Front. Oncol. Frontiers in Oncology Front. Oncol. 2234-943X Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fonc.2020.00800 Oncology Original Research Clinical Evaluation of Serum Tumor Markers in Patients With Advanced-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Palliative Chemotherapy in China Abbas Muhammad 1 2 Kassim Said Abasse 3 Habib Murad 4 Li Xiaoyou 2 Shi Meiqi 2 * Wang Zhong-Chang 1 * Hu Yiqiao 1 5 * Zhu Hai-Liang 1 * 1State Key Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, Institute of Artificial Intelligence Biomedicine, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China 2Department of Medical Oncology, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital and Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research and Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China 3Centre de Recherche en Gestion des Services de Sante, Faculté des Sciences de L'administration (FSA), Université Laval (UL), Centre Hospitalière Universitaire (CHU) de Québec UL-IUCPQ-UL, Québec, QC, Canada 4Department of Surgery, Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad, Pakistan 5Institute of Drug R&D, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China

Edited by: Massimo Di Maio, University of Turin, Italy

Reviewed by: Janaki Deepak, University of Maryland, Baltimore, United States; Abrar Ahmed, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China

*Correspondence: Meiqi Shi shimeiqi1963@163.com Zhong-Chang Wang wangzhongchang2006@163.com Yiqiao Hu huyiqiao@nju.edu.cn Hai-Liang Zhu zhuhl@nju.edu.cn

This article was submitted to Thoracic Oncology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Oncology

05 06 2020 2020 10 800 02 11 2019 23 04 2020 Copyright © 2020 Abbas, Kassim, Habib, Li, Shi, Wang, Hu and Zhu. 2020 Abbas, Kassim, Habib, Li, Shi, Wang, Hu and Zhu

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Aim: This study aims to analyze the prognostic value of seven tumor makers and also investigate the response of palliative chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC patients with advanced disease.

Methods: Medical records of 278 advanced NSCLC Chinese patients who received six cycles of palliative chemotherapy were retrospectively reviewed under ethical approval (JSCH2019K-011). Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed using SPSS 24 to find the clinical value of these tumor markers and to identify the factors that were associated with progression-free survival (PFS), as well as the response to palliative chemotherapy.

Results: In baseline characteristic, the high levels of CEA, CA-125, CA-199, AFP, NSE, CYFRA21-1, and CA15-3 were detected in 209 (75.18%), 139 (50.0%), 62 (22.30%), 18 (6.47%), 155 (55.75%), 176 (63.30%), and 180 (64.74%) patients, respectively. Univariate analysis revealed that patients with high vs. normal levels of all tumor markers had an increased risk of poor prognosis. In the multivariable Cox regression model, the patient with (high vs. normal) CYFRA21-1 levels (HR = 1.454, P = 0.009) demonstrated an increased poor PFS. However, patients with (high vs. normal) CA19-9 levels (HR = 0.524, P < 0.0001) and NSE levels (HR = 0.584, P < 0.0001) presented a decreased risk of PFS. Also, patients receiving 3-drugs regimen had better PFS compared to those on 2-drugs regimen (P = 0.043).

Conclusions: The high levels of CYFRA21-1 was correlated with a poor prognostic factor of PFS for Advanced NSCLC patients. However, the high levels of CA19-9 and NSE were associated with a better prognostic factor of PFS. Additionally, smoking habits and tumor status had a poor prognostic factor of PFS. Moreover, we found that antiangiogenic therapy has high efficacy with first-line chemotherapy and longer PFS of NSCLC patients.

non-small cell lung cancer stage IV serum tumor markers prognosis palliative chemotherapy six-cycles

香京julia种子在线播放

    1. <form id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></form>
      <address id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></nobr></address>

      Introduction

      Lung cancer is one of the most common and fatal cancers worldwide (1, 2). Lung cancer is a heterogeneous disease comprising mainly non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC), which approximately accounted for 85% and 10–15% of all lung cancer cases respectively (2, 3). According to the global cancer statistics of 2018, lung cancer accounted for approximately 2,093,876 (11.6) new cases and 1,761,007 (18.4) of total cancer deaths representing one in five (18.4%) cancer deaths (4).

      In China, the incidence and mortality rates of lung cancer have increased markedly over the past decades and accounted for ~49.94 per 100,000 men and 23.89 per 100,000 women and 40.30 per 100,000 and 17.13 per 100,000 deaths in 2014 (5). A recent study in China reported an annual mortality rate of 0.6 million (majority male) and 0.73 million new cases annually (6). In addition, NSCLC survival rate was estimated at 16.8% for men and 25.1% for women in 2012–2015, which are relatively low compared to other cancers (5). This can be explaining by the fact that about two-thirds of NSCLC patients are usually at an advanced stage (i.e., unresectable stage IIIB and IV) at the time of diagnosis (1, 2). Most of these advanced tumors are not surgically resectable as a result of disseminated (multiple sites) metastatic disease or metastatic sites that are not amenable to surgery. Patients with single metastatic sites may undergo surgical resection of both the primary tumor in the lung and the metastatic site. However, first-line chemotherapy used in most of the advanced NSCLC cases.

      The purpose of palliative chemotherapy is to improve patient quality of life and increase the survival rate. Advanced non-small lung cancer patients are treated by either radiotherapy or palliative chemotherapy. Studies have reported that even with radiotherapy survival rates have not been significant (1, 2). Though palliative chemotherapy is not curative, it plays a supportive role to improve patient health state, and limit complications when chances of recovery are slim (7).

      Tumor markers are small circulating quantifiable molecules present in blood or tissue which are released by tumor cells or body immune cells in response to tumor growth (8, 9). Tumor markers play a pivotal role in clinical diagnosis, prognosis, and anti-drug surveillance. Tumor markers can also be used to measure the response to chemotherapy (10, 11). Tumor markers have several advantages over conventional diagnostic methods, these are cheap, less time taking, unresting state, and avoid radiation exposure but statistically, it also supports the clinicians to estimate the progression of tumor (12, 13).

      Previous studies have reported an association between tumor markers and curative effect in patients with breast cancer, epithelial ovarian cancer, gastric cancer, pancreatic cancer, and colorectal cancer (1416). There is, however, limited clinical studies on the utilization of tumor markers in advanced-stage NSCLC (17). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the clinical utility of seven tumor markers CEA, CA19-9, CA125, AFP, NSE, CA15-3, and CYFRA21-1 for prognostic specification as well as for measuring the response of chemotherapy (2-drugs vs. 3-drugs) in terminal stage (IV) NSCLC patients who underwent palliative chemotherapy.

      Methods Study Site

      Jiangsu cancer hospital, also known as Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research is founded in 1960 and located in Nanjing city, China. The Hospital has 1,161 open beds with 1,635 employees across 25 clinical and medical departments. In 2019, the medical oncology department of Hospital received over 4,874 patients, which present a monthly average of 406 patients.

      Study Design

      A retrospective study was conducted between January 01, 2013, and March 29, 2019, under the approval of the research ethics committee of Jiangsu Cancer hospital (JSCH2019K-011). In this study, Medical records of 5,445 patients were succinctly reviewed and classified based on defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The patient demographics, medical history, and physical examination, were verified before study entry. The patient medical record was collected until death, progression of cancer, and last medical fellow-up. The levels of CEA, CA125, CA19-9, AFP, NSE, CYFRA21-1, and CA15-3 were recorded at the baseline and at the start of six chemotherapy cycles. The flowchart and analysis are presented in Figure 1.

      Procedural flowchart of the study.

      Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

      The inclusion criteria of this study consisted of: (A) patients with histologically confirmed terminal stage IV NSCLC according to the TNM staging criteria set by the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) in 2009 (2); (B) patients with ECOG performance status of 0–2; (C) patients who received palliative chemotherapy and were followed up at least six chemo-cycles; and (D) Postresection recurrent of NSCLC patients in palliative chemotherapy. The exclusion criteria included: (A) patients who diagnosed previously or had concurrent co-morbid cancers; (B) patients with inadequate medical records or recurrence within six chemo-cycles. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 278 advanced NSCLC patients were enrolled in this study.

      Laboratory Measurement

      Assay of tumor markers was performed by electrochemiluminescence (ECL) so as to determine the baseline levels of CEA, CA19-9, CA125, AFP, CYFRA21-1, and NSE and at the beginning of each chemo-cycle until the risk of progression. The levels were compared with the manufacturer cutoff levels of: CEA < 3.5 ng/ml, CA125 < 35 U/ml, CA19-9 < 39 U/ml, AFP < 10 ng/ml, NSE < 16.3 ng/ml, CYFRA21-1 3.3 ng/ml and CA15-3 < 30 U/mL. Serum levels above (high) the cutoff values indicated a positive outcome. Positive detection of all the tumor markers was considered in case of one or more serum marker levels were above the normal cutoff range.

      Clinical Outcomes

      The clinical outcomes were evaluated by progression free survival (PFS). PFS was an initial time of taking therapy to the tumor progression or death. The Curative response was measured by tomography accordingly to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (RECIST) (1, 2). These were divided into complete regression (CR), stable disease (SD), partial response (PR), and progression disease (PD). Objective response rate (ORR) measured as CR and PR while SD considered as disease control rate (DCR).

      Treatment Received

      All patients received palliative chemotherapy and were divided into two groups to assess the effectiveness of the chemotherapy: (1) patients receiving 2-drugs (Combination of chemotherapy) as indicated in Table 1 and (2) those receiving 3-drugs (Combination of chemotherapy + antiangiogenic therapy) as shown in Table 2.

      Palliative chemotherapy regimens for advanced-stage NSCLC patients.

      Combination of chemotherapy Dose and cycle
      ETOPOSIDE + cisplatin VP16 100 mg/m2, d1–3, Cis: 75 mg/m2, d1, q3w
      PEMETREXED DISODIUM + carboplatin Pem 500 mg/m2, d1, Carbo AUC 5, d1, q3w
      PEMETREXED DISODIUM + irinotecan Pem 500 mg/m2, d1, Iri 200 mg/m2, d1, q3w
      DOCETAXEL + cisplatin Doc 60–75 mg/m2, d1, Cis 60–75 mg/m2, d1
      GEMCITABINE + vinorelbine Gem 1,000 mg/m2 d1, d8, Vin 25 mg/m2 d1, d8, q3w
      PACLITAXEL ALBUMIN + nedaplatin Nab-Pac 125 mg/m2 d1, d8, Neda 80 mg/m2 d1, q3w
      DOCETAXEL + epirubicin Doc 60–75 mg/m2, d1, Epi 60 mg/m2, d1
      BLEOMYCIN HCL + CARBOPLATIN Bleo 15 mg, d1–5,Carbo AUC 5 d1, q3w
      DOCETAXEL + oxaliplatin Doc 60–75 mg/m2, d1, Oxol 120 mg/m2 d1, q3w
      ETOPOSIDE + lobaplatin VP16 100 mg/m2*3 (d1–3), Lobaplatin 30 mg/m2 d1, q3w
      DISODIUM CANTHARIDINATE; PYRIDOXINE + pemetrexed VP16 100 mg/m2, d1–3, Lobo 30 mg/m2, d1
      PACLITAXEL ALBUMIN + cisplatin Nab-Pac 125 mg/m2 d1, d8, Cis 60–75 mg/m2, q3w
      PEMETREXED + tegafur; gimeracil; oteracil Pem 500 mg/m2 d1, Tegafur 50 mg Bid*14, q3w
      VINORELBINE TARTRATE + epirubicin Vin 25 mg/m2 d1–3, Epi 60 mg/m2 d1, q3w

      Combination of chemotherapy plus anti-angiogenic agents' palliative chemotherapy-based regimens for advanced-stage NSCLC patients.

