ArticleBMC cancer2026
An evaluation model of chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer based on combined serum CA15-3, CEA, and CYFRA 21 - 1.
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimBreast cancer remains one of the most prevalent malignancies in women worldwide, and chemotherapy plays a crucial role in systemic treatment. However, accurate assessment of therapeutic efficacy remains a clinical challenge. Traditional radiographic evaluation is time-consuming and sometimes limited in reflecting biological response. Serum tumor markers, including carbohydrate antigen 15 − 3 (CA15-3), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and cytokeratin fragment 21 − 1 (CYFRA 21 − 1), have been reported to correlate with tumor burden and treatment response. This study aimed to construct a retrospective evaluation model based on combined serum CA15-3, CEA, and CYFRA 21 − 1 for predicting chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer patients.
methodsA total of 352 breast cancer patients who received standardized chemotherapy between January 2020 and December 2024 were retrospectively enrolled. Serum levels of CA15-3, CEA, and CYFRA 21 − 1 were collected at baseline and after two cycles of chemotherapy. The associations between tumor marker dynamics and clinical response (complete response, partial response, stable disease, progressive disease) were analyzed using logistic regression. A composite evaluation model (CCC model) was developed, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were applied to assess its discriminative performance compared with single markers.
resultsAmong the 352 patients, 198 (56.3%) achieved an objective response (CR + PR), while 154 (43.7%) had non-response (SD + PD). Post-chemotherapy levels of CA15-3, CEA, and CYFRA 21 − 1 were significantly lower in the response group compared with the non-response group (all P < 0.001). Logistic regression revealed that decreases in CA15-3 (OR = 1.046, 95% CI: 1.018–1.075, P < 0.001), CEA (OR = 1.037, 95% CI: 1.012–1.064, P = 0.002), and CYFRA 21 − 1 (OR = 1.059, 95% CI: 1.022–1.097, P = 0.001) were independent predictors of chemotherapy efficacy. The CCC model integrating the three markers achieved an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.921 (95% CI: 0.894–0.949), which was superior to single markers (CA15-3: 0.812, CEA: 0.773, CYFRA 21 − 1: 0.756).
conclusionsThe combined serum tumor marker model (CA15-3, CEA, and CYFRA 21 − 1) provides a robust, simple, and cost-effective method for retrospective evaluation of chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer patients. This CCC model can serve as a valuable adjunct to imaging modalities, enabling more precise treatment monitoring and potentially guiding timely therapeutic adjustments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.