A Review of the Role of Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Clinical Practice

Claire Hall; Louise Clarke; Atanu Pal; Pamela Buchwald; Tim Eglinton; Chris Wakeman; Frank Frizelle

doi:10.3393/ac.2019.11.13

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Ann Coloproctol > Volume 35(6); 2019 > Article

Review A Review of the Role of Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Clinical Practice: Claire Hall¹, Louise Clarke¹, Atanu Pal^1,2, Pamela Buchwald¹, Tim Eglinton¹, Chris Wakeman¹, Frank Frizelle¹; Annals of Coloproctology 2019;35(6):294-305.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2019.11.13
Published online: December 31, 2019

¹Colorectal Unit, Department of Surgery, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand

²Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK

Correspondence to: Atanu Pal, M.A. M.D. FRCS. General Surgery Department, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Colney Lane, Norwich NR4 7UY, UK Tel: +44-1603-286286, Email: atanu.pal@doctors.org.uk

• Received: July 29, 2019 • Accepted: November 13, 2019

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

prev next

12,042 Views
409 Download
108 Web of Science
105 Crossref
119 Scopus

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
ARTICLE INFORMATION
REFERENCES

Abstract

Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is not normally produced in significant quantities after birth but is elevated in colorectal cancer. The aim of this review was to define the current role of CEA and how best to investigate patients with elevated CEA levels. A systematic review of CEA was performed, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were identified from PubMed, Cochrane library, and controlled trials registers. We identified 2,712 papers of which 34 were relevant. Analysis of these papers found higher preoperative CEA levels were associated with advanced or metastatic disease and thus poorer prognosis. Postoperatively, failure of CEA to return to normal was found to be indicative of residual or recurrent disease. However, measurement of CEA levels alone was not sufficient to improve survival rates. Two algorithms are proposed to guide investigation of patients with elevated CEA: one for patients with elevated CEA after CRC resection, and another for patients with de novo elevated CEA. CEA measurement has an important role in the investigation, management and follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer.
Keywords: Carcinoembryonic antigen; Colorectal cancer; Recurrence

INTRODUCTION

Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) was first isolated from human colorectal cancer (CRC) tissue in 1965 by Gold and Freedman [1,2]. It is a foetal glycoprotein and is not usually produced in significant quantity after birth. CEA can become elevated in a number of pathologies. The most common clinical use is surveillance for recurrence of CRC. CEA levels are also sometimes measured in patients without a history of CRC. Elevated CEA in both situations presents a management dilemma to the colorectal surgeon, particularly in deciding the appropriate tests and the subsequent follow-up if those tests are inconclusive, and this led us to conduct this review. This review aims to evaluate the role of CEA in clinical colorectal practice, including the prognostic significance of CEA in patients with CRC, the role of CEA in follow-up after CRC resection, and the management of patients with raised CEA and no history of CRC.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The MeSH headings “Carcinoembryonic antigen,” “CEA,” and “Colorectal Neoplasm” were used to identify relevant studies in the PubMed and Cochrane Library Databases.

Studies included had to be published in English from January 1, 1990, to April 30, 2017, be full text articles, and have comparison groups in which the CEA level was used to determine a component of management or outcome. Data were extracted from the included articles by 2 authors according to the aims of our review: prognostic significance of CEA in patients with CRC, role of CEA in follow-up after CRC resection, and management of patients with raised CEA and no history of CRC. Results were described qualitatively. No statistical analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 2,712 papers identified, 271 were screened in abstract form by 2 authors independently. Thirty-two were deemed relevant, after which the full texts of the articles were obtained and reviewed by 2 authors (Fig. 1). A hand search of the reference lists found no additional studies.

