person has a colon cancer with 3-4 cm tumor, there is a 16 mm lump in the liver and a standard CT scan could not show whether this is a metastasis. This person will have a PET CT scan tomorrow to see whether this is just a lump versus a metastasis.

...all the following indicators are fine: GPT, GOT, PT, INR, Lymphocytes, ALKP-Alkaline Phosphatase, Albumin (B).

ALP/ALKP stats about the"good" range change after a cancer dx but are not commonly interpreted according to the specific CRC data in the literature.

What is less good is the CRP which is 1.5 mg/dl.

Most of us have massively incomplete blood data at a cancer diagnosis. (hs)CRP and ESR are usually missing then. Later, we learn to wheedle the others or order them ourselves. What data are usually available and somewhat statistically prognostic are neutrophils, platelets and lymphocytes (combined as ratios), which you will already have. Other inflammation markers commonly available are fibrinogen and ferritin.

Basically, inflammation markers are elevated at CRC dx, and statistically, more elevated is less good. What's perhaps more important is what they are long term, since inflammation both feeds cancer and often reflects cancer.