Diagnostic Accuracy of Elevated Serum Carcinoembryonic Antigen for Recurrence in Postoperative Stage II Colorectal Cancer Patients: Comparison With Stage III

Significance of carcinoembryonic antigen detection in the early diagnosis of colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a prevalent malignant tumor involving adenomas that develop into malignant lesions. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is a non-specific serum biomarker upregulated in CRC. The concentration of CEA is modulated by tumor stage and grade, tumor site in the colon, ploidy status, and patient smoking status. This study aimed to evaluate current evidence regarding the diagnostic power of CEA levels in the early detection of CRC recurrence in adults.

AIM

To evaluate current evidence regarding the diagnostic power of CEA levels in the early detection of CRC recurrence in adults.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using four databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane Trials, EMBASE, and the Web of Science. The inclusion criteria were as follows: Adult patients aged ≥ 18 years who had completed CRC curative treatment and were followed up postoperatively; reporting the number of CRC recurrences as an outcome; and randomized, clinical, cohort, and case-control study designs. Studies that were not published in English and animal studies were excluded. The following data were extracted by three independent reviewers: Study design, index tests, follow-up, patient characteristics, and primary outcomes. All statistical analyses were performed using the RevMan 5.4.1.

RESULTS

A total of 3232 studies were identified, with 73 remaining following the elimination of duplicates. After screening on predetermined criteria, 12 studies were included in the final analysis. At a reference standard of 5 mg/L, CEA detected only approximately half of recurrent CRCs, with a pooled sensitivity of 59% (range, 33%-83%) and sensitivity of 89% (range, 58%-97%).

CONCLUSION

CEA is a significant marker for CRC diagnosis. However, it has insufficient sensitivity and specificity to be used as a single biomarker of early CRC recurrence, with an essential proportion of false negatives.

Diagnostic accuracy of follow-up tests for detecting colorectal cancer recurrences in primary care: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, follow-up of colorectal cancer (CRC) is performed in secondary care. In new models of care, the screening part care could be replaced to primary care. We aimed to synthesise evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of commonly used screeners in CRC follow-up applicable in primary care: carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), ultrasound and physical examination.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Trial Register and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. Studies were included if they provided sufficient data for a 2 × 2 contingency tables. QUADAS-2 was used to assess methodological quality. We performed bivariate random effects meta-analysis, generated a hypothetical cohort, and reported sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

We included 12 studies (n = 3223, median recurrence rate 19.6%). Pooled estimates showed a sensitivity for CEA (≤ 5 μg/l) of 59% [47%-70%] and a specificity of 89% [80%-95%]. Only few studies reported sensitivities and specificities for ultrasound (36-70% and 97-100%, respectively) and clinical examination (23% and 27%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In practice, GPs could perform CEA screening. Radiological examination in a hospital setting should remain part of the surveillance strategy. Personalised algorithms accounting for recurrence risk and changes of CEA-values over time might add to the diagnostic value of CEA in primary care.

Validation of Assaying Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Human Serum by Using Immunomagnetic Reduction

Immunomagnetic reduction (IMR) is a method to assay biomolecules by utilizing antibody functionalized magnetic nanoparticles. For clinical validation, important analytic performances of assaying carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) using IMR are characterized. Furthermore, IMR is applied to assay carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in human serum for clinical validation. A total of 118 healthy controls and 79 patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) are recruited in this study. For comparison, assays using chemiluminometric immunoassay (CLIA) are also done for quantizing CEA in these serum samples. The results reveal a high correlation in terms of serum CEA concentration detected via IMR and CLIA is found (r = 0.963). However, IMR shows higher clinical sensitivity and specificity than those of CLIA. Moreover, the rate of false positives for smoking subjects is clearly reduced through the use of IMR. All the results demonstrate IMR is a promising alternative assay for serum CEA to diagnose CRC.

Time to lowest postoperative carcinoembryonic antigen level is predictive on survival outcome in rectal cancer

This study was to investigate whether the time to the lowest postoperative CEA can predict cancer survival. We enrolled 155 rectal cancer patients in this retrospective and longitudinal cohort study. Deepness of response (DpR) of CEA refers to the relative change of the lowest postoperative CEA level from baseline, and time to DpR (TTDpR) refers to the time from surgery to the lowest postoperative CEA level. The median of TTDpR and DpR was 4.5 (range, 3.0-18.0) weeks and -67% (range, -99% to 114%) respectively. Patients with TTDpR </ = 4.5 weeks had better 3-year DFS (81.4% vs. 76.2%; P = 0.059) and OS (95.8% vs. 87.9%; P = 0.047) rate than patients with TTDpR >4.5 weeks. Using TTDpR as a continuous variable, the HR of DFS and OS was 1.13 (95% CI 1.06-1.22, P = 0.001) and 1.17 (95% CI 1.07-1.29, P = 0.001) respectively. On multivariate analysis, the predictive value of prolonged TTDpR remained [adjusted HRs: 1.12 (95% CI 1.03-1.21, P = 0.006) and 1.17 (95% CI 1.06-1.28, P = 0.001)]. These findings remained significant in patients with normal preoperative CEA. Our results showed prolonged TTDpR of CEA independently predicted unfavorable survival outcomes, regardless of whether preoperative CEA was elevated or not.

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).