Preoperative CEA and prognosis

Most trials were retrospective (Table 1). Elevated preoperative CEA predicted overall survival across stage I to stage III CRC, with elevated preoperative CEA carrying a 62% increase in the danger of death compared with a normal CEA level [3]. The 5-year disease-free survival was 84.6% vs. 69.8% [4], and the 5-year overall survival was 74.5% vs. 63.4% [5]. However, a study of 2 cohorts with Duke C cancer, 1990–2000 and 2001–2004, found that the predictive value of preoperative CEA was lost in the more recent cohort [6], and may be due to improved chemotherapy regimens. Higher preoperative CEA levels were associated with advanced disease stage.

Postoperative CEA and prognosis

Kim et al. [7] hypothesized that after curative surgery, and therefore after resection of the source of CEA, CEA levels would decrease exponentially. CEA was measured preoperatively and at day 7 and day 30 postoperatively. In the patient group where the CEA level had decreased exponentially, survival was significantly greater than it was in the group where CEA remained elevated, with a trend to increased disease-free survival. Similarly, in patients with stage 4 CRC who underwent a R0 resection, elevated postoperative CEA and CA 19-9 were associated with reduced disease-free survival [8]. Failure of the CEA to return to normal after surgery was indicative of residual or recurrent disease, with CEAs over 10 ng/mL being strongly associated with metastatic disease.

Preoperative CEA and response to neoadjuvant treatment

In rectal cancer, elevated pretreatment CEA levels are associated with a poor response to neoadjuvant treatment, with a retrospective analysis of patients with stage I–III rectal cancer showing significantly decreased pathological complete response, pathological tumor regression, tumor downstaging, and overall survival [9].

CEA in follow-up after CRC resection

Two recent meta-analyses have shown no survival benefit with increased surveillance after resection for CRC [10, 11]. For CEA specifically, we identified 8 randomized controlled trials (RCT, Table 2). In a RCT looking at managing a rising CEA with a second-look laparotomy compared to conservative treatment [12], no survival advantage was noted, and the study was terminated. CEA began increasing 323 days prior to the onset of clinically evident recurrent disease. A subgroup analysis was not performed, so whether the R0 resection of recurrent or metastatic disease had improved disease-specific survival compared to those with unresectable disease was not clear. The results were also difficult to interpret in the modern setting, as today, a ‘second look’ laparotomy would only be performed on patients with proven resectable disease, and this selected group would be expected to have an improved survival if compared to patients with widespread disease.

More recent trials [13-21] compared a standard follow-up regimen to a higher intensity follow-up, though the regimens were heterogeneous (Table 3). In the FACs (Follow-up After Colorectal Surgery) trial [15], more intensive follow-up with CEA and computed tomography (CT) scanning increased the rate of surgical treatment for recurrent disease, but without survival advantage. The accuracy of a single CEA measurement was poor, with the conclusion that the CEA trend, rather than stand-alone measurements, should be used [22].

The Dutch trial ‘CEAwatch’ investigated the effect of the intensity of the CEA measurement on the detection of recurrent disease and the proportion of curable recurrences [16]. Here, an elevated CEA would trigger repeat CEA testing and, if maintained, chest/abdomen CT. Intensive surveillance (8 weekly CEA) detected more patients with recurrence who had undergone a curative treatment, defined as an R0 resection, compared to the control group (3 monthly CEA: 35% vs. 22%) [16]. No improvement in overall or disease-free survival was found. The only survival benefit was when recurrences were detected by using CEA or imaging as compared to those detected by using patients’ self-reported symptoms [23]. Intensive CEA testing was also found to be cost effective [17]. The GILDA (Gruppo Italiano di Lavoro per la Diagnosi Anticipata) trial investigated intensive surveillance by imaging for patients with Dukes B2-C CRC [18]. In the intensive surveillance arm, recurrences were detected 5.9 months earlier, but no difference in overall survival was reported.

