Serum carcinoembryonic antigen in relation to survival, DNA ploidy pattern, and recurrent disease in 406 colorectal carcinoma patients

Incorporation of serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels into the prognostic grouping system of colon cancer

PURPOSE

This study aimed to clarify the significance of preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) on disease-free survival (DFS) in colon cancer and propose a new prognostic grouping system.

METHODS

A multiinstitutional retrospective cohort of 7296 colon cancer patients who underwent R0 surgery between 1997 and 2006 was analyzed. We stratified preoperative serum CEA values into three categories (C-stages): C0 (normal CEA), C1A (up to double the cutoff value), and C1B (more than double the cutoff value) and stratified each TNM stage by C-stage. Multivariate analyses using Cox regression models were used to analyze the significance of C-stage on 5-year DFS.

RESULTS

CEA level was an independent factor affecting DFS; the 5-year DFS of patients with C0 and C1, as well as those with C1A and C1B, differed significantly (C0 84.6%, C1 69.8%, C1A 72.7%, and C1B 66.4%, P < 0.0001). Additionally, the DFS of pStages IIC and C1B was significantly lower than of pStages IIIA and C0 (65.8 vs. 87.7%, respectively; hazard ratio 3.44, 95% confidence interval 1.97-5.88, P < 0.0001). Moreover, the 5-year DFS of pStages IIIA and C0 or C1A did not differ significantly from pStages I and C1A (87.7 vs. 87.7%, P = 0.90 and 86.4 vs. 87.7%, P = 0.78, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

pStage IIC and C1B disease should be considered candidates for intensive adjuvant chemotherapy. Conversely, pStages IIIA and C0 or C1A could be exempted from adjuvant chemotherapy. Incorporating C-stage into the current TNM staging system may facilitate decision making regarding the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in colon cancer patients.

The diagnostic accuracy of carcinoembryonic antigen to detect colorectal cancer recurrence - A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) has been used as a tumor marker in the follow-up of colorectal cancer for more than 40 years. Controversy exists regarding its diagnostic applicability due to a relatively low sensitivity and a questionable effect on mortality. The aim of this review was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CEA in detecting recurrence after intended curative surgery for primary colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Systematic literature searches were performed in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases, and articles were chosen based on predefined inclusion criteria. Reference lists from included articles were manually searched for additional publications of relevance.

RESULTS

Forty-two original studies with generally representative populations and long follow-up were included. Data were reported on outcomes from 9,834 CEA tests during follow-up. Reporting on the reference standards used was not optimal. Sensitivity of CEA ranged from 17.4 % to 100 %, specificity ranged from 66.1 % to 98.4 %, positive predictive value ranged from 45.8 % to 95.2% and negative predictive value ranged from 74.5 % to 100 %.

CONCLUSION

Results point toward a sensitivity of CEA ranging between 50 % and 80 %, and a specificity and negative predictive value above 80 %. Results on positive predictive value showed low reliability. Overall, CEA did not effectively detect treatable recurrences at an early stage, and a clinically relevant effect on patient mortality remains to be proven.

Blood CEA levels for detecting recurrent colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Testing for carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) in the blood is a recommended part of follow-up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer following primary curative treatment. There is substantial clinical variation in the cut-off level applied to trigger further investigation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic performance of different blood CEA levels in identifying people with colorectal cancer recurrence in order to inform clinical practice.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted all searches to January 29 2014. We applied no language limits to the searches, and translated non-English manuscripts. We searched for relevant reviews in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, MEDION and DARE databases. We searched for primary studies (including conference abstracts) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Science Citation Index & Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. We identified ongoing studies by searching WHO ICTRP and the ASCO meeting library.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy studies, cohort studies, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of post-resection colorectal cancer follow-up that compared CEA to a reference standard. We included studies only if we could extract 2 x 2 accuracy data. We excluded case-control studies, as the ratio of cases to controls is determined by the study design, making the data unsuitable for assessing test accuracy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (BDN, IP) assessed the quality of all articles independently, discussing any disagreements. Where we could not reach consensus, a third author (BS) acted as moderator. We assessed methodological quality against QUADAS-2 criteria. We extracted binary diagnostic accuracy data from all included studies as 2 x 2 tables. We conducted a bivariate meta-analysis. We used the xtmelogit command in Stata to produce the pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity and we also produced hierarchical summary ROC plots.