      Combination of chemotherapy plus anti-angiogenic agents Dose and cycle
      PEMETREXED DISODIUM + carboplatin + bevacizumab Pem 500 mg/m2, Carbo AUC 5 *1, Bev 7.5 mg/kg d1, q3w
      DOCETAXEL + cisplatin + bevacizumab Doc 60–75 mg/m2, d1, Cis 60–75 mg/m2 d1, Bev 7.5 mg/kg, d1, q3w
      PEMETREXED DISODIUM + carboplatin + gefitinib Pem 500 mg/m2, d1, Carbo AUC 5, d1, Gefi 250 mg/day, unti PD, q3w
      PEMETREXED DISODIUM + carboplatin + osimertinib Pem 500 mg/m2, d1, Carbo AUC 5, d1, Gefi 250 mg/day, unti PD, q3w
      DOCETAXEL + oxaliplatin + icotinib Doc 60–75 mg/m2, d1, Oxol 120 mg/m2 d1, Icotinib 125 mg tid until PD, q3w
      Paclitaxel + carboplatin + bevacizumab Pac 175 mg/m2, d1, Carbo AUC 5, d1, bev 7.5 mg/m2, d1, q3w
      Gemcitabine + cisplatin + bevacizumab Gem 1,000 mg/m2 d1, d8, Carbo AUC 5, d1, bev 7.5 mg/m2, d1, q3w
      Follow-Up

      A standardized follow-up was received by all patients, for 2 years at an interval of 3 months, and 6 months, then 3 years and thereafter. On each cycle of follow-up, patients' physical examination, complete blood count (CBC), abdominal ultrasound, chest computed tomography (CT), and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were performed. Whenever possible local recurrence and distant metastases were also confirmed histologically.

      Statistical Analysis

      All patients' medical record was analyzed using SPSS 24.0. The association between tumor markers and clinicopathological features were determined by Chi-square analysis. PFS distribution was estimated through Kaplan–Meier curves. The independent prognostic value of each tumor marker and clinicopathological features that highly affect the PFS was evaluated by Cox regression multivariate analysis. Change in the tumor marker levels and effectiveness of pre- and post-palliative chemotherapy were determined using Wilcoxon signed ranks test. And P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

      Results Patients' Characteristics

      The Baseline characteristics of the 278 advanced NSCLC patients are summarized in Table 3. The Mean Age of the patients was (59.11 ± 10.39) years, and the majority of patients were males (65.8%) with no statistical differences (P = 0.357). In addition, 56.6% of patients had non-smoking habits with significant differences (P < 0.0001). Patients were classified according to the standard classification system of World Health Organization/International Association for the study of Lung Cancer (WHO/IASLC) (1, 2). With respect to the clinicopathological features, the majority of patients had metastasis (69.8%) with significant differences (P = 0.015). The histological diagnosis revealed 26.3, 60.1, and 13.7% of patients had squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and large cell carcinomas, respectively, with no significant differences (P = 0.152). Among these patients, there were 52.5% poorly differentiated, 15.1% moderate, and 32.4% well-differentiated. Most of the patients (59.7%) were on a 2-drugs regimen (Combination of chemotherapy), while the remaining (40.3%) received a 3-drugs regimen (Combination of chemotherapy plus antiangiogenic therapy). Of all patients, 75.9% presented a stable disease, while 24.5% had progression disease, with significant differences (P = 0.012).

      Baseline characteristics of tumor markers parameters of advanced-stage NSCLC patients.

      Variables Patients N = 278 (%) P-value CEA level CEA125 CA19-9 AFP NSE CYFRA21-1 CA15-3 Combined detection
      Normal High P-value Normal High P-value Normal High P-value Normal High P-value Normal High P-value Normal High P-value Normal High P-value Combined + P-value
      Age (Mean ± SD) years (59.11 ± 10.39) 0.994 0.950 0.810 0.632 0.989 0.316 0.381 0.942 0.993
      <60 124 (44.6) 31 (25.0) 93 (75.0) 61 (49.2) 63 (50.8) 98 (79.0) 26 (21.0) 116 (93.5) 8 (6.5) 59 (47.6) 65 (52.4) 49 (39.5) 75 (60.5) 44 (35.5) 80 (64.5) 124 (100)
      ≥60 154 (55.4) 38 (24.7) 116 (75.3) 78 (50.6) 76 (49.4) 118 (76.6) 36 (23.4) 144 (93.5) 10 (6.5) 64 (41.6) 90 (58.4) 53 (34.4) 101 (65.6) 54 (35.1) 100 (64.9) 153 (99.3)
      Gender 0.357 0.678 0.528 0.955 0.555 0.451 0.017 0.893 0.352
      Male 183 (65.8) 44 (24.0) 139 (76.0) 89 (48.6) 94 (51.4) 142 (77.6) 41 (22.4) 170 (92.9) 13 (7.1) 78 (42.6) 105 (57.4) 58 (31.7) 125 (68.3) 64 (35.0) 119 (65.0) 183 (100)
      Female 95 (34.2) 24 (26.3) 70 (73.7) 50 (52.6) 45 (47.4) 74 (77.9) 21 (22.1) 90 (94.7) 5 (5.3) 45 (47.4) 50 (52.6) 44 (46.3) 51 (53.7) 34 (35.8) 61 (64.2) 94 (99)
      Smoking status <0.0001 0.784 0.503 0.149 0.033 0.391 0.112 0.520 0.0001
      Non-smoker 157 (56.5) 42 (26.8) 115 (73.2) 82 (52.2) 75 (47.8) 127 (80.9) 30 (19.1) 151 (96.2) 6 (3.8) 68 (43.3) 89 (56.7) 640.84 93 (59.2) 59 (37.6) 98 (62.4) 156 (99.3)
      Smoker 88 (31.7) 15 (17.0) 73 (83.0) 40 (45.5) 48 (54.5) 65 (73.9) 23 (26.1) 80 (90.9) 8 (9.1) 35 (39.8) 53 (60.2) 28 (31.8) 60 (68.2) 26 (29.5) 62 (70.5) 88 (100)
      Unknown 33 (11.9) 12 (36.4) 21 (63.6) 17 (51.5) 16 (48.5) 24 (72.7) 9 (27.3) 29 (87.9) 4 (12.1) 20 (60.6) 13 (39.4) 10 (30.3) 23 (69.7) 13 (39.4) 20 (60.6) 33 (100)
      Metastasis 0.015 0.018 0.118 0.934 0.766 0.965 0.095 0.081 0.015
      Yes 194 (69.8) 56 (28.9) 138 (71.1) 103 (53.1) 91 (46.9) 151 (77.8) 43 (22.2) 182 (93.8) 12 (6.2) 86 (44.3) 108 (55.7) 65 (33.5) 129 (66.5) 62 (32.0) 132 (68.0) 193 (99.48)
      No 84 (30.2) 13 (15.5) 71 (84.5) 36 (42.9) 48 (57.1) 65 (77.4) 19 (22.6) 78 (92.9) 6 (7.1) 37 (44.0) 47 (56.0) 37 (44.0) 47 (56.0) 36 (42.9) 48 (57.1) 84 (95.45)
      Differentiation 0.001 0.801 0.090 0.865 0.210 0.222 0.556 0.377 0.0001
      Poor 146 (52.5) 36 (24.7) 110 (75.3) 79 (54.1) 67 (45.9) 113 (77.4) 33 (22.6) 139 (95.2) 7 (4.8) 59 (40.4) 87 (59.6) 52 (35.6) 94 (64.4) 55 (37.7) 91 (62.3) 145 (99.31)
      Moderate 42 (15.1) 9 (21.4) 33 (78.6) 22 (52.4) 20 (47.6) 35 (83.3) 7 (16.7) 39 (92.9) 3 (7.1) 21 (50.0) 21 (50.0) 14 (33.3) 28 (66.7) 14 (33.3) 28 (66.7) 42 (100)
      Unknown 90 (32.4) 24 (26.7) 66 (73.3) 38 (42.2) 52 (57.8) 68 (75.6) 22 (24.4) 82 (91.1) 8 (8.9) 43 (47.8) 47 (52.2) 36 (40.0) 54 (60.0) 29 (32.2) 61 (67.8) 90 (100)
      Tumor 0.152 0.213 0.063 0.670 0.890 0.786 0.088 0.413 0.155
      Squamous cell 73 (26.3) 23 (31.5) 50 (68.5) 30 (41.1) 43 (58.9) 58 (79.5) 15 (20.5) 69 (94.5) 4 (5.5) 32 (43.8) 41 (56.2) 34 (46.6) 39 (53.4) 25 (34.2) 48 (65.5) 73 (100)
      Adenocarcinoma 167 (60.1) 36 (21.6) 130 (77.8) 87 (52.1) 80 (47.9) 129 (77.2) 38 (22.8) 155 (92.8) 12 (7.2) 73 (43.7) 94 (56.3) 55 (32.9) 112 (67.1) 56 (33.5) 111 (66.5) 166 (99.4)
      Other 38 (13.7) 9 (23.7) 29 (76.3) 22 (57.9) 16 (42.1) 29 (76.3) 9 (23.7) 36 (94.7) 2 (5.3) 18 (47.4) 20 (52.6) 13 (34.2) 25 (65.8) 17 (44.7) 21 (55.3) 38 (100)
      Drug 0.644 0.080 1.00 0.243 0.901 0.038 0.818 0.159 0.646
      2-Drugs 166 (59.7) 35 (21.1) 131 (78.9) 83 (50.0) 83 (50.0) 125 (75.3) 41 (24.7) 155 (93.4) 11 (6.6) 65 (39.2) 101 (60.8) 60 (36.1) 106 (63.9) 53 (31.9) 113 (68.1) 166 (100)
      3-Drugs 112 (40.3) 34 (30.4) 78 (69.6) 56 (50) 56 (50) 91 (81.3) 21 (18.7) 105 (93.8) 7 (6.3) 58 (51.8) 54 (48.2) 42 (37.5) 70 (62.5) 45 (40.2) 67 (59.8) 111 (99.1)
      Response of therapy 0.012 0.969 0.164 0.343 0.366 0.592 0.045 0.082 0.012
      CR (complete response) 0
      PR + SD (stable disease) 210 (75.5) 52 (24.8) 158 (75.2) 110 (52.4) 100 (47.6) 166 (79) 44 (20) 198 (94.3) 12 (5.7) 91 (43.3) 119 (56.7) 84 (40.0) 126 (60.0) 80 (38.1) 130 (61.9) 209 (99.5)
      PD (progressive disease) 68 (24.5) 17 (25.0) 51 (75.0) 29 (42.6) 39 (57.4) 50 (73.5) 18 (26.5) 62 (91.2) 6 (8.8) 32 (47.1) 36 (52.9) 18 (26.5) 50 (73.5) 18 (26.5) 50 (73.5) 68 (100)
      Association of Tumor Markers With Patients' Characteristics

      In the pre-treatment, patients with high levels of CEA, CA-125, CA-199 AFP, NSE, CYFRA21-1, and CA15-3 were as follows: 209 (75.18%), 139 (50%), 62 (22.30%), 18 (6.47 %), 155 (55.75%), 176 (63.30%), and 180 (64.74%), respectively. In Table 3, CEA was found to significantly correlate with metastasis (P = 0.018). Similarly, CYFRA21-1 has strong correlation with gender (P = 0.017) and clinical response (P = 0.045). AFP correlated with smoking (P = 0.033) while NSE correlated only with therapy (P = 0.038). However, the combined positive detection of tumor markers was highly correlated with smoking (P = 0.0001), metastasis (P = 0.015) and cancer cell differentiation (P = 0.0001). There were no significant correlations in pre-treatment levels of CA125, CA-199, and CA15-3 levels with patients' characteristics (all P > 0.05), as shown in the Table 3.