The threshold of serum CEA used to trigger further investigations is controversial and has been addressed by a Cochrane review including 52 studies [24]. Sensitivity and specificity were 82% and 80% for a 2.5 ng/mL cutoff, 71% and 88% for 5 ng/mL, and 68% and 97% for 10 ng/mL, respectively. The review concluded that 10 ng/mL should be used as the threshold to trigger further investigations. Furthermore, the diagnostic accuracy of the postoperative CEA level in detecting recurrence is affected by the preoperative value. With a threshold of 5 ng/mL at 6 months, in patients with curatively resected colon cancer and normal preoperative CEA, the diagnostic accuracy for recurrence was 89.1%, in contrast to patients with an elevated preoperative CEA in whom the accuracy was 58.4%; an increased threshold of > 8 ng/mL in this latter group improved diagnostic accuracy to 75.6% [25].

The hypothesis that CEA level reflects tumor burden in patients with metastatic disease has also been studied by assessing treatment response to chemotherapy. Huang et al. [26] retrospectively analysed 447 patients with metastatic CRC who had undergone resection of the primary tumor and adjuvant chemotherapy. The ratio of posttreatment (after 6 courses of chemotherapy) to pretreatment CEA was strongly correlated with the radiological response and with overall survival [26]. Similarly, in patients with metastatic CRC receiving first-line chemotherapy, there were distinct CEA level slopes according to type of radiological response i.e., progression, partial response, and stable disease [27], suggesting that CEA levels and ratios have a role in the early assessment of treatment response in stage IV CRC. In the FIRE-3 trial, the CEA trend reflected response to targeted therapy [28] in patients with (K)RAS wild-type metastatic CRC. First-line FOLFIRI plus cetuximab gave better overall survival than FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (28.7 months vs. 25.0 months) [29], with a corresponding faster and greater decrease in CEA level. In the cetuximab arm, CEA responders, defined as a decrease of at least 75%, had better disease-free and overall survivals than CEA nonresponders.

At the cellular level, a correlation between the immunohistochemical status of CEA staining and the serum CEA level was found in colorectal metastases, but not in the primary tumors [30], suggesting that serum CEA levels are influenced both by the production of CEA in tumor cells and by its release into the bloodstream. Positive staining for CEA in metastatic tissue also carried a worse survival. Overexpression of CEA has been reported to inhibit Natural Killer cells and cytotoxic lymphocytes, which may dampen the immune response to metastases [31].

What to do for a patient with a raised CEA and no history of CRC

Whilst no specific trials have addressed what to do for a patient with a raised CEA and no history of CRC, studies have evaluated CEA in screening and diagnosis (Table 4). In patients with elevated CEA, the chance of finding CRC is increased (4.6% vs. 1.3%) [32]. CEA is also a predictor of other diseases, including other cancers, diabetes, chronic lung disease and liver disease [33]. A combination of biomarkers, including CEA, CA 19-9, prostate-specific antigen, and CA125, increases the sensitivity of CEA as a screening modality [34, 35]. In a patient with raised CEA, a detailed history and clinical assessment are likely to be the most important first steps. No evidence was found to support CEA being used as a screening tool.

DISCUSSION

The available evidence supports the use of CEA in surveillance of CRC, particularly in postoperative follow-up. However, no evidence supports its use in screening and diagnosis of CRC, as CEA may be elevated in patients with other pathologies [2, 36-38] and many CRC patients will have a normal CEA. Serum levels > 3-5 ng/mL are deemed to be elevated [39, 40]. Higher baseline levels occur in males, smokers and the elderly [39, 40]. Elevated CEA levels have been associated with a number of benign and malignant conditions (Table 5). CEA is used most frequently in CRC, but it is also a tumor marker in mucinous adenocarcinomas of the endocervix and ovary, as well as in keratinising squamous cell carcinomas of the cervix [41]. CEA levels >10 ng/mL or trending upwards are more commonly associated with malignant conditions [40-43]. Levels > 20 ng/mL are suspicious for metastatic disease [42, 44-46]. As CEA is primarily metabolized in the liver, hepatic dysfunction and biliary obstruction can be associated with raised CEA levels.