MAIN RESULTS

In the 52 included studies, sensitivity ranged from 41% to 97% and specificity from 52% to 100%. In the seven studies reporting the impact of applying a threshold of 2.5 µg/L, pooled sensitivity was 82% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78% to 86%) and pooled specificity 80% (95% CI 59% to 92%). In the 23 studies reporting the impact of applying a threshold of 5 µg/L, pooled sensitivity was 71% (95% CI 64% to 76%) and pooled specificity 88% (95% CI 84% to 92%). In the seven studies reporting the impact of applying a threshold of 10 µg/L, pooled sensitivity was 68% (95% CI 53% to 79%) and pooled specificity 97% (95% CI 90% to 99%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

CEA is insufficiently sensitive to be used alone, even with a low threshold. It is therefore essential to augment CEA monitoring with another diagnostic modality in order to avoid missed cases. Trying to improve sensitivity by adopting a low threshold is a poor strategy because of the high numbers of false alarms generated. We therefore recommend monitoring for colorectal cancer recurrence with more than one diagnostic modality but applying the highest CEA cut-off assessed (10 µg/L).

Clinical presentation predicts the outcome of patients with colon cancer

AIM: To elucidate the relationship between clinical presentation and outcome.

METHODS: A single institution retrospective chart review of patients admitted with the diagnosis of colon cancer. We used univariate and a multivariate analysis to identify symptoms association with mortality. An odds ratio based clinical score was created to evaluate the contribution of the quality of symptoms to outcome. Primary measure of outcome was survival.

RESULTS: During the study period, 236 patients met the inclusion criteria. Overall survival was 60.6%, mean follow-up 3.0 years. A bivariate analysis showed that increasing number of symptoms is not associated with mortality. However, a symptom-specific analysis performed using a logistic regression model controlling for age, stage and the duration of complaints revealed that the presence of melena was independently associated with mortality [P = 0.04, odds ratio (OR) 7.4], while rectal bleeding was associated with survival (P = 0.004, OR 3.9). Applying the proposed clinical score to an receiver operating characteristic curve showed that score > 1 had a strong association with mortality. The same logistic regression model was applied. The results showed that a score > 1 was an independent predictor of mortality (P < 0.001) and associated with node-positive disease (P = 0.008).

CONCLUSION: The quality of symptoms rather than quantity is correlated with outcome among patients with colon cancer. The proposed clinical scoring system may correctly predict the patient’s outcome.

Carcinoembryonic Antigen in the Staging and Follow-up of Patients with Colorectal Cancer

CEA is a complex glycoprotein produced by 90% of colorectal cancers and contributes to the malignant characteristics of a tumor. It can be measured in serum quantitatively, and its level in plasma can be useful as a marker of disease. Because of its lack of sensitivity in the early stages of colorectal cancer, CEA measurement is an unsuitable modality for population screening. An elevated preoperative CEA is a poor prognostic sign and correlates with reduced overall survival after surgical resection of colorectal carcinoma. A failure of the CEA to return to normal levels after surgical resection is indicative of inadequate resection of occult systemic disease. Frequent monitoring of CEA postoperatively may allow identification of patients with metastatic disease for whom surgical resection or other localized therapy might be potentially beneficial. To identify this group, serial CEA measurement appears to be more effective than clinical evaluation or any other diagnostic modality, although its sensitivity for detecting recurrent disease is not as high for locoregional or pulmonary metastases as it is for liver metastases. Several studies have shown that a small percentage of patients followed postoperatively with CEA monitoring and who undergo CEA-directed salvage surgery for metastatic disease will be alive and disease-free 5 years after surgery. Furthermore, CEA levels after salvage surgery do appear to predict survival in patients undergoing resection of liver or pulmonary metastases. However, several authors argue that CEA surveillance is not cost-effective in terms of lives saved. In support of this argument, there is no clear difference in survival after resection of metastatic disease with curative intent between patients in whom the second-look surgery was performed on the basis of elevated CEA levels and those with other laboratory or imaging abnormalities. There is also no clear consensus on the frequency or duration of CEA monitoring, although the ASCO guidelines currently recommend every 2-3 months for at least 2 years after diagnosis. In the follow-up of patients undergoing palliative therapy, the CEA level correlates well with response, and CEA is indicative of not only response but may also identify patients with stable disease for whom there is also a demonstrated benefit in survival and symptom relief with combination chemotherapy. More recently, scintigraphic imaging after administration of radiolabeled antibodies afforded an important radionuclide technique that adds clinically significant information in assessing the extent and location of disease in patients with colorectal cancer above and beyond or complementary to conventional imaging modalities. Immunotherapy based on CEA is a rapidly advancing area of clinical research demonstrating antibody and T-cell responses.