      In this present study, the tumor was progressed in 68 out of 278 patients, 166 patients used 2-drugs, while 112 patients used 3-drugs, and their overall median of PFS was 5.9 (4.1–8.7) months. Patients with CEA (high vs. normal) levels had a median PFS of 4.7 (4.15–5.31; P < 0.0001). Similarly, CA-125 (high vs. normal) levels median PFS was 6.26 (5.33–7.20; P < 0.0001) months. CA19-9 (high vs. normal) levels median PFS was 24.63 (20.41–28.85; P < 0.0001) months. AFP (high vs. normal) levels median PFS was 35.58 (32.40–38.76; P < 0.0001) months. NSE (high vs. normal) levels had median PFS was 5.6 (5.01–6.18; P < 0.0001) months. Similarly, patients with CYFRA21-1 (high vs. normal) levels median PFS was 5.4 (4.86–6.04; P = 0.009) months. However, patients with CA-153 (high vs. normal) levels were found poorly correlated with overall median PFS 5.53 (5.04–6.02; P = 0.125). Patients with elevated pre-treatment levels of CEA, CA125, CA19-9, AFP, NSE, CYFRA21-1, and CA15-3 noted shorter PFS compared to normal levels, as shown in the Figures 2A,G.

      Kaplan–Meier survival curve of four Tumor markers (A) PFS of CEA (high vs. normal) levels, (B) PFS of CA125 (high vs. normal) levels, (C) PFS of CA19-9 (high vs. normal) levels, and (D) PFS of AFP (high vs. normal) levels. Kaplan–Meier survival curve of three Tumor markers (E) PFS of NSE (high vs. normal) levels, (F) PFS of CYFRA21-1 (high vs. normal) levels, and (G) PFS of CA15-3 (high vs. normal) levels.

      Furthermore, to find the pivotal role of these tumor markers as independent prognostic factors of PFS for NSCLC, univariate, and multivariate analyses were carried out, as shown in Tables 4, 5. Univariate Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the factors which correlated with PFS. CEA/CA125, and CA19-9 levels were found as highly associated with PFS. In addition, AFP and NSE levels were also statistical associated with PFS except in the following variables, i.e., Age > 60, Smoking status, Differentiation status, Tumor status, Therapy (3-drugs), and Curative response (disease progression).

      Univariate analysis of tumor markers for progression free survival using Cox regression model in advanced-stage NSCLC patients.

      Variables CEA High vs. normal CA125 CA19-9 AFP NSE CYFRA21-1 CA15-3
      HR (95% CI) P HR (95% CI) P HR (95% CI) P HR (95% CI) P HR (95% CI) P HR (95% CI) P HR (95% CI) P
      Age
      <60 2.662 (1.464–4.842) 0.001 3.321 (1.995–5.530) <0.0001 11.013 (4.768–25.439) <0.0001 97.792 (12.014–796.013) <0.0001 2.887 (1.695–4.918) <0.0001 1.547 (0.977–2.450) 0.063 1.034 (0.639–1.675) 0.891
      >60 3.469 (1.904–6.318) <0.0001 4.593 (2.814–7.499) <0.0001 12.019 (5.879–24.572) <0.0001 1.000 (0.075–13.399) 1.000 1.915 (1.247–2.940) 0.003 1.360 (0.917–2.017) 0.126 1.552 (1.006–2.393) 0.047
      Sex
      Male 3.399 (1.917–6.027) <0.0001 3.737 (2.427–5.756) <0.0001 12.183 (6.146–24.153) <0.0001 180.730 (23.400-−1395.894) <0.0001 2.104 (1.413–3.133) <0.0001 1.527 (1.073–2.175) 0.019 1.360 (0.923–2.004) 0.119
      Female 2.594 (1.391–4.839) 0.003 4.579 (2.491–8.419) <0.0001 10.286 (4.134–25.593) <0.0001 65.309 (7.237–589.403) <0.0001 2.600 (1.414–4.780) 0.002 1.294 (0.726–2.309) 0.382 1.077 (0.610–1.900) 0.799
      Smoking status
      Non-smoker 2.567 (1.507–4.374) 0.001 4.939 (3.061–7.969) <0.0001 11.319 (5.355–23.925) <0.0001 46.447 (8.351–258.316) <0.0001 2.941 (1.862–4.644) <0.0001 1.289 (0.847–1.963) 0.236 1.419 (0.925–2.178) 0.109
      Smoker 3.977 (1.889–8.36) <0.0001 2.861 (1.527–5.360) 0.001 6.007 (2.606–13.845) <0.0001 170554.306 (0.0001–1.509E+45) 0.797 1.622 (0.944–2.788) 0.080 1.684 (1.005–2.821) 0.048 1.275 (0.732–2.223) 0.391
      Unknown 5.231 (0.692–39.598) 0.109 3.394 (1.231–9.361) 0.018 1129.174 (0.028–45709448.1) 0.194 11248.858 (0.0001–3.731E+21) 0.650 2.108 (0.593–7.497) 0.249 1.198 (0.495–2.900) 0.689 0.794 (0.299–2.111) 0.644
      Metastasis
      Yes 3.368 (2.068–5.486) <0.0001 6.252 (3.859–10.130) <0.0001 13.335 (6.805–26.133) <0.0001 1.000 (0.072–13.794) 1.000 2.304 (1.545–3.435) <0.0001 1.378 (0.973–1.951) 0.071 1.107 (0.764–1.602) 0.592
      No 1.956 (0.845–4.526) 0.117 2.007 (1.113–3.622) 0.021 8.953 (3.517–22.791) <0.0001 35.267 (4.042–307.693) 0.001 2.150 (1.189–3.887) 0.011 1.887 (1.041–3.421) 0.037 1.905 (1.027–3.534) 0.041
      Differentiation
      Poor 2.310 (1.375–3.883) 0.002 4.363 (2.546–7.479) <0.0001 11.727 (5.406–25.441) <0.0001 1.000 (0.020–50.669) 1.000 2.103 (1.344–3.291) 0.001 1.211 (0.800–1.832) 0.366 1.698 (1.058–2.726) 0.028
      Moderate 4.243 (1.284–14.020) 0.018 3.920 (1.586–9.690) 0.003 31.435 (2.743–360.219) 0.006 161926.676 (0.0001–6.586E+68) 0.872 2.165 (0.829–5.658) 0.115 0.993 (0.457–2.158) 0.986 1.105 (0.477–2.557) 0.816
      Unknown 4.202 (1.672–10.558) 0.002 3.575 (2.038–6.271) <0.0001 12.361 (4.949–30.872) <0.0001 63.787 (7.817–520.508) <0.0001 2.493 (1.351–4.601) 0.003 2.376 (1.372–4.116) 0.002 1.183 (0.704–1.989) 0.526
      Tumor
      Squamous 3.279 (1.288–8.347) 0.013 5.359 (2.798–10.265) <0.0001 15.383 (4.874–48.554) <0.0001 46.186 (4.718–452.122) 0.001 2.368 (1.246–4.500) 0.008 2.831 (1.480–5.414) 0.002 1.461 (0.811–2.634) 0.207
      Adenocarcinoma 3.107 (1.810–5.332) <0.0001 4.104 (2.548–6.610) <0.0001 10.431 (5.245–20.748) <0.0001 163.477 (20.983–1273.627) <0.0001 2.478 (1.598–3.841) <0.0001 1.069 (0.730–1.567) 0.731 1.461 (0.973–2.194) 0.067
      Others 2.678 (1.016–7.060) 0.046 2.550 (0.914–7.116) 0.074 9.735 (2.566–36.943) 0.001 262777.899 (0.0001–3.364E+105) 0.915 1.547 (0.620–3.860) 0.350 1.118 (0.443–2.822) 0.814 0.861 (0.278–2.673) 0.796
      Drug
      2–Drugs 2.483 (1.466–4.206) 0.001 3.843 (2.450–6.027) <0.0001 9.267 (4.840–17.743) <0.0001 57.450 (12.335–267.582) <0.0001 2.004 (1.340–2.999) 0.001 1.666 (1.135–2.444) 0.009 1.230 (0.834–1.815) 0.297
      3–Drugs 3.836 (1.912–7.697) <0.0001 4.273 (2.426–7.527) <0.0001 13.035 (5.122–33.172) <0.0001 1.000 (0.034–29.436) 1.0000 2.667 (1.484–4.791) 0.001 1.262 (0.779–2.046) 0.344 1.256 (0.703–2.244) 0.441
      Curative response
      CR 0
      PR + SD 2.773 (1.714–4.485) <0.0001 3.459 (2.302–5.199) <0.0001 13.619 (7.235–25.637) <0.0001 69.883 (15.263–319.972) <0.0001 2.114 (1.444–3.095) <0.0001 1.616 (1.133–2.305) 0.008 1.545 (1.066–2.239) 0.022
      PD 3.848 (1.632–9.074) 0.002 6.023 (2.831–12.817) <0.0001 7.073 (2.539–19.704) <0.0001 1.000 (0.032–31.230) 1.000 2.854 (1.434–5.681) 0.003 1.198 (0.682–2.104) 0.530 0.776 (0.400–1.507) 0.455

      Multivariate analysis of tumor markers for progression free survival using Cox regression model in advanced-stage NSCLC patients.

