Abstract
Background
Serial measurements of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) are frequently used in the follow-up after colorectal cancer (CRC), but its usefulness remains debatable. Choosing the appropriate cut-off point is crucial to the diagnostic accuracy (DA) of continuous test variables. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis is the appropriate statistical method for this purpose, but has not been applied in previous studies.
Methods
One hundred ninety-four consecutive patients surgically treated with curative intent for CRC between July 1996 and June 1999 had systematic follow-up for five years. Follow-up included imaging, coloscopy and serial CEA measurements. Complete data including CEA measurements were available from 153 patients. ROC analysis of CEA was done with regard to detection of recurrent disease.
Results
Depending on the chosen cut-off value of CEA, DA varied widely within the normal range (CEA ≤10 U/ml). CEA >4 U/ml provided the highest sensitivity (0.78) and specificity (0.91), compared to a sensitivity and specificity at the upper normal range (CEA = 10 U/ml) of 0.51 and 0.99, respectively. Thirty-three patients (24%) developed recurrence. Among 11 (5%) asymptomatic patients diagnosed by elevated CEA levels, only two patients (1.5%) were amenable to secondary curative surgery. A threefold increase of CEA in an individual patient had the same DA as the best cut-off value (>4 U/ml).
Conclusions
Diagnostic accuracy of CEA in follow-up after curative surgery for CRC is influenced by the chosen cut-off value. A threefold increase of CEA may indicate recurrent disease. The value of serial measurement of CEA was limited.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- CI:
-
confidence interval
- CEA:
-
carcinoembryonic antigen
- CRC:
-
colorectal cancer
- DA:
-
diagnostic accuracy
- PPV:
-
positive predictive value
- NPV:
-
negative predictive value
- LR:
-
likelihood ratio
- ROC:
-
receiver operator characteristic analysis
- AUC:
-
area under the curve
References
Weitz J, Koch M, Debus J, et al. Colorectal cancer. Lancet 2005; 365:153–65
Biggs CG, Ballantyne GH. Sensitivity versus cost effectiveness in postoperative follow-up for colorectal cancer. Curr Opin Gen Surg 1994; 94–102
Bruinvels DJ, Stiggelbout AM, Kievit J, et al. Follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer. A meta-analysis. Ann Surg 1994; 219:174–82
Detry R. Follow-up after curative surgery for colorectal cancer. Acta Gastroenterol Belg 2001; 64:268–71
Körner H, Söreide K, Stokkeland PJ, Söreide JA. Systematic follow-up after curative surgery for colorectal cancer in Norway: A population-based audit of effectiveness, costs, and compliance. J Gastrointest Surg 2005; 9:320–8
Audisio RA, Setti-Carraro P, Segala M, et al. Follow-up in colorectal cancer patients: a cost–benefit analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 1996; 3:349–57
Fong Y, Cohen AM, Fortner JG, et al. Liver resection for colorectal metastases. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15:938–46
Weber SM, Jarnagin WR, DeMatteo RP, et al. Survival after resection of multiple hepatic colorectal metastases. Ann Surg Oncol 2000; 7:643–50
Wanebo JH, Stearns M, Schwartz MK. Use of CEA as an indicator of early recurrence and as a guide to a selected second-look procedure in patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 1978; 188:481–93
Wood CB, Ratcliffe JG, Burt RW, et al. The clinical significance of the pattern of elevated serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels in recurrent colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 1980; 67:46–8
Persijn JP, Hart AA. Prognostic significance of CEA in colorectal cancer: a statistical study. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1981; 19:1117–23
Armitage NC, Davidson A, Tsikos D, Wood CB. A study of the reliability of carcinoembryonic antigen blood levels in following the course of colorectal cancer. Clin Oncol 1984; 10:141–7
Northover J. The use of prognostic markers in surgery for colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 1995; 31A:1207–9
Duffy MJ. Carcinoembryonic antigen as a marker for colorectal cancer: is it clinically useful? Clin Chem 2001; 47:624–30
Wichmann MW, Müller C, Lau-Werner U, et al. The role of carcinoembryonic antigen for the detection of recurrent disease following curative resection of large-bowel cancer. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2000; 385:271–5
Chau I, Allen MJ, Cunningham D, et al. The value of routine serum carcino-embryonic antigen measurement and computed tomography in the surveillance of patients after adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:1420–9
Kievit J. Follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer: numbers needed to test and treat. Eur J Cancer 2002; 38:986–99
Wichmann MW, Lau-Werner U, Müller C, et al. Carcinoembryonic antigen for the detection of recurrent disease following curative resection of colorectal cancer. Anticancer Res 2000; 20:4953–5
Robertson EA, Zweig MH. Use of receiver operating characteristic curves to evaluate the clinical performance of analytical systems. Clin Chem 1981; 27:1569–74
Zweig MH. Evaluation of the clinical accuracy of laboratory tests. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1988; 112:383–6
Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 1993; 39:561–77
Carriquiry LA, Pineyro A. Should carcinoembryonic antigen be used in the management of patients with colorectal cancer? Dis Colon Rectum 1999; 42:921–9
Stajic S, Novakovic R, Kostic N, et al. The importance of monitoring colorectal adenomas by tumor markers (ROC analysis). Med Pregl 1993; 46:69–71
Vallejo J, Torres-Avisbal M, Contreras P, et al. CEA, CA 19.9 and CA 195 in patients with colorectal carcinoma. ROC analysis. Rev Esp Med Nucl 1999; 18:281–6
Pasanen PA, Eskelinen M, Partanen K, et al. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis of the tumour markers CEA, CA 50 and CA 242 in pancreatic cancer; results from a prospective study. Br J Cancer 1993; 67:852–5
Silver HK, Archibald BL, Ragaz J, Coldman AJ. Relative operating characteristic analysis and group modeling for tumor markers: comparison of CA 15.3, carcinoembryonic antigen, and mucin-like carcinoma-associated antigen in breast carcinoma. Cancer Res 1991; 51:1904–9
Norwegian Gastro-Intestinal Cancer Group (NGICG). Kolorektalcancer og Analcancer. En Veiledning for Leger. Oslo: NGICG, 1999
Altman DG. Diagnostic tests. In: Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman and Hall, 1991:411–416
Bhandari M, Guyatt GH. How to appraise a diagnostic test. World J Surg 2005; 29:561–6
Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Macdonald JS, et al. An evaluation of the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test for monitoring patients with resected colon cancer. JAMA 1993; 270:943–7
Simel DL, Samsa GP, Matchar DB. Likelihood ratios with confidence: sample size estimation for diagnostic test studies. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44:763–70
Fukuda I, Yamakado M, Kiyose H. Influence of smoking on serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels in subjects who underwent multiphasic health testing and services. J Med Syst 1998; 22:89–93
Wanebo HJ. Cancer trends: the role of CEA in managing colorectal cancer. VA Med 1983; 110:103–8
Acknowledgments
This study was financially supported by the Centre for Clinical Research, Armauer Hansens House, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen. The authors wish to thank the Clinical Cancer Research Office, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, for valuable help with the database.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The study was financially supported by the Centre for Clinical Research, Armauer Hansens House, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Körner, H., Söreide, K., Stokkeland, P.J. et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Serum-Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Recurrent Colorectal Cancer: A Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve Analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 14, 417–423 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-006-9060-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-006-9060-6