Diagnostic precision of carcinoembryonic antigen in the detection of recurrence of colorectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic precision of serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in the detection of local or distant recurrence following resectional surgery for colon and rectal cancer.

METHODS

Quantitative meta-analysis was performed on 20 studies, comparing serum CEA with radiological imaging and/or pathology in detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence in 4285 patients. The cut-off for a 'positive' CEA ranged from 3 to 15 ng/ml between the various studies. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated for each study. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC) and sub-group analysis were undertaken.

RESULTS

The overall sensitivity and specificity of CEA for detecting CRC recurrence was 0.64 (95% CI: 0.61-0.67) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.89-0.91), respectively. The area under the SROC curve was 0.75 (SE=0.04) and the diagnostic odds ratio was 18.44 (95% CI: 11.94-28.49). A CEA cut-off of 5 ng/ml yielded a higher diagnostic odds ratio than a cut-off of 3 ng/ml (15.5 vs. 11.1). Using meta-regression analysis the optimum CEA cut-off point for the best combination of sensitivity and specificity was 2.2 ng/ml. On sub-group analysis high quality studies, and those involving > or =100 patients yielded a marginal improvement in the sensitivity and specificity with minimal change to the SROC.

CONCLUSION

Serum CEA is a test with high specificity but insufficient sensitivity for detecting CRC recurrence in isolation. A cut-off of 2.2 ng/ml may provide an ideal balance of sensitivity and specificity. It may be useful as a first-line surveillance investigation in patients during surgical follow-up based on serial CEA measurements using temporal trends in conjunction with clinical, radiological and/or histological confirmation.

Preoperative evaluation of colorectal cancer

Surgery is a primary modality for the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer. Before any surgical therapy, patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer require an evaluation. This preoperative evaluation can be used to assess the patient's risk associated with surgery, plan the surgical resection, and stage the patient's cancer. Staging of the cancer preoperatively is primarily of concern in rectal cancer patients. This article focuses on the elective surgical setting and the recommended preoperative evaluation of patients who have been diagnosed with colorectal cancer.

Is it reasonable to add preoperative serum level of CEA and CA19-9 to staging for colorectal cancer?

BACKGROUND

Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) are the most common tumor markers for colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possibility of adding them into the current staging system by analyzing their prognostic significance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study population was patients (n = 574, 67.1 +/- 11.3 years old, 397 males) who received potentially curative resection of colorectal adenocarcinoma (stage I-III) between January 1994 and August 2002, including preoperative measurements of CEA and CA19-9. Clinicopathological characteristics and associated follow-up data were retrospectively collected by reviewing available medical charts. CEA higher or equal to 5 ng/ml was defined as abnormal (CEA+). The CA19-9 level was set at 37 U/ml (CA19-9+). Patients were further divided into four groups (1, 2, 3, 4) according to the results of these two markers (CEA/CA19-9: -/-, -/+, +/-, and +/+). Survival was analyzed for AJCC staging, CEA (+) versus (-), CA19-9 (+) versus (-), and four groups.

RESULTS

CEA and CA19-9 survival curves were not significantly different. However, the combined use of the two markers revealed a significant survival benefit (P = 0.035) of group 1 ("-" for both markers) over 4 ("+" for both) in stage II.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with an elevated level of both CEA and CA19-9 in stage II of colorectal cancer have a significantly poorer prognosis than those with normal levels of these markers. We recommend adding both CEA and CA19-9 to the current staging system.