In view of the high first-pass hepatic metabolism of CEA (≥90%), very high CEA levels tend to be due to CEA-producing tumors or metastases outside the portal venous drainage territory or to locally advanced tumors within the portal venous system’s drainage territory. Tumor differentiation also affects CEA level [45-47], with 80% of well-differentiated CRCs producing CEA and only 60% of poorly-differentiated tumors produce it [48], making surveillance less reliable. Following CRC resection in patients with normal hepatic function, a 95% reduction to the steadstate postoperative CEA level takes five half-lives, i.e., 35 days [39, 44, 47].

CEA levels correlate with prognosis [49-51]. In CRC, elevated preoperative CEA level (>5 ng/mL) is associated with a higher recurrence rate and disease-related mortality [50-54]. A postoperative CEA decrease is also a prognostic indicator [55, 56], predicting improved overall survival and disease-free survival [28]. This also applies to those having liver surgery for colorectal metastases [57]. CEA level has also been correlated with the presence of circulating cancer cells [54].

The role of pretreatment CEA level in predicting response to chemotherapy or radiotherapy is uncertain, with some studies showing no correlation [58] and with others showing that, compared to CEA <3 ng/mL, an elevated pretreatment CEA (>9 ng/mL) was associated with a poor response to long-course chemoradiotherapy [59]. Reduction of CEA following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer has prognostic significance [60], with CEA ≤5 ng/mL being correlated with increased complete clinical and pathological response and better overall and disease-free survivals. High posttreatment CEA levels may, therefore, identify patients for adjuvant treatment and intensive surveillance, and may perhaps be a relative contraindication to ‘watch and wait’ in patients with apparently complete clinical response.

Surveillance recommendations for CEA in CRC patients vary. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recommends preoperative CEA and postoperative CEA every 3–6 months for at least 5 years [61, 62]. The UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence recommends CEA levels be measured every 6 months for at least 3 years [63]. In addition, ASCO [61] recommends CEA for monitoring the response of metastatic disease to systemic therapy. The CEA doubling time is affected by rate of growth of metastases and by site of recurrence [64, 65].

CRC surveillance: management of patients with elevated CEA levels

A patient with an elevated or progressively rising CEA level with previous CRC should be investigated for recurrent disease (Fig. 2), initially with cross-sectional imaging (CT scan or positron emission tomography-CT [PET-CT]) of the chest, abdomen and pelvis, and not colonoscopy because of CEA’s first-pass metabolism. Both the British Royal Society of Radiology [66] and the US oncology guidelines [67] suggest only performing a PET-CT when other imaging has been normal. If these investigations are negative, a repeat CEA level with clinical review at 3 months is suggested. If the CEA level remains stable without clinical evidence of recurrence, continued CEA measurements every 3 months and clinical review are encouraged. If the CEA level is increasing or >10 ng/mL or if clinical evidence of recurrence is found, repeat cross-sectional imaging is suggested.

Patients referred with de novo elevated CEA

While CEA should not be used as a diagnostic tool, it often is by the overexuberant health professional. This then raises the dilemma of determining if the elevated CEA is significant, in the absence of a previous history of CRC (Fig. 3). If the patient has a history of previous CEA-producing malignancy (Table 5), the patient should be evaluated in accordance with that particular malignancy.

In the absence of a history of a previous CEA-producing tumor, evaluation begins with a thorough history and clinical examination, looking for relevant symptoms and signs of CEA-producing benign and malignant conditions (Table 5), and smoking history. Further investigations would include repeat CEA, full blood count, and iron studies, liver and renal function tests, determinations of the CA 125 and calcitonin levels, and so on, as indicated from the clinical review.

If the clinical review does not raise any suspicion of a particular disease process and CEA is <10 ng/mL, no further investigations are recommended at this stage. The patient should be advised to stop smoking for cardiovascular and respiratory health. Determination of the CEA level and a clinical review should be repeated at 3 months. If the level falls, determination of the CEA level and a clinical review should be repeated at 6-month intervals until the CEA level returns to normal or until 2 consecutive decreases are noted. If, however, after 3–6 intervals, the CEA level remains above 5 ng/mL or if the level exceeds 10 ng/mL at any stage, further investigations (CT scan, PET-CT or organ-specific investigations) are indicated.

