The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

What carcinoembryonic antigen level should trigger further investigation during colorectal cancer follow-up?: A systematic review and secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

What carcinoembryonic antigen level should trigger further investigation during colorectal cancer follow-up?: A systematic review and secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial
What carcinoembryonic antigen level should trigger further investigation during colorectal cancer follow-up?: A systematic review and secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Following primary surgical and adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer, many patients are routinely followed up with blood carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how the CEA test result should be interpreted to inform the decision to undertake further investigation to detect treatable recurrences.

DESIGN: Two studies were conducted: (1) a Cochrane review of existing studies describing the diagnostic accuracy of blood CEA testing for detecting colorectal recurrence; and (2) a secondary analysis of data from the two arms of the FACS (Follow-up After Colorectal Surgery) trial in which CEA testing was carried out.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The secondary analysis was based on data from 582 patients recruited into the FACS trial between 2003 and 2009 from 39 NHS hospitals in England with access to high-volume services offering surgical treatment of metastatic recurrence and followed up for 5 years. CEA testing was undertaken in general practice.

RESULTS: In the systematic review we identified 52 studies for meta-analysis, including in aggregate 9717 participants (median study sample size 139, interquartile range 72-247). Pooled sensitivity at the most commonly recommended threshold in national guidelines of 5 µg/l was 71% [95% confidence interval (CI) 64% to 76%] and specificity was 88% (95% CI 84% to 92%). In the secondary analysis of FACS data, the diagnostic accuracy of a single CEA test was less than was suggested by the review [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.74, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.80]. At the commonly recommended threshold of 5 µg/l, sensitivity was estimated as 50.0% (95% CI 40.1% to 59.9%) and lead time as about 3 months. About four in 10 patients without a recurrence will have at least one false alarm and six out of 10 tests will be false alarms (some patients will have multiple false alarms, particularly smokers). Making decisions to further investigate based on the trend in serial CEA measurements is better (AUC for positive trend 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91), but to maintain approximately 70% sensitivity with 90% specificity it is necessary to increase the frequency of testing in year 1 and to apply a reducing threshold for investigation as measurements accrue.

LIMITATIONS: The reference standards were imperfect and the main analysis was subject to work-up bias and had limited statistical precision and no external validation.

CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that (1) CEA testing should not be used alone as a triage test; (2) in year 1, testing frequency should be increased (to monthly for 3 months and then every 2 months); (3) the threshold for investigating a single test result should be raised to 10 µg/l; (4) after the second CEA test, decisions to investigate further should be made on the basis of the trend in CEA levels; (5) the optimal threshold for investigating the CEA trend falls over time; and (6) continuing smokers should not be monitored with CEA testing. Further research is needed to explore the operational feasibility of monitoring the trend in CEA levels and to externally validate the proposed thresholds for further investigation.

STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015019327 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93652154.

FUNDING: The main FACS trial and this substudy were funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Journal Article
1366-5278
1-60
Shinkins, Bethany
e6e82809-95ff-43ad-a769-e097c911c2fc
Nicholson, Brian D
5fcf14f4-f71d-4243-a11e-c1c13f870acf
James, Tim
55eedb24-cd56-418a-b4b4-30dd0dbb84a0
Pathiraja, Indika
37aaacbc-7412-47a8-9c06-4b692af6979d
Pugh, Sian
83010563-0865-446c-ba71-95e2a45d9562
Perera, Rafael
72025ce5-fb66-42f1-9a38-1694e485e754
Primrose, John
d85f3b28-24c6-475f-955b-ec457a3f9185
Mant, David
d2e30212-70ec-48c9-b80a-a45cf4bcc46e
Shinkins, Bethany
e6e82809-95ff-43ad-a769-e097c911c2fc
Nicholson, Brian D
5fcf14f4-f71d-4243-a11e-c1c13f870acf
James, Tim
55eedb24-cd56-418a-b4b4-30dd0dbb84a0
Pathiraja, Indika
37aaacbc-7412-47a8-9c06-4b692af6979d
Pugh, Sian
83010563-0865-446c-ba71-95e2a45d9562
Perera, Rafael
72025ce5-fb66-42f1-9a38-1694e485e754
Primrose, John
d85f3b28-24c6-475f-955b-ec457a3f9185
Mant, David
d2e30212-70ec-48c9-b80a-a45cf4bcc46e