Prognostic factors in colorectal cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999

BACKGROUND

Under the auspices of the College of American Pathologists, the current state of knowledge regarding pathologic prognostic factors (factors linked to outcome) and predictive factors (factors predicting response to therapy) in colorectal carcinoma was evaluated. A multidisciplinary group of clinical (including the disciplines of medical oncology, surgical oncology, and radiation oncology), pathologic, and statistical experts in colorectal cancer reviewed all relevant medical literature and stratified the reported prognostic factors into categories that reflected the strength of the published evidence demonstrating their prognostic value. Accordingly, the following categories of prognostic factors were defined. Category I includes factors definitively proven to be of prognostic import based on evidence from multiple statistically robust published trials and generally used in patient management. Category IIA includes factors extensively studied biologically and/or clinically and repeatedly shown to have prognostic value for outcome and/or predictive value for therapy that is of sufficient import to be included in the pathology report but that remains to be validated in statistically robust studies. Category IIB includes factors shown to be promising in multiple studies but lacking sufficient data for inclusion in category I or IIA. Category III includes factors not yet sufficiently studied to determine their prognostic value. Category IV includes factors well studied and shown to have no prognostic significance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The medical literature was critically reviewed, and the analysis revealed specific points of variability in approach that prevented direct comparisons among published studies and compromised the quality of the collective data. Categories of variability recognized included the following: (1) methods of analysis, (2) interpretation of findings, (3) reporting of data, and (4) statistical evaluation. Additional points of variability within these categories were defined from the collective experience of the group. Reasons for the assignment of an individual prognostic factor to category I, II, III, or IV (categories defined by the level of scientific validation) were outlined with reference to the specific types of variability associated with the supportive data. For each factor and category of variability related to that factor, detailed recommendations for improvement were made. The recommendations were based on the following aims: (1) to increase the uniformity and completeness of pathologic evaluation of tumor specimens, (2) to enhance the quality of the data needed for definitive evaluation of the prognostic value of individual prognostic factors, and (3) ultimately, to improve patient care.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Factors that were determined to merit inclusion in category I were as follows: the local extent of tumor assessed pathologically (the pT category of the TNM staging system of the American Joint Committee on Cancer and the Union Internationale Contre le Cancer [AJCC/UICC]); regional lymph node metastasis (the pN category of the TNM staging system); blood or lymphatic vessel invasion; residual tumor following surgery with curative intent (the R classification of the AJCC/UICC staging system), especially as it relates to positive surgical margins; and preoperative elevation of carcinoembryonic antigen elevation (a factor established by laboratory medicine methods rather than anatomic pathology). Factors in category IIA included the following: tumor grade, radial margin status (for resection specimens with nonperitonealized surfaces), and residual tumor in the resection specimen following neoadjuvant therapy (the ypTNM category of the TNM staging system of the AJCC/UICC). (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

American Joint Committee on Cancer Prognostic Factors Consensus Conference: Colorectal Working Group

BACKGROUND

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC), which regularly reviews TNM staging systems, established a working party to develop recommendations for colorectal carcinoma.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary consensus conference using published literature developed an arbitrary classification system of prognostic marker value (Category I, IIA, IIB, III, and IV), which forms the framework for this report.

RESULTS

The working party concluded that several T categories should be subdivided: pTis into intraepithelial carcinoma (pTie) and intramucosal carcinoma (pTim); pT1 into pT1a and pT1b corresponding to the absence or presence of blood or lymphatic vessel invasion, respectively; and pT4 into pT4a and pT4b according to the absence or presence of tumor involving the surface of the specimen, respectively. The working party also recommended that TNM groups be stratified based on the presence or absence of elevated serum levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) (>/= 5 ng/mL) on preoperative clinical examination. In addition, the working party also concluded that carcinoma of the appendix should be excluded from the colorectal carcinoma staging system because of fundamental differences in natural history.

CONCLUSIONS

The TNM categories and stage groupings for colorectal carcinoma published in the current AJCC manual have clinical and academic value. However, a few categories require subdivision to provide increasing discrimination for individual patients. The serum marker CEA should be added to the staging system, whereas multiple other factors should be recorded as part of good clinical practice. Although many molecular and oncogenic markers show promise to supplement or modify the current staging systems eventually, to the authors' knowledge none have yet been evaluated sufficiently to recommend their inclusion in the TNM system.

Fecal calprotectin concentration in patients with colorectal carcinoma

PURPOSE

The study contained herein was undertaken to investigate fecal calprotectin excretion in a series of patients with colorectal carcinoma and to determine whether the excretion was influenced by localization or stage of the tumor. Furthermore, the effect of surgical treatment on the concentrations was studied. Fecal calprotectin was also compared with plasma concentrations of calprotectin, carcinoembryonic antigen, and C-reactive protein.

