Elevated CEA with negative PET scan on surveillance of colorectal cancers—a role of CEA kinetics

Introduction The management of patients with elevated CEA after curative treatment of colorectal cancers without structural disease is uncertain. The aim was to study the clinical risk factors, CEA thresholds, and kinetics that could predict relapses. Methods Retrospective study of colorectal cancer...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Langenbeck's archives of surgery 2022-03, Vol.407 (2), p.769-778
Main Authors: Thomas, Anand Ebin, Kazi, Mufaddal, Bankar, Sanket, Mokal, Smruti, Agarwal, Archi, Rangarajan, Ventakesh, Desouza, Ashwin, Saklani, Avanish
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Abdominal Surgery
Cardiac Surgery
General Surgery
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Original Article
Thoracic Surgery
Traumatic Surgery
Vascular Surgery
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction The management of patients with elevated CEA after curative treatment of colorectal cancers without structural disease is uncertain. The aim was to study the clinical risk factors, CEA thresholds, and kinetics that could predict relapses. Methods Retrospective study of colorectal cancers patients that were detected to have an elevated CEA (> 5 ng/ml on 2 separate occasions) and normal clinical exam, colonoscopy, and positron emission tomography (PET). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to determine the optimal cutoff for absolute CEA values and proportional rise that could predict recurrences. Results 162 patients were followed for a median of 42 months. 32 patients (19.7%) relapsed of which 11 (34.4%) had a peritoneal disease. Besides known clinical risk factors, higher CEA at the time of negative PET and rising CEA trend predicted disease recurrence on multivariate logistic regression. CEA threshold of 10.05 ng/ml provided a sensitivity/specificity of 53%/86.2%, while CEA velocity of 1.36 ng/ml over 3 months presented a sensitivity/specificity of 80%/70.6% for subsequent relapse. Conclusions The discriminatory value of CEA kinetics was more than that of a single absolute value. An algorithm for managing these patients based on clinical risk factors, absolute CEA value, and its kinetics is suggested.
ISSN:1435-2443
1435-2451
DOI:10.1007/s00423-021-02352-0