      Variables HR 95%CI P-value
      Age: <60 vs. >60 0.846 (0.655–1.092) 0.199
      Sex: male vs. female 0.863 (0.612–1.218) 0.401
      Smoking: ever vs. never 1.379 (1.020–1.864) 0.037
      Unknown vs. never 1.1651 (0.786–1.727) 0.447
      Treatment: 2- vs. 3-Drugs 1.183 (0.898–1.557) 0.231
      Distant metastases: yes vs. no 0.954 (0.706–1.289) 0.758
      Tumor: squamous vs. adenocarcinoma 0.650 (0.380–1.110) 0.114
      Others vs. adenocarcinoma 4.030 (1.795–9.232) 0.001
      Differentiation: moderate vs. poor 1.028 (0.709–1.492) 0.882
      Unknown vs. poor 1.043 (0.730–1.492) 0.816
      CEA: ≤ 3.5 vs. >3.5 ng/ml 0.851 (0.632–1.145) 0.286
      CA125: ≤ 35 vs. >35 Uml 0.955 (0.724–1.261) 0.747
      CA19-9: ≤ 39 vs. >39 U/ml 0.524 (0.375–0.731) <0.0001
      AFP: <10 vs. >10 0.672 (0.407–1.110) 0.121
      NSE: ≤ 15.2 vs. >15.2 ng/ml 0.584 (0.446–0.763) <0.0001
      CYFRA21-1: <3.3 vs. >3.3 1.454 (1.098–1.926) 0.009
      CA15-3: <30 vs. >30 1.310 (0.975–1.758) 0.073
      Curative response: PR + SD vs. PD 0.886 (0.644–1.217) 0.454
      Sex* Tumor (Squamous cells) 1.227 (0.671–2.244) 0.507
      Sex* Tumor (Others) 0.336 (0.132–0.853) 0.022

      In multivariable Cox regression model, smoking status (Ever vs. Never, P = 0.037), Tumor (Others vs. Adenocarcinoma, P = 0.001), CA19-9 (high vs. normal, P = < 0.0001) levels, NSE (high vs. normal, P = < 0.0001) levels, CYFRA21-1 (high vs. normal, P = 0.009) levels, CA15-3 (high vs. normal, P = 0.073) levels and Sex* Tumor (P = 0.022) were found to be independent prognostic factors of PFS for NSCLC.

      Prognostic values of all these tumor markers in advanced-stage NSCLC patients were evaluated in eight groups, i.e., (1) patients with one elevated tumor marker level, (2) patients with two elevated tumor markers levels, (3) patients with three elevated tumor markers levels, (4) patients with four elevated tumor markers levels, (5) patients with five elevated tumor markers levels, (6) patients with six elevated tumor marker levels, (7) patients with seven elevated tumor markers levels. However, only one patient found normal pre-treatment levels of all the seven tumor markers. On comparison of all the seven tumor markers, patients with six and seven were recorded shorter PFS compared to patients with normal pre-treatment levels (P = 0.025) as shown in the Figure 3A.

      Kaplan–Meier progression-free survival. (A) Combined detection of elevated seven Tumor markers. (B) Comparison the effectiveness of 3-drugs regimen vs. 2-drugs regimen.

      Association of Treatment With Progression-Free Survival

      In this study166 (59.7%) patients were on a 2-drug regimen, while 112 (40.3%) received a 3-drug treatment regimen. These therapies (2-drugs and 3-drugs) were compared for progression free survival, and those on the 3-drugs regimen found to have better PFS compared to the ones receiving the 2-drugs treatment regimen (P = 0.043), as shown in Figure 3B.

      Association of Tumor Markers With Response to Palliative Chemotherapy

      In this study, 278 patients received palliative chemotherapy, and their clinical responses were recorded. None of the patients had fully recovered, while 43 patients achieved partial response (PR), 167 patients had stable disease (SD), and 68 patients had disease state progress (PD). Some patients had also experienced following side effects while receiving chemotherapy, i.e., alopecia, anorexia, nausea, vomiting. No patient death due to treatment was recorded.

      Mean of the initial and final levels of the tumor markers were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed ranks test. The results revealed significant statistical Mean differences levels of CEA, CA-125, CA-199, AFP, and NSE (P = 0.019, 0.001, 0.023, P < 0.0001, and P = 0.012, respectively) between the pre-and post-treatment. Meanwhile, the Mean levels of CYFRA21-1 and CA15-3 were not statistically significant (P = 0.319 and 0.624, respectively), as shown in Table 6.

      Mean levels of seven tumor markers in pre- and post-palliative chemotherapy in advanced-stage NSCLC patients.

      CEA Initial–CEA final CA125 Initial–CA125 final CA19-9 Initial–CA19-9 final AFP Initial–AFP final NSE Initial–NSE final CYFRA21-1 Initial–CYFRA21-1 final CA15-3 Initial–CA15-3 final
      z (Wilcoxon signed ranks test)a −2.352b −3.419b −2.272c −4.748c −2.513b −0.997b −0.490c
      P-value 0.019 0.001 0.023 <0.0001 0.012 0.319 0.624

      Wilcoxon signed ranks test.

      Based on positive ranks.

      Based on negative ranks.

      All the seven tumor marker levels were measured at baseline and after 6th cycle of palliative chemotherapy. When stratified the Mean levels of all tumor markers by the disease control group and the progression disease group, there were statistical significant decreasing of CEA (P < 0.0001), CA-125 (P < 0.0001), AFP (P < 0.0001), NSE (P = 0.050), and CYFRA21-1 (P = 0.050) levels after the 6th cycle of palliative chemotherapy in the disease control group. However, no significant differences were observed in the Mean levels of pre- and post-treatment for CA19-9 (P = 0.151) and CA15-3 (P = 0.436) in the same group, as shown in Table 7.

      Mean levels of serum tumor markers in pre-and post-palliative chemotherapy in DC group (CR + PR + SD) and PD group respectively, in advanced-stage NSCLC patients.

      Efficacy comb CEA initial–CEA final CA125 Initial–CA125 final CA19-9 Initial–CA19-9 final AFP Initial–AFP final NSE Initial–NSE final CYFRA21-1 Initial–CYFRA21-1 final CA15-3 Initial–CA15-3 final
      CR + SD + PR Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)a −3.517b −4.559b −1.435c −4.476c −1.897b −1.958b −0.779c
      0.000 0.000 0.151 0.000 0.050 0.050 0.436
      PD Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)a −1.265c −0.956c −1.983c −1.725c −1.752b −0.947c −0.633b
      0.206 0.339 0.047 0.084 0.080 0.344 0.527

      Wilcoxon signed ranks test.

      Based on positive ranks.

      Based on negative ranks.

      In addition, when stratified by the progression disease group, there was statistical significant decrease of CA19-9 (P = 0.047) levels between the pre-and post-treatment. However, no significant differences were observed for CEA, CA125, AFP, NSE, CYFRA21-1, and CA15-3 levels in the progression disease group (all P > 0.05), as shown in Table 7.

      Furthermore, we also evaluated the response to therapy in patients receiving the two forms of palliative chemotherapy (i.e., 2-drugs or 3-drugs regiment). As evinced from Table 7, patients receiving a 3-drugs treatment regimen achieved better therapeutic outcomes compare to those on a 2-drugs regimen. Also, the pre- and post-treatment levels of the tumor markers were compared. When stratified by 3-drugs regimen, the results showed significant differences in CA125 (P = 0.009), AFP(P < 0.0001), NSE (P = 0.014) and CYFRA21-1 (P = 0.43) levels. However, no significant differences were observed for CEA (P = 0.122), CA19-9 (P = 0.071), and CA15-3 (P = 0.983) levels. Meanwhile, when stratified by the 2-drugs regimen, no statistical significant differences were observed in all tumor markers (all P > 0.05), as shown in Table 8.

      Comparing the clinical response of palliative chemotherapy (3-Drugs and 2-Drugs) in advanced-stage NSCLC patients.

      Efficacy CEA Initial–CEA final CA125 Initial–CA125 final CA19-9 Initial–CA19-9 final AFP Initial–AFP final NSE Initial–NSE final CYFRA21-1 Initial–CYFRA21-1 final CA15-3 Initial–CA15-3 final
      3-Drugs Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)a −1.546b −2.622b −1.805c −4.807c −2.468b −2.021b −0.021b
      0.122 0.009 0.071 0.000 0.014 0.043 0.983
      2-Drugs Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)a −1.839b −2.170b −1.424c −1.365c −0.887b −0.866c −0.731c
      0.066 0.30 0.154 0.172 0.375 0.386 0.465

      Wilcoxon signed ranks test.

      Based on positive ranks.

      Based on negative ranks.

      Discussion

      This retrospective study is one of the few studies that assess the clinical utility of tumor markers CEA, CA19-9, CA125, AFP, NSE, CA15-3, and CYFRA21-1 for prognostic specification as well as for measuring the response to chemotherapy. CEA is non-specific with an abnormal countenance in solid tumors including, non-small lung cancer. Moro et al. (18) reported CEA as a negative prognostic factor. One study reported that CEA has a poor prognostic specification in NSCLC for survival (19). In our present study, patients having elevated CEA pre-treatment levels were correlated with shorter PFS and poor prognosis compared to those with normal levels, as similarly found in previous studies (19, 20). Moreover, in univariate Cox regression analysis, CEA was a correlated factor with PFS, but the multivariate analysis demonstrated that CEA is not an independent prognostic factors of PFS (P = 0.286).

      Previously, the role of CA125 as a prognostic marker was not well defined (21). A limited number of studies had explored its prognostic value in an advanced-stage of cancer (22, 23). Herein, patients with increased pre-treatment levels of CA125 had not shown any significance, but in univariate Cox regression, CA125 was found statistical associated with risk of progression. But the multivariate analysis found no statistical significant (P = 0.747). Similarly, the role of CA19-9 was not previously well-elucidated with PFS in NSCLC patients (19, 24). However, in our study patients with increased pre-treatment levels of CA19-9 had not shown any significant differences (P > 0.05), but in univariate Cox regression and multivariate variable models, CA19-9 was found as an independent prognostic factor associated with risk of progression.

      The prognostic value of AFP is already reported in several types of cancers (e.g., gastric cancer and ovarian cancer) (25), but there is no study available that explored its diagnostic and prognostic value in lung cancer (26). Our study is the first to our best knowledge to identify the potential role of AFP in NSCLC. Our results showed that AFP levels have a significance difference in high pre-treatment levels. Moreover, AFP was found associated with PFS in univariate Cox regression, but not in multivariate analysis (P = 0.121). Further studies are, however needed to validate our results.

      The role of NSE as a tumor marker is widely accepted in small cell lung cancer (SCLC). However, its prognostic value is controversial in NSCLC (27). Numerous studies explored the prognostic role of NSE in local advanced and metastatic NSCLC and found it as a vital prognostic factor for PFS. (28, 29) Our findings are also consistent with them and found NSE levels were associated with worse prognosis and shorter PFS. On the contrary, one study on 67 operable early stage NSCLC patients reported a non-correlation of NSE with prognosis (30). In addition, studies explored the prognostic reliability of CYFRA21-1 and its levels were highly expressed the in blood of NSCLC (31). In alignment with our study, we found a significant correlation of CYFRA21-1 with gender and curative response. Furthermore, univariate cox regression and multivariate variable model results showed that CYFRA21-1 is a reliable tumor marker of NSCLC. Our findings are also in line with previous studies that found CYFRA21-1 as an independent predictor of gender and metastasis (32).