Shinkins, Bethany, Nicholson, Brian D, James, Tim, Pathiraja, Indika, Pugh, Sian, Perera, Rafael, Primrose, John and Mant, David (2017) What carcinoembryonic antigen level should trigger further investigation during colorectal cancer follow-up?: A systematic review and secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Health Technology Assessment, 21 (22), 1-60. (doi:10.3310/hta21220).

Record type: Article

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Following primary surgical and adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer, many patients are routinely followed up with blood carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how the CEA test result should be interpreted to inform the decision to undertake further investigation to detect treatable recurrences.

DESIGN: Two studies were conducted: (1) a Cochrane review of existing studies describing the diagnostic accuracy of blood CEA testing for detecting colorectal recurrence; and (2) a secondary analysis of data from the two arms of the FACS (Follow-up After Colorectal Surgery) trial in which CEA testing was carried out.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The secondary analysis was based on data from 582 patients recruited into the FACS trial between 2003 and 2009 from 39 NHS hospitals in England with access to high-volume services offering surgical treatment of metastatic recurrence and followed up for 5 years. CEA testing was undertaken in general practice.

RESULTS: In the systematic review we identified 52 studies for meta-analysis, including in aggregate 9717 participants (median study sample size 139, interquartile range 72-247). Pooled sensitivity at the most commonly recommended threshold in national guidelines of 5 µg/l was 71% [95% confidence interval (CI) 64% to 76%] and specificity was 88% (95% CI 84% to 92%). In the secondary analysis of FACS data, the diagnostic accuracy of a single CEA test was less than was suggested by the review [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.74, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.80]. At the commonly recommended threshold of 5 µg/l, sensitivity was estimated as 50.0% (95% CI 40.1% to 59.9%) and lead time as about 3 months. About four in 10 patients without a recurrence will have at least one false alarm and six out of 10 tests will be false alarms (some patients will have multiple false alarms, particularly smokers). Making decisions to further investigate based on the trend in serial CEA measurements is better (AUC for positive trend 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91), but to maintain approximately 70% sensitivity with 90% specificity it is necessary to increase the frequency of testing in year 1 and to apply a reducing threshold for investigation as measurements accrue.

LIMITATIONS: The reference standards were imperfect and the main analysis was subject to work-up bias and had limited statistical precision and no external validation.

CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that (1) CEA testing should not be used alone as a triage test; (2) in year 1, testing frequency should be increased (to monthly for 3 months and then every 2 months); (3) the threshold for investigating a single test result should be raised to 10 µg/l; (4) after the second CEA test, decisions to investigate further should be made on the basis of the trend in CEA levels; (5) the optimal threshold for investigating the CEA trend falls over time; and (6) continuing smokers should not be monitored with CEA testing. Further research is needed to explore the operational feasibility of monitoring the trend in CEA levels and to externally validate the proposed thresholds for further investigation.

STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015019327 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93652154.

FUNDING: The main FACS trial and this substudy were funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 1 April 2017
e-pub ahead of print date: April 2017
Published date: April 2017
Keywords: Journal Article

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 413395
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/413395
ISSN: 1366-5278
PURE UUID: d3b14b6b-192f-484d-8e6d-ba57c28a322c
ORCID for John Primrose: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-2069-7605

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 23 Aug 2017 16:31
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 02:47

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Bethany Shinkins
Author: Brian D Nicholson
Author: Tim James
Author: Indika Pathiraja
Author: Sian Pugh
Author: Rafael Perera
Author: John Primrose ORCID iD
Author: David Mant

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×