METHODS

Fecal calprotectin was measured in 119 consecutive patients admitted for treatment of colorectal carcinoma. In 116 (97.5 percent) patients, resectional surgery was performed. Plasma calprotectin was measured in 90 (76 percent) patients, carcinoembryonic antigen in 88 (74 percent) patients, and C-reactive protein in 82 (69 percent) patients.

RESULTS

Median fecal calprotectin concentration in the 119 patients was 50 (range, 2-950) mg/l, which was significantly (P < 0.0001) higher than in 125 control patients (median, 5.2 mg/l). In 23 patients studied also after resection, the excretion fell greatly. There were no significant differences in fecal calprotectin concentration among patients with different tumor stages. Elevated plasma calprotectin concentrations were found in 67 of 90 (73.3 percent) patients with colorectal carcinoma, compared with elevated fecal calprotectin in 111 of 119 (93.3 percent) patients, and there was no significant correlation between plasma and fecal calprotectin concentrations. Plasma calprotectin concentrations were significantly lower in patients with T1 or T2 tumors than in those with more advanced stages (P = 0.0025).

CONCLUSION

Measurement of fecal calprotectin may become a diagnostic tool in detecting colorectal carcinoma. The specificity in relation to colorectal carcinoma has not, however, been completely investigated. Both neoplastic and inflammatory conditions may be associated with elevated values; therefore, it is unlikely that calprotectin can predict specific colonic disorders.

K-ras mutations and prognosis in large-bowel carcinomas

BACKGROUND

Colorectal carcinogenesis is regarded as a multistep process involving several genetic alterations, with mutation in the K-ras gene in about half of the tumours. We aimed at clarifying the role of this genetic alteration related to survival and clinicopathologic variables.

METHODS

One hundred large-bowel carcinomas operated on between 1978 and 1982 were studied for the presence of point mutations in codons 12 and 13 of the K-ras gene, using enriched polymerase chain reaction amplification, restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis, and direct sequencing.

RESULTS

Forty mutations were found (40%): 31 in codon 12 and 9 in codon 13, 7 different types. There was no relationship between tumours with and without K-ras mutations with regard to Dukes' stages, age or sex of the patient, tumour localization, histologic grade, DNA ploidy pattern, HLA-DR staining pattern, or survival. Samples from 5 different localizations in 7 carcinomas showed identical K-ras mutation pattern, as did 19 recurrences/ metastases originating from 11 carcinomas.

CONCLUSIONS

When present, the primary tumour shows homogeneous distribution of K-ras mutation, and the mutation follows the carcinoma in the secondary deposit, regardless of lymphogenous or hematogenous spread. The presence of K-ras mutation does not seem to have prognostic significance for the patient, and the precise nucleotide change is furthermore not predictive of tumour behaviour.

Optimal follow-up in colorectal cancer patients: what tests and how often?

Patients' benefit from follow-up examinations after curative surgery for colorectal cancer is unproven in spite of numerous different programs' having been designed for that purpose. Unfortunately, no final results from prospective randomized studies have been published yet and no ideal marker for recurrent cancer is available to identify patients in whom new curative treatment may be possible. So far, screening for metachronous neoplasia with intervals of several years may influence survival, whereas benefit from detecting recurrent colorectal cancer may be claimed only by using historical or other inappropriate controls. The tradition of follow-up is expensive and prospective evidence for any cost benefit is needed to justify continuous use of our limited resources in this area of patient care.

Strong HLA-DR expression in large bowel carcinomas is associated with good prognosis

One hundred large bowel carcinomas operated on between 1978 and 1982 were studied immunohistochemically with regard to expression of HLA-DR antigens. Three sections from each tumour were investigated by a semiquantitative scoring system, and a mean score for each patient established. Based on this scoring system, the tumours were divided into three groups: 0; 0.1-1.0; and > 1.0. All patients were followed until death (n = 68) or until June 1, 1992, and all cancer-specific deaths (n = 56) have been recorded. Analysis of survival in the whole patient group showed significant difference between the three levels of tumour HLA-DR expression (P = 0.006); patients who had tumours with strong HLA-DR expression showing the best survival. In a stratified analysis after Dukes' stages there was still a significant difference (P > 0.001) between the three levels of HLA-DR staining intensity. After a multiple regression analysis (Cox) with correction for different variables, the HLA-DR expression maintained its significance as a risk factor. To our knowledge this is the first time a relationship between intensity of tumour DR expression and survival has been shown in large bowel carcinoma.