      CA15-3 is a mucin-1 soluble form that is associated with non-squamous carcinoma (33). We did not find any significant difference in pre-treatment levels of CA15-3. However, univariate Cox regression revealed that CA15-3 was associated with Age, poor differentiation, and disease control group, but no significant differences were observed in multivariate analysis. In accordance with our findings, Liu et al. (34) reported that CA15-3 is not a reliable tumor marker. Furthermore, CEA, CA125, CA19-9, AFP, NSE, CYFRA21-1, and CA15-3 may not have significant prognostic values individually, but their combined detection can help in diagnosis, prognosis, and further, it can also evaluate the response of therapy. One study reported that changes in tumor marker levels in patients taking pre- and post-gefitinib-based chemotherapy were associated with tumor response and PFS (35). Therefore, the clinical utilization of these tumor markers could play a promising role in predicting the outcomes of therapy in NSCLC. The combined positive detection was highly correlated with smoking status, metastasis, differentiation, and curative response.

      In the Kaplan–Meier survival curve, patients with 5-, 6-, or 7-elevated pre-treatment tumor markers have short PFS compared to those with 0, 1-, 2-, 3-, or 4-elevated pre-treatment tumor markers. Therefore, clinicians/oncologists should consider the detection of the combined tumor markers before prescribing the chemotherapy (3638). The role of chemotherapy in advanced-stage NSCLC in the past two decades has been well-established. However, an antiangiogenic drug also gained attention in recent years, antiangiogenic drugs, e.g., bevacizumab has proved its efficacy in numerous solid tumors, and also show high efficacy with first-line chemotherapy in NSCLC patients (39, 40). Numerous studies reported the safety profile and synergistic effects of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy (40, 41). Herein, patients who received 3-drugs regimen had longer PFS compared to those on 2-drugs. Those findings were consistent with previous studies (42).

      The association between tumor markers and curative effect has already been studied in breast cancer, colorectal cancer, gastric cancer, pancreatic cancer, and ovarian cancer, but limited clinical studies are available to identify the role of tumor markers and response to chemotherapy in advanced stage of NSCLC (14, 16, 4345). In this study, we sought to determine the clinical potential of tumor markers in monitoring the response of patients to palliative chemotherapy. Our results showed a significant reduction of tumor marker levels after palliative chemotherapy, especially in the disease control group (CR + PR + SD), as compared to the progression disease group, as aforementioned in Table 7.

      In the present study, we also compared the effectiveness of a 2- and 3-drugs combination therapy. Our results showed significant differences in the tumor marker levels of patients using 3-drugs than those on a 2-drugs therapy, as shown in Table 8. Previously published studies supported the hypothesis that antiangiogenic therapy, e.g., bevacizumab, can penetrate inside the tumor with or without first line chemotherapy (1, 2). It can therefore be inferred that combination of antiangiogenic therapy with chemotherapy could improve patient survival and improve their quality of life.

      The limitation of this retrospective study is that the socio-demographic data may be subject to bias, especially for the classification of being smoker, considering the fact it was a self-report. Nonetheless, our findings require confirmation in additional large prospective studies.

      Conclusion

      The high levels of CYFRA21-1 were correlated with poor a prognostic factor of PFS for Advanced NSCLC patients. However, the high levels of CA19-9 and NSE were associated with a better prognostic factor of PFS. Additionally, smoking habits and tumor status had a poor prognostic factor of PFS. Moreover, we found that antiangiogenic therapy has high efficacy with combination of chemotherapy and longer PFS of NSCLC patients.

      Data Availability Statement

      All datasets generated for this study are included in the article/supplementary material.

      Ethics Statement

      The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the ethics research committee of Jiangsu Cancer hospital, Nanjing, China. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

      Author Contributions

      MA and MS: conceptualization. MA: methodology and writing—original draft preparation. MA and SK: formal analysis. MA and XL: data curation. MA, SK, and MH: writing—review and editing. Z-CW, MS, YH, and H-LZ: supervision and project administration.

      Conflict of Interest

      The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

      We want to extend our appreciation to Large-scale Data Analysis Center of Cancer Precision Medicine-LinkDoc for clinical and pathological data collected.

      References Li X Abbas M Li Y Teng Y Fang Y Yu S . Comparative effectiveness of pemetrexed-platinum doublet chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab as first-line therapy for treatment-naive patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China. Clin Ther. (2019) 41:51829. 10.1016/j.clinthera.2019.02.00430846285 Li X Zhao X Abbas M Wang L Li C Liu S . Comparative effectiveness study of single high-dose cisplatin with fractionated doses cisplatin in first-line therapy for treatment-naive Chinese patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Curr Probl Cancer. (2019) 43:100466. 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2019.01.00730777344 Zamay TN Zamay GS Kolovskaya OS Zukov RA Petrova MM Gargaun A . Current and prospective protein biomarkers of lung cancer. Cancers. (2017) 9:155. 10.3390/cancers911015529137182 Bray F Ferlay J Soerjomataram I Siegel RL Torre LA Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. (2018) 68:394424. 10.3322/caac.2149230207593 Cao M Chen W. Epidemiology of lung cancer in China. Thorac Cancer. (2019) 10:37. 10.1111/1759-7714.1291630485694 Chen W Zheng R Baade PD Zhang S Zeng H Bray F . Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. (2016) 66:11532. 10.3322/caac.2133826808342 Pilkington G Boland A Brown T Oyee J Bagust A Dickson R. A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Thorax. (2015) 70:35967. 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-20591425661113 Dong Y Zheng X Yang Z Sun M Zhang G An X . Serum carcinoembryonic antigen, neuron-specific enolase as biomarkers for diagnosis of nonsmall cell lung cancer. J Cancer Res Ther. (2016) 12:346. 10.4103/0973-1482.19162627721249 Seijo LM Peled N Ajona D Boeri M Field JK Sozzi G . Biomarkers in lung cancer screening: achievements, promises, and challenges. J Thorac Oncol. (2019) 14:34357. 10.1016/j.jtho.2018.11.02330529598 Eisenhauer EA Therasse P Bogaerts J Schwartz LH Sargent D Ford R . New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. (2009) 45:22847. 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.02619097774 Ludwig JA Weinstein JN. Biomarkers in cancer staging, prognosis and treatment selection. Nat Rev Cancer. (2005) 5:84556. 10.1038/nrc173916239904 Dietel M Bubendorf L Dingemans AM Dooms C Elmberger G García RC . Diagnostic procedures for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): recommendations of the European Expert Group. Thorax. (2016) 71:17784. 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-20667726530085 Duffy MJ. Tumor markers in clinical practice: a review focusing on common solid cancers. Med Princ Pract. (2013) 22:411. 10.1159/00033839322584792 Fiala O Pesek M Finek J Bortlicek Z Topolcan O. P17. Prognostic significance of serum tumor markers in patients with advanced-stage NSCLC treated with pemetrexed-based chemotherapy. Transl Lung Cancer Res. (2014) 3:AB029. 10.3978/j.issn.2218-6751.2014.AB02926722082 Gao Y Wang J Zhou Y Sheng S Qian SY Huo X. Evaluation of serum CEA, CA19-9, CA72-4, CA125 and ferritin as diagnostic markers and factors of clinical parameters for colorectal cancer. Sci Rep. (2018) 8:2732. 10.1038/s41598-018-21048-y29426902 Nan J Li J Li X Guo G Wen X Tian Y. Preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen as a marker for predicting the outcome of three cancers. Biomark Cancer. (2017) 9:17. 10.1177/1179299X17690142 Zaleska M Szturmowicz M Zych J Roszkowska-Sliz B Demkow U Langfort R . [Elevated serum NSE level in locally advanced and metastatic NSCLC predispose to better response to chemotherapy but worse survival]. Pneumonol Alergol Pol. (2010) 78:1420. 20162514 Moro D Villemain D Vuillez JP Delord CA Brambilla C. CEA, CYFRA21-1 and SCC in non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. (1995) 13:16976. 10.1016/0169-5002(95)00485-88581396 Ghosh I Bhattacharjee D Das AK Chakrabarti G Dasgupta A Dey SK. Diagnostic role of tumour markers CEA, CA15-3, CA19-9 and CA125 in lung cancer. Ind J Clin Biochem. (2013) 28:249. 10.1007/s12291-012-0257-024381417 Arrieta O Villarreal-Garza C Martínez-Barrera L Morales M Dorantes-Gallareta Y Peña-Curiel O . Usefulness of serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in evaluating response to chemotherapy in patients with advanced non small-cell lung cancer: a prospective cohort study. BMC Cancer. (2013) 13:254. 10.1186/1471-2407-13-25423697613 Ando S Kimura H Iwai N Yamamoto N Iida T. Positive reactions for both Cyfra21-1 and CA125 indicate worst prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer. Anticancer Res. (2003) 23:2869874. 12926125 Yu D Du K Liu T Chen G. Prognostic value of tumor markers, NSE, CA125 and SCC, in operable NSCLC Patients. Int J Mol Sci. (2013) 14:1114556. 10.3390/ijms14061114523712355 Manzo A Montanino A Carillio G Costanzo R Sandomenico C Normanno N . Angiogenesis Inhibitors in NSCLC. Int J Mol Sci. (2017) 18:2021. 10.3390/ijms1810202128934120 Isaksson S Jönsson P Monsef N Brunnström H Bendahl P-O Jönsson M . CA 19-9 and CA 125 as potential predictors of disease recurrence in resectable lung adenocarcinoma. PLoS One. (2017) 12:e0186284. 10.1371/journal.pone.018628429049328 Kono K Amemiya H Sekikawa T Iizuka H Takahashi A Fujii H . Clinicopathologic features of gastric cancers producing alpha-fetoprotein. Digest Surg. (2002) 19:35965. 10.1159/00006583812435906 Kitada M Ozawa K Sato K Matsuda Y Hayashi S Tokusashi Y . Alpha-fetoprotein-producing primary lung carcinoma: a case report. World J Surg Oncol. (2011) 9:47. 10.1186/1477-7819-9-4721554678 Qi W Li X Kang J. Advances in the study of serum tumor markers of lung cancer. J Cancer Res Ther. (2014) 10:95101. 10.4103/0973-1482.14580125450292 Abdallah A Wahba M El Bastawisy A Gaafar R. Plasma CA 19-9 in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Clin Oncol. (2013) 2:118. 10.5539/cco.v2n2p11 Pujol J-L Boher J-M Grenier J Quantin X. Cyfra 21-1, neuron specific enolase and prognosis of non-small cell lung cancer: prospective study in 621 patients. Lung Cancer. (2001) 31:22131. 10.1016/S0169-5002(00)00186-011165401 Reinmuth N Brandt B Semik M Kunze W-P Achatzy R Scheld HH . Prognostic impact of Cyfra21-1 and other serum markers in completely resected non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. (2002) 36:26570. 10.1016/S0169-5002(02)00009-012009236 Cabrera-Alarcon JL Carrillo-Vico A Santotoribio JD Leon-Justel A Sanchez-Gil R Gonzalez-Castro A . CYFRA 21-1 as a tool for distant metastasis detection in lung cancer. Clin Lab. (2011) 57:10114. 22239035 Pujol JL Grenier J Daures JP Daver A Pujol H Michel FB. Serum fragment of cytokeratin subunit 19 measured by CYFRA 21-1 immunoradiometric assay as a marker of lung cancer. Cancer Res. (1993) 53:616. 10.1016/0969-8051(94)90070-17677981 Situ D Wang J Ma Y Zhu Z Hu Y Long H . Expression and prognostic relevance of MUC1 in stage IB non-small cell lung cancer. Med Oncol. (2011) 28(Suppl 1):S596604. 10.1007/s12032-010-9752-421116877 Liu XQ Ren HX Wu ZP. [Detecting MUC-1 mRNA for diagnosing peripheral blood micro-metastasis in non-small cell lung cancer patients]. Ai Zheng. (2008) 27:126770. 19079991 Chiu CH Shih YN Tsai CM Liou JL Chen YM Perng RP. Serum tumor markers as predictors for survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with gefitinib. Lung Cancer. (2007) 57:21321. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2007.02.01617449138 Kogan Y Kleiman M Shannon S Elishmereni M Taub E Aptekar L . A new algorithm predicting imminent disease progression in advanced NSCLC patients by machine-learning integration of five serum biomarkers. J Clin Oncol. (2018) 36:e21190. 10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.e21190 Molina R Marrades RM Auge JM Escudero JM Vinolas N Reguart N . Assessment of a combined panel of six serum tumor markers for lung cancer. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. (2016) 193:42737. 10.1164/rccm.201404-0603OC26465739 Lee HJ Kim YT Park PJ Shin YS Kang KN Kim Y . A novel detection method of non-small cell lung cancer using multiplexed bead-based serum biomarker profiling. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (2012) 143:4217. 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.10.04622104668 Salgia R Harpole D Herndon JE 2nd Pisick E Elias A Skarin AT. Role of serum tumor markers CA 125 and CEA in non-small cell lung cancer. Anticancer Res. (2001) 21:12416. 10.1016/S0169-5002(00)80645-511396194 Jain RK. Normalizing tumor vasculature with anti-angiogenic therapy: a new paradigm for combination therapy. Nat Med. (2001) 7:9879. 10.1038/nm0901-98711533692 Vasudev NS Reynolds AR. Anti-angiogenic therapy for cancer: current progress, unresolved questions and future directions. Angiogenesis. (2014) 17:47194. 10.1007/s10456-014-9420-y24482243 Shih T Lindley C. Bevacizumab: an angiogenesis inhibitor for the treatment of solid malignancies. Clin Ther. (2006) 28:1779802. 10.1016/j.clinthera.2006.11.01517212999 Abbas M Faggian A Sintali DN Khan GJ Naeem S Shi M . Current and future biomarkers in gastric cancer. Biomed Pharmacother. (2018) 103:1688700. 10.1016/j.biopha.2018.04.17829864959 S. Abasse Kassim Tang W Abbas M Wu S Meng Q Zhang C Li X . Clinicopathologic and epidemiological characteristics of prognostic factors in post-surgical survival of colorectal cancer patients in Jiangsu Province, China. Cancer Epidemiol. (2019) 62:101565. 10.1016/j.canep.2019.07.00431323459 Kassim SA Abbas M Tang W Wu S Meng Q Zhang C . Retrospective study on melanosis coli as risk factor of colorectal neoplasm: a 3-year colonoscopic finding in Zhuhai Hospital, China. Int J Colorectal Dis. (2020) 35:21322. 10.1007/s00384-019-03435-731823053