If the CEA level is greater than 10 ng/mL at the time of presentation, a PET-CT or whole-body CT can be used to look for primary and/or secondary malignancy, unless clinical review indicates a likely site of malignancy to guide a more specific investigations Depending on access and local costs, using a PET-CT scan before organ-specific testing might be more cost effective. If these preliminary tests are negative, a repeat CEA should be performed 3 months later with a clinical review. The clinical review is more important at this stage. A CEA level persistently >10 ng/mL at 1 year requires repeat investigation. Rising CEA levels >10 ng/mL or levels > 20 ng/mL require investigation every year until the underlying cause is detected.

In the clinical scenario of patients with de novo elevated CEA, our practice would be to investigate with whole-body PET-CT before organ-specific investigations, unless clinical evidence suggesting a specific site for the malignancy is found. If PET-CT scanning is not available, we suggest whole-body CT.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence suggests CEA has a role in the prognostication and treatment planning for and the surveillance of patients with CRC. The use of algorithms will help guide how patients presenting with elevated CEA should be further elevated.

ARTICLE INFORMATION

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Fig. 1.

Identification, screening, and selection of papers for inclusion. CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.

Fig. 2.

Algorithm 1: Investigation pathway for a patient with a raised carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) with a previous history of a CEA-expressing cancer. ^aOrgan-specific investigations: tumor markers, CT scan, colonoscopy, gastroscopy, mammography, cystoscopy, Ultrasound Scan (US), bone scan, biopsy, other test as required. PET/CT, positron emission tomography-computed tomography.

Fig. 3.

Algorithm 2: Investigation pathway for a patient with a de novo raised carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). ^aOrgan-specific investigations: tumor markers, CT scan, colonoscopy, gastroscopy, mammography, cystoscopy, US, bone scan, biopsy, other test as required. Clinical review includes: a full history and examination of the thyroid, breast, thorax, abdomen and pelvis, visual field testing, fundoscopy, long bones examination. Look for melanoma. In females, cervical examination. In males, a prostate examination. PET/CT, positron emission tomography-computed tomography.

Table 1.

CEA and prognosis: selected studies

Author	Year	Origin	Study type	Study summary	Endpoint	No. of patients	Age (yr)^a	Sex ratio (%male)	Outcome summary
Stelzner [68]	2005	Germany	Cohort (retrospective database)	Database review for predictors of survival in colorectal cancer	Overall survival in stage IV colorectal cancer	186	68.6 (range, 30–92)	54.3	Preop CEA ≥ 5 ng/mL associated with decreased overall survival in stage IV disease.
Katoh [6]	2008	Japan	Cohort (retrospective database)	Review of preop CEA levels in Dukes C patients	Survival	Retrospective: 237; prospective: 197	54.4% ≥ 60 in retrospective; 63.5% ≥ 60 in prospective	Retrospective: 59.1; prospective: 57.4	CEA ≤ 2.5 ng/mL was a predictor of disease-free survival in Dukes C in earlier cohort. Association lost in later cohort, possibly due to improved chemotherapy.
Kim [7]	2009	Korea	Cohort (retrospective data base)	Postoperative analysis of CEA preop and day 7 and 30-day post op	Survival	122	57.56 ± 12.24	62.3	Significant decrease in survival if CEA levels remain elevated in postop period.
Sun [69]	2009	Taiwan	Cohort (retrospective data base)	Retrospective review of potential prognostic markers	Disease-free and overall survival	1,367	66 (IQR, 19-25)	55.4	Preop CEA ≥ 5 ng/mL 2.38x more likely to die of cancer than those with CEA ≤5 ng/mL (P ≤ 0.001)
Thirunavukarasu [70]	2015	USA	Cohort (retrospective SEER database)	Review of preop CEA levels	5-Year overall and disease-specific mortality	16,619	67.4 ± 13.8	49.7	Elevated CEA was associated with worse overall and disease-specific mortality
Becerra [3]	2016	USA	Cohort (retrospective data base)	Review of preop CEA levels in Stage I-III CRC	Overall survival	69,512	Normal CEA: 69.1 ± 13.0; elevated CEA: 70.3 ± 12.9	Normal CEA: 49.0; elevated CEA: 43.7	Preop CEA level is associated with overall survival
Ozawa [4]	2017	Japan	Cohort (retrospective National Cancer Database)	Review of preop CEA levels	5-Year disease-free survival	7,296	65.3 ± 11.2	54.4	Preop CEA level is independently associated with 5-year disease-free survival
Spindler [5]	2017	USA	Cohort (retrospective National Cancer Database)	Review of preop CEA levels in Stage II CRC	5-Year overall survival	74,945	Normal CEA: 70 (IQR, 59-79); elevated CEA 72 (IQR, 6081)	Normal CEA: 49.3 Elevated CEA: 43.4	Preop elevated CEA is associated with reduced 5-year overall survival
Kim [71]	2017	Korea	Retrospective and prospective cohort	To determine cutoff values for preop CEA in Stage III CRC	5-Year overall and disease-free survival	Retrospective cohort: 965; prospective cohort: 268	Retrospective: 60 (range, 14-84); prospective: 60 (range, 27-80)	Retrospective: 53.9 Prospective: 48.9	A cutoff value of 3 ng/mL is optimal. Preoperative CEA above this level is associated with inferior overall and disease-free survival.

CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; IQR, interquartile range; preop, preoperative; postop, postoperative; CRC, colorectal cancer.

^a Age: meanstandard deviation, mean ± standard deviation, or median (range), or median (IQR).

Table 2.

CEA and follow-up after CRC resection: selected studies

Author	Year	Origin	Study type	Study summary	Endpoint	No. of patients	Age (yr), median (range)	Sex ratio (%male)
Treasure [12]	1984 (published in full 2014)	UK	RCT	티evated CEA prompted randomization to either continued monitoring (conventional arm) or laparotomy (aggressive)	Survival	216	Conventional: 62 (35-75); aggressive: 64 (33-75)	Conventional: 63; aggressive: 56
Makela [72]	1995	Finland	RCT	Intensive vs. conventional follow-up	Recurrence	106	Conventional: 69 (33-85); intensive: 63 (33-81)	Conventional: 50; intensive: 48
Ohlsson [20]	1995	Sweden	RCT	No follow-up vs. intensive follow-up	Recurrence	107	-	47.7
Pietra [21]	1998	Italy	RCT	Conventional or intense follow-up	Recurrence	207	-	-
Primrose [15]	2014	UK	RCT	Intensive vs. minimal follow-up 3 different intensive groups	Detection and curative treatment of recurrence	1,202	CT: 69 (62-76); CEA: 69 (6375); CT & CEA: 70 (64-76); minimal: 70 (63-75)	CT: 61.2; CEA: 61.3; CT & CEA: 61.3; minimal: 61.3
Verberne [16]	2015	Netherlands	RCT (stepped wedge)	Standard vs. intensive follow-up	CRC recurrence	3,223	70 (26-95)	56
Wille-Jørgensen [13]	On-going trial	Europe	Multicenter randomized controlled trial	Intensive vs. nonintensive follow-up	CRC recurrence and mortality	-	-	-
Lepage [14]	On-going trial	France	Multicenter randomized controlled trial	Standard vs. intensive follow-up	5-year overall survival	-	-	-

RCT, randomized control trial; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CRC, colorectal cancer; CT, computed tomography.

Table 3.