      Funding. This work is supported by the Institute of Artificial Intelligence Biomedicine, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.

      ‘Oh, my dear Thomas, you haven’t heard the terrible news then?’ she said. ‘I thought you would be sure to have seen it placarded somewhere. Alice went straight to her room, and I haven’t seen her since, though I repeatedly knocked at the door, which she has locked on the inside, and I’m sure it’s most unnatural of her not to let her own mother comfort her. It all happened in a moment: I have always said those great motor-cars shouldn’t be allowed to career about the streets, especially when they are all paved with cobbles as they are at Easton Haven, which are{331} so slippery when it’s wet. He slipped, and it went over him in a moment.’ My thanks were few and awkward, for there still hung to the missive a basting thread, and it was as warm as a nestling bird. I bent low--everybody was emotional in those days--kissed the fragrant thing, thrust it into my bosom, and blushed worse than Camille. "What, the Corner House victim? Is that really a fact?" "My dear child, I don't look upon it in that light at all. The child gave our picturesque friend a certain distinction--'My husband is dead, and this is my only child,' and all that sort of thing. It pays in society." leave them on the steps of a foundling asylum in order to insure [See larger version] Interoffice guff says you're planning definite moves on your own, J. O., and against some opposition. Is the Colonel so poor or so grasping—or what? Albert could not speak, for he felt as if his brains and teeth were rattling about inside his head. The rest of[Pg 188] the family hunched together by the door, the boys gaping idiotically, the girls in tears. "Now you're married." The host was called in, and unlocked a drawer in which they were deposited. The galleyman, with visible reluctance, arrayed himself in the garments, and he was observed to shudder more than once during the investiture of the dead man's apparel. HoME香京julia种子在线播放 ENTER NUMBET 0016www.llkbsn.com.cn
      fcnfc.com.cn
      www.hztfdz.org.cn
      www.hrmsh.com.cn
      www.eqnmrf.com.cn
      www.mkchain.com.cn
      sjchain.com.cn
      ugnfxc.com.cn
      mkiusi.com.cn
      wucyto.com.cn
      处女被大鸡巴操 强奸乱伦小说图片 俄罗斯美女爱爱图 调教强奸学生 亚洲女的穴 夜来香图片大全 美女性强奸电影 手机版色中阁 男性人体艺术素描图 16p成人 欧美性爱360 电影区 亚洲电影 欧美电影 经典三级 偷拍自拍 动漫电影 乱伦电影 变态另类 全部电 类似狠狠鲁的网站 黑吊操白逼图片 韩国黄片种子下载 操逼逼逼逼逼 人妻 小说 p 偷拍10幼女自慰 极品淫水很多 黄色做i爱 日本女人人体电影快播看 大福国小 我爱肏屄美女 mmcrwcom 欧美多人性交图片 肥臀乱伦老头舔阴帝 d09a4343000019c5 西欧人体艺术b xxoo激情短片 未成年人的 插泰国人夭图片 第770弾み1 24p 日本美女性 交动态 eee色播 yantasythunder 操无毛少女屄 亚洲图片你懂的女人 鸡巴插姨娘 特级黄 色大片播 左耳影音先锋 冢本友希全集 日本人体艺术绿色 我爱被舔逼 内射 幼 美阴图 喷水妹子高潮迭起 和后妈 操逼 美女吞鸡巴 鸭个自慰 中国女裸名单 操逼肥臀出水换妻 色站裸体义术 中国行上的漏毛美女叫什么 亚洲妹性交图 欧美美女人裸体人艺照 成人色妹妹直播 WWW_JXCT_COM r日本女人性淫乱 大胆人艺体艺图片 女同接吻av 碰碰哥免费自拍打炮 艳舞写真duppid1 88电影街拍视频 日本自拍做爱qvod 实拍美女性爱组图 少女高清av 浙江真实乱伦迅雷 台湾luanlunxiaoshuo 洛克王国宠物排行榜 皇瑟电影yy频道大全 红孩儿连连看 阴毛摄影 大胆美女写真人体艺术摄影 和风骚三个媳妇在家做爱 性爱办公室高清 18p2p木耳 大波撸影音 大鸡巴插嫩穴小说 一剧不超两个黑人 阿姨诱惑我快播 幼香阁千叶县小学生 少女妇女被狗强奸 曰人体妹妹 十二岁性感幼女 超级乱伦qvod 97爱蜜桃ccc336 日本淫妇阴液 av海量资源999 凤凰影视成仁 辰溪四中艳照门照片 先锋模特裸体展示影片 成人片免费看 自拍百度云 肥白老妇女 女爱人体图片 妈妈一女穴 星野美夏 日本少女dachidu 妹子私处人体图片 yinmindahuitang 舔无毛逼影片快播 田莹疑的裸体照片 三级电影影音先锋02222 妻子被外国老头操 观月雏乃泥鳅 韩国成人偷拍自拍图片 强奸5一9岁幼女小说 汤姆影院av图片 妹妹人艺体图 美女大驱 和女友做爱图片自拍p 绫川まどか在线先锋 那么嫩的逼很少见了 小女孩做爱 处女好逼连连看图图 性感美女在家做爱 近距离抽插骚逼逼 黑屌肏金毛屄 日韩av美少女 看喝尿尿小姐日逼色色色网图片 欧美肛交新视频 美女吃逼逼 av30线上免费 伊人在线三级经典 新视觉影院t6090影院 最新淫色电影网址 天龙影院远古手机版 搞老太影院 插进美女的大屁股里 私人影院加盟费用 www258dd 求一部电影里面有一个二猛哥 深肛交 日本萌妹子人体艺术写真图片 插入屄眼 美女的木奶 中文字幕黄色网址影视先锋 九号女神裸 和骚人妻偷情 和潘晓婷做爱 国模大尺度蜜桃 欧美大逼50p 西西人体成人 李宗瑞继母做爱原图物处理 nianhuawang 男鸡巴的视屏 � 97免费色伦电影 好色网成人 大姨子先锋 淫荡巨乳美女教师妈妈 性nuexiaoshuo WWW36YYYCOM 长春继续给力进屋就操小女儿套干破内射对白淫荡 农夫激情社区 日韩无码bt 欧美美女手掰嫩穴图片 日本援交偷拍自拍 入侵者日本在线播放 亚洲白虎偷拍自拍 常州高见泽日屄 寂寞少妇自卫视频 人体露逼图片 多毛外国老太 变态乱轮手机在线 淫荡妈妈和儿子操逼 伦理片大奶少女 看片神器最新登入地址sqvheqi345com账号群 麻美学姐无头 圣诞老人射小妞和强奸小妞动话片 亚洲AV女老师 先锋影音欧美成人资源 33344iucoom zV天堂电影网 宾馆美女打炮视频 色五月丁香五月magnet 嫂子淫乱小说 张歆艺的老公 吃奶男人视频在线播放 欧美色图男女乱伦 avtt2014ccvom 性插色欲香影院 青青草撸死你青青草 99热久久第一时间 激情套图卡通动漫 幼女裸聊做爱口交 日本女人被强奸乱伦 草榴社区快播 2kkk正在播放兽骑 啊不要人家小穴都湿了 www猎奇影视 A片www245vvcomwwwchnrwhmhzcn 搜索宜春院av wwwsee78co 逼奶鸡巴插 好吊日AV在线视频19gancom 熟女伦乱图片小说 日本免费av无码片在线开苞 鲁大妈撸到爆 裸聊官网 德国熟女xxx 新不夜城论坛首页手机 女虐男网址 男女做爱视频华为网盘 激情午夜天亚洲色图 内裤哥mangent 吉沢明歩制服丝袜WWWHHH710COM 屌逼在线试看 人体艺体阿娇艳照 推荐一个可以免费看片的网站如果被QQ拦截请复制链接在其它浏览器打开xxxyyy5comintr2a2cb551573a2b2e 欧美360精品粉红鲍鱼 教师调教第一页 聚美屋精品图 中韩淫乱群交 俄罗斯撸撸片 把鸡巴插进小姨子的阴道 干干AV成人网 aolasoohpnbcn www84ytom 高清大量潮喷www27dyycom 宝贝开心成人 freefronvideos人母 嫩穴成人网gggg29com 逼着舅妈给我口交肛交彩漫画 欧美色色aV88wwwgangguanscom 老太太操逼自拍视频 777亚洲手机在线播放 有没有夫妻3p小说 色列漫画淫女 午间色站导航 欧美成人处女色大图 童颜巨乳亚洲综合 桃色性欲草 色眯眯射逼 无码中文字幕塞外青楼这是一个 狂日美女老师人妻 爱碰网官网 亚洲图片雅蠛蝶 快播35怎么搜片 2000XXXX电影 新谷露性家庭影院 深深候dvd播放 幼齿用英语怎么说 不雅伦理无需播放器 国外淫荡图片 国外网站幼幼嫩网址 成年人就去色色视频快播 我鲁日日鲁老老老我爱 caoshaonvbi 人体艺术avav 性感性色导航 韩国黄色哥来嫖网站 成人网站美逼 淫荡熟妇自拍 欧美色惰图片 北京空姐透明照 狼堡免费av视频 www776eom 亚洲无码av欧美天堂网男人天堂 欧美激情爆操 a片kk266co 色尼姑成人极速在线视频 国语家庭系列 蒋雯雯 越南伦理 色CC伦理影院手机版 99jbbcom 大鸡巴舅妈 国产偷拍自拍淫荡对话视频 少妇春梦射精 开心激动网 自拍偷牌成人 色桃隐 撸狗网性交视频 淫荡的三位老师 伦理电影wwwqiuxia6commqiuxia6com 怡春院分站 丝袜超短裙露脸迅雷下载 色制服电影院 97超碰好吊色男人 yy6080理论在线宅男日韩福利大全 大嫂丝袜 500人群交手机在线 5sav 偷拍熟女吧 口述我和妹妹的欲望 50p电脑版 wwwavtttcon 3p3com 伦理无码片在线看 欧美成人电影图片岛国性爱伦理电影 先锋影音AV成人欧美 我爱好色 淫电影网 WWW19MMCOM 玛丽罗斯3d同人动画h在线看 动漫女孩裸体 超级丝袜美腿乱伦 1919gogo欣赏 大色逼淫色 www就是撸 激情文学网好骚 A级黄片免费 xedd5com 国内的b是黑的 快播美国成年人片黄 av高跟丝袜视频 上原保奈美巨乳女教师在线观看 校园春色都市激情fefegancom 偷窥自拍XXOO 搜索看马操美女 人本女优视频 日日吧淫淫 人妻巨乳影院 美国女子性爱学校 大肥屁股重口味 啪啪啪啊啊啊不要 操碰 japanfreevideoshome国产 亚州淫荡老熟女人体 伦奸毛片免费在线看 天天影视se 樱桃做爱视频 亚卅av在线视频 x奸小说下载 亚洲色图图片在线 217av天堂网 东方在线撸撸-百度 幼幼丝袜集 灰姑娘的姐姐 青青草在线视频观看对华 86papa路con 亚洲1AV 综合图片2区亚洲 美国美女大逼电影 010插插av成人网站 www色comwww821kxwcom 播乐子成人网免费视频在线观看 大炮撸在线影院 ,www4KkKcom 野花鲁最近30部 wwwCC213wapwww2233ww2download 三客优最新地址 母亲让儿子爽的无码视频 全国黄色片子 欧美色图美国十次 超碰在线直播 性感妖娆操 亚洲肉感熟女色图 a片A毛片管看视频 8vaa褋芯屑 333kk 川岛和津实视频 在线母子乱伦对白 妹妹肥逼五月 亚洲美女自拍 老婆在我面前小说 韩国空姐堪比情趣内衣 干小姐综合 淫妻色五月 添骚穴 WM62COM 23456影视播放器 成人午夜剧场 尼姑福利网 AV区亚洲AV欧美AV512qucomwwwc5508com 经典欧美骚妇 震动棒露出 日韩丝袜美臀巨乳在线 av无限吧看 就去干少妇 色艺无间正面是哪集 校园春色我和老师做爱 漫画夜色 天海丽白色吊带 黄色淫荡性虐小说 午夜高清播放器 文20岁女性荫道口图片 热国产热无码热有码 2015小明发布看看算你色 百度云播影视 美女肏屄屄乱轮小说 家族舔阴AV影片 邪恶在线av有码 父女之交 关于处女破处的三级片 极品护士91在线 欧美虐待女人视频的网站 享受老太太的丝袜 aaazhibuo 8dfvodcom成人 真实自拍足交 群交男女猛插逼 妓女爱爱动态 lin35com是什么网站 abp159 亚洲色图偷拍自拍乱伦熟女抠逼自慰 朝国三级篇 淫三国幻想 免费的av小电影网站 日本阿v视频免费按摩师 av750c0m 黄色片操一下 巨乳少女车震在线观看 操逼 免费 囗述情感一乱伦岳母和女婿 WWW_FAMITSU_COM 偷拍中国少妇在公车被操视频 花也真衣论理电影 大鸡鸡插p洞 新片欧美十八岁美少 进击的巨人神thunderftp 西方美女15p 深圳哪里易找到老女人玩视频 在线成人有声小说 365rrr 女尿图片 我和淫荡的小姨做爱 � 做爱技术体照 淫妇性爱 大学生私拍b 第四射狠狠射小说 色中色成人av社区 和小姨子乱伦肛交 wwwppp62com 俄罗斯巨乳人体艺术 骚逼阿娇 汤芳人体图片大胆 大胆人体艺术bb私处 性感大胸骚货 哪个网站幼女的片多 日本美女本子把 色 五月天 婷婷 快播 美女 美穴艺术 色百合电影导航 大鸡巴用力 孙悟空操美少女战士 狠狠撸美女手掰穴图片 古代女子与兽类交 沙耶香套图 激情成人网区 暴风影音av播放 动漫女孩怎么插第3个 mmmpp44 黑木麻衣无码ed2k 淫荡学姐少妇 乱伦操少女屄 高中性爱故事 骚妹妹爱爱图网 韩国模特剪长发 大鸡巴把我逼日了 中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片 大胆女人下体艺术图片 789sss 影音先锋在线国内情侣野外性事自拍普通话对白 群撸图库 闪现君打阿乐 ady 小说 插入表妹嫩穴小说 推荐成人资源 网络播放器 成人台 149大胆人体艺术 大屌图片 骚美女成人av 春暖花开春色性吧 女亭婷五月 我上了同桌的姐姐 恋夜秀场主播自慰视频 yzppp 屄茎 操屄女图 美女鲍鱼大特写 淫乱的日本人妻山口玲子 偷拍射精图 性感美女人体艺木图片 种马小说完本 免费电影院 骑士福利导航导航网站 骚老婆足交 国产性爱一级电影 欧美免费成人花花性都 欧美大肥妞性爱视频 家庭乱伦网站快播 偷拍自拍国产毛片 金发美女也用大吊来开包 缔D杏那 yentiyishu人体艺术ytys WWWUUKKMCOM 女人露奶 � 苍井空露逼 老荡妇高跟丝袜足交 偷偷和女友的朋友做爱迅雷 做爱七十二尺 朱丹人体合成 麻腾由纪妃 帅哥撸播种子图 鸡巴插逼动态图片 羙国十次啦中文 WWW137AVCOM 神斗片欧美版华语 有气质女人人休艺术 由美老师放屁电影 欧美女人肉肏图片 白虎种子快播 国产自拍90后女孩 美女在床上疯狂嫩b 饭岛爱最后之作 幼幼强奸摸奶 色97成人动漫 两性性爱打鸡巴插逼 新视觉影院4080青苹果影院 嗯好爽插死我了 阴口艺术照 李宗瑞电影qvod38 爆操舅母 亚洲色图七七影院 被大鸡巴操菊花 怡红院肿么了 成人极品影院删除 欧美性爱大图色图强奸乱 欧美女子与狗随便性交 苍井空的bt种子无码 熟女乱伦长篇小说 大色虫 兽交幼女影音先锋播放 44aad be0ca93900121f9b 先锋天耗ばさ无码 欧毛毛女三级黄色片图 干女人黑木耳照 日本美女少妇嫩逼人体艺术 sesechangchang 色屄屄网 久久撸app下载 色图色噜 美女鸡巴大奶 好吊日在线视频在线观看 透明丝袜脚偷拍自拍 中山怡红院菜单 wcwwwcom下载 骑嫂子 亚洲大色妣 成人故事365ahnet 丝袜家庭教mp4 幼交肛交 妹妹撸撸大妈 日本毛爽 caoprom超碰在email 关于中国古代偷窥的黄片 第一会所老熟女下载 wwwhuangsecome 狼人干综合新地址HD播放 变态儿子强奸乱伦图 强奸电影名字 2wwwer37com 日本毛片基地一亚洲AVmzddcxcn 暗黑圣经仙桃影院 37tpcocn 持月真由xfplay 好吊日在线视频三级网 我爱背入李丽珍 电影师傅床戏在线观看 96插妹妹sexsex88com 豪放家庭在线播放 桃花宝典极夜著豆瓜网 安卓系统播放神器 美美网丝袜诱惑 人人干全免费视频xulawyercn av无插件一本道 全国色五月 操逼电影小说网 good在线wwwyuyuelvcom www18avmmd 撸波波影视无插件 伊人幼女成人电影 会看射的图片 小明插看看 全裸美女扒开粉嫩b 国人自拍性交网站 萝莉白丝足交本子 七草ちとせ巨乳视频 摇摇晃晃的成人电影 兰桂坊成社人区小说www68kqcom 舔阴论坛 久撸客一撸客色国内外成人激情在线 明星门 欧美大胆嫩肉穴爽大片 www牛逼插 性吧星云 少妇性奴的屁眼 人体艺术大胆mscbaidu1imgcn 最新久久色色成人版 l女同在线 小泽玛利亚高潮图片搜索 女性裸b图 肛交bt种子 最热门有声小说 人间添春色 春色猜谜字 樱井莉亚钢管舞视频 小泽玛利亚直美6p 能用的h网 还能看的h网 bl动漫h网 开心五月激 东京热401 男色女色第四色酒色网 怎么下载黄色小说 黄色小说小栽 和谐图城 乐乐影院 色哥导航 特色导航 依依社区 爱窝窝在线 色狼谷成人 91porn 包要你射电影 色色3A丝袜 丝袜妹妹淫网 爱色导航(荐) 好男人激情影院 坏哥哥 第七色 色久久 人格分裂 急先锋 撸撸射中文网 第一会所综合社区 91影院老师机 东方成人激情 怼莪影院吹潮 老鸭窝伊人无码不卡无码一本道 av女柳晶电影 91天生爱风流作品 深爱激情小说私房婷婷网 擼奶av 567pao 里番3d一家人野外 上原在线电影 水岛津实透明丝袜 1314酒色 网旧网俺也去 0855影院 在线无码私人影院 搜索 国产自拍 神马dy888午夜伦理达达兔 农民工黄晓婷 日韩裸体黑丝御姐 屈臣氏的燕窝面膜怎么样つぼみ晶エリーの早漏チ○ポ强化合宿 老熟女人性视频 影音先锋 三上悠亚ol 妹妹影院福利片 hhhhhhhhsxo 午夜天堂热的国产 强奸剧场 全裸香蕉视频无码 亚欧伦理视频 秋霞为什么给封了 日本在线视频空天使 日韩成人aⅴ在线 日本日屌日屄导航视频 在线福利视频 日本推油无码av magnet 在线免费视频 樱井梨吮东 日本一本道在线无码DVD 日本性感诱惑美女做爱阴道流水视频 日本一级av 汤姆avtom在线视频 台湾佬中文娱乐线20 阿v播播下载 橙色影院 奴隶少女护士cg视频 汤姆在线影院无码 偷拍宾馆 业面紧急生级访问 色和尚有线 厕所偷拍一族 av女l 公交色狼优酷视频 裸体视频AV 人与兽肉肉网 董美香ol 花井美纱链接 magnet 西瓜影音 亚洲 自拍 日韩女优欧美激情偷拍自拍 亚洲成年人免费视频 荷兰免费成人电影 深喉呕吐XXⅩX 操石榴在线视频 天天色成人免费视频 314hu四虎 涩久免费视频在线观看 成人电影迅雷下载 能看见整个奶子的香蕉影院 水菜丽百度影音 gwaz079百度云 噜死你们资源站 主播走光视频合集迅雷下载 thumbzilla jappen 精品Av 古川伊织star598在线 假面女皇vip在线视频播放 国产自拍迷情校园 啪啪啪公寓漫画 日本阿AV 黄色手机电影 欧美在线Av影院 华裔电击女神91在线 亚洲欧美专区 1日本1000部免费视频 开放90后 波多野结衣 东方 影院av 页面升级紧急访问每天正常更新 4438Xchengeren 老炮色 a k福利电影 色欲影视色天天视频 高老庄aV 259LUXU-683 magnet 手机在线电影 国产区 欧美激情人人操网 国产 偷拍 直播 日韩 国内外激情在线视频网给 站长统计一本道人妻 光棍影院被封 紫竹铃取汁 ftp 狂插空姐嫩 xfplay 丈夫面前 穿靴子伪街 XXOO视频在线免费 大香蕉道久在线播放 电棒漏电嗨过头 充气娃能看下毛和洞吗 夫妻牲交 福利云点墦 yukun瑟妃 疯狂交换女友 国产自拍26页 腐女资源 百度云 日本DVD高清无码视频 偷拍,自拍AV伦理电影 A片小视频福利站。 大奶肥婆自拍偷拍图片 交配伊甸园 超碰在线视频自拍偷拍国产 小热巴91大神 rctd 045 类似于A片 超美大奶大学生美女直播被男友操 男友问 你的衣服怎么脱掉的 亚洲女与黑人群交视频一 在线黄涩 木内美保步兵番号 鸡巴插入欧美美女的b舒服 激情在线国产自拍日韩欧美 国语福利小视频在线观看 作爱小视颍 潮喷合集丝袜无码mp4 做爱的无码高清视频 牛牛精品 伊aⅤ在线观看 savk12 哥哥搞在线播放 在线电一本道影 一级谍片 250pp亚洲情艺中心,88 欧美一本道九色在线一 wwwseavbacom色av吧 cos美女在线 欧美17,18ⅹⅹⅹ视频 自拍嫩逼 小电影在线观看网站 筱田优 贼 水电工 5358x视频 日本69式视频有码 b雪福利导航 韩国女主播19tvclub在线 操逼清晰视频 丝袜美女国产视频网址导航 水菜丽颜射房间 台湾妹中文娱乐网 风吟岛视频 口交 伦理 日本熟妇色五十路免费视频 A级片互舔 川村真矢Av在线观看 亚洲日韩av 色和尚国产自拍 sea8 mp4 aV天堂2018手机在线 免费版国产偷拍a在线播放 狠狠 婷婷 丁香 小视频福利在线观看平台 思妍白衣小仙女被邻居强上 萝莉自拍有水 4484新视觉 永久发布页 977成人影视在线观看 小清新影院在线观 小鸟酱后丝后入百度云 旋风魅影四级 香蕉影院小黄片免费看 性爱直播磁力链接 小骚逼第一色影院 性交流的视频 小雪小视频bd 小视频TV禁看视频 迷奸AV在线看 nba直播 任你在干线 汤姆影院在线视频国产 624u在线播放 成人 一级a做爰片就在线看狐狸视频 小香蕉AV视频 www182、com 腿模简小育 学生做爱视频 秘密搜查官 快播 成人福利网午夜 一级黄色夫妻录像片 直接看的gav久久播放器 国产自拍400首页 sm老爹影院 谁知道隔壁老王网址在线 综合网 123西瓜影音 米奇丁香 人人澡人人漠大学生 色久悠 夜色视频你今天寂寞了吗? 菲菲影视城美国 被抄的影院 变态另类 欧美 成人 国产偷拍自拍在线小说 不用下载安装就能看的吃男人鸡巴视频 插屄视频 大贯杏里播放 wwwhhh50 233若菜奈央 伦理片天海翼秘密搜查官 大香蕉在线万色屋视频 那种漫画小说你懂的 祥仔电影合集一区 那里可以看澳门皇冠酒店a片 色自啪 亚洲aV电影天堂 谷露影院ar toupaizaixian sexbj。com 毕业生 zaixian mianfei 朝桐光视频 成人短视频在线直接观看 陈美霖 沈阳音乐学院 导航女 www26yjjcom 1大尺度视频 开平虐女视频 菅野雪松协和影视在线视频 华人play在线视频bbb 鸡吧操屄视频 多啪啪免费视频 悠草影院 金兰策划网 (969) 橘佑金短视频 国内一极刺激自拍片 日本制服番号大全magnet 成人动漫母系 电脑怎么清理内存 黄色福利1000 dy88午夜 偷拍中学生洗澡磁力链接 花椒相机福利美女视频 站长推荐磁力下载 mp4 三洞轮流插视频 玉兔miki热舞视频 夜生活小视频 爆乳人妖小视频 国内网红主播自拍福利迅雷下载 不用app的裸裸体美女操逼视频 变态SM影片在线观看 草溜影院元气吧 - 百度 - 百度 波推全套视频 国产双飞集合ftp 日本在线AV网 笔国毛片 神马影院女主播是我的邻居 影音资源 激情乱伦电影 799pao 亚洲第一色第一影院 av视频大香蕉 老梁故事汇希斯莱杰 水中人体磁力链接 下载 大香蕉黄片免费看 济南谭崔 避开屏蔽的岛a片 草破福利 要看大鸡巴操小骚逼的人的视频 黑丝少妇影音先锋 欧美巨乳熟女磁力链接 美国黄网站色大全 伦蕉在线久播 极品女厕沟 激情五月bd韩国电影 混血美女自摸和男友激情啪啪自拍诱人呻吟福利视频 人人摸人人妻做人人看 44kknn 娸娸原网 伊人欧美 恋夜影院视频列表安卓青青 57k影院 如果电话亭 avi 插爆骚女精品自拍 青青草在线免费视频1769TV 令人惹火的邻家美眉 影音先锋 真人妹子被捅动态图 男人女人做完爱视频15 表姐合租两人共处一室晚上她竟爬上了我的床 性爱教学视频 北条麻妃bd在线播放版 国产老师和师生 magnet wwwcctv1024 女神自慰 ftp 女同性恋做激情视频 欧美大胆露阴视频 欧美无码影视 好女色在线观看 后入肥臀18p 百度影视屏福利 厕所超碰视频 强奸mp magnet 欧美妹aⅴ免费线上看 2016年妞干网视频 5手机在线福利 超在线最视频 800av:cOm magnet 欧美性爱免播放器在线播放 91大款肥汤的性感美乳90后邻家美眉趴着窗台后入啪啪 秋霞日本毛片网站 cheng ren 在线视频 上原亚衣肛门无码解禁影音先锋 美脚家庭教师在线播放 尤酷伦理片 熟女性生活视频在线观看 欧美av在线播放喷潮 194avav 凤凰AV成人 - 百度 kbb9999 AV片AV在线AV无码 爱爱视频高清免费观看 黄色男女操b视频 观看 18AV清纯视频在线播放平台 成人性爱视频久久操 女性真人生殖系统双性人视频 下身插入b射精视频 明星潜规测视频 mp4 免賛a片直播绪 国内 自己 偷拍 在线 国内真实偷拍 手机在线 国产主播户外勾在线 三桥杏奈高清无码迅雷下载 2五福电影院凸凹频频 男主拿鱼打女主,高宝宝 色哥午夜影院 川村まや痴汉 草溜影院费全过程免费 淫小弟影院在线视频 laohantuiche 啪啪啪喷潮XXOO视频 青娱乐成人国产 蓝沢润 一本道 亚洲青涩中文欧美 神马影院线理论 米娅卡莉法的av 在线福利65535 欧美粉色在线 欧美性受群交视频1在线播放 极品喷奶熟妇在线播放 变态另类无码福利影院92 天津小姐被偷拍 磁力下载 台湾三级电髟全部 丝袜美腿偷拍自拍 偷拍女生性行为图 妻子的乱伦 白虎少妇 肏婶骚屄 外国大妈会阴照片 美少女操屄图片 妹妹自慰11p 操老熟女的b 361美女人体 360电影院樱桃 爱色妹妹亚洲色图 性交卖淫姿势高清图片一级 欧美一黑对二白 大色网无毛一线天 射小妹网站 寂寞穴 西西人体模特苍井空 操的大白逼吧 骚穴让我操 拉好友干女朋友3p