CEA and follow-up after CRC: outcome measures in selected studies

Trial	Type of regimen	Time to first recurrence (mo)	Proportion of recurrences	Overall 5-year survival	Outcome summary
Treasure (CEASL) [12]	All patients had clinical review 3/12 for 2 years and 6/12 for the next 3 years. CEA was measured monthly for the first 3 years and 3/12 for the next 2 years.	Median time from primary surgery to CEA increases and randomization was 403 days (range, 103–1,754)	Conventional: 82%; aggressive: 77%	Not reported. End of trial figures below	Second look laparotomy in the event of CEA elevation did not improve survival.
	Patients were randomized if the CEA became elevated (≥10 ng/mL).			Conventional: 82% died
	216 Patients were randomized.			Aggressive: 84% died
	Conventional: Continued clinical monitoring with clinicians blinded to increased CEA.
	Aggressive: Clinician screen for widespread metastatic disease examinations and CXR. If not found, patient had a laparotomy to look for recurrence.
Makela [72]	Clinic review for all 3/12 for 2 years, the 6/12 for 3 years with history, examination, complete blood cell counts, faecal occult bloods, CEA and CXR.	Conventional: 15 ± 10; intensive: 10 ± 5	Conventional: 39%; intensive: 42%	Conventional: 54%; intensive: 59%	Intensive follow-up leads to earlier detection of recurrence.
	USS liver every 6/12 and CT every year.				Most common sign indicating recurrence was CEA elevation in both groups.
	In addition: Conventional: rigid sigmoidoscopy at each visit for those who had undergone surgery for rectal and sigmoid cancers, and a barium enema was done for all patients at 12 months and once a year thereafter; Intensive: colonoscopy 3 months after the surgery to ensure a clean colon and once a year thereafter on allpatients
Ohlsson [20]	None/Control: No FU	-	Control: 33%; intensive: 32%	Control: 67%; intensive: 75%	Intensive follow-up did not improve survival.
Ohlsson [20]	Intensive: clinical exam, rigid sig, colonoscopy, CT pelvis (in patients with APR), pulmonary X-ray, liver function tests, CEA and faecal hemoglobin at 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, 15-, 18-, 21-, 24-, 30-, 36-, 42-, 48-, and 60-month intervals	-	Control: 33%; intensive: 32%	Control: 67%; intensive: 75%	Intensive follow-up did not improve survival.
Pietra [21]	Conventional: clinical exam + CEA and USS at 6/12 intervals for 1 year then annually thereafter.	Conventional: 20.2 ± 6.1; iIntensive: 10.3 ± 2.7	Conventional:19.4%; intensive: 25.2%	Conventional: 58.3%; intensive: 73.1%	Intense follow-up leads to earlier detection of recurrent disease and improved survival.
	All patients received yearly CXR, colonoscopy and CT.
	Intensive: As above, but with intervals 3/12 for 2 years then 6/12 for 3 years
Primrose (FACS) [15]	Control: CT at 12–18 months or if symptomatic	-	Cancer recurrence in 16.6% of patients, 5.9% of these surgically treated with curative intent		Intensive follow-up (any group) detected recurrence earlier and increased rate of curative surgical treatment. No advantage when using CT and CEA in combination. Could not demonstrate survival advantage.
	Intensive: CT: Scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis every 6 months for 2 years, then annually for 3. CEA: CEA every 3 months for 2 years, then every 6 months for 3 years, with a single CT scan at 12 to 18 months if requested at study entry by hospital clinician. CT and CEA: Both of the regimes combined.
	All had colonoscopy at 2 and 5 years
Rosati (GILDA) [18]	Control: Clinical review and CEA every 3 months for 2 years, then every 6 months for 3 years. Colonoscopy at 1 year. Liver USS at 4 months and 16 months.	Intensive surveillance had earlier detection of 5.9 months (95% CI, 2.71–9.11)	Overall recurrence rate: 20.4%; control: 18.7%; intensive: 22%	Control: 52.7%; intensive: 47.8%	Intensive surveillance detected recurrences earlier, but there was no difference in overall survival. Quality of life was not affected by surveillance strategy.
Rosati (GILDA) [18]	Intensive: Clinical review and CEA as per control group. CBC and CA 19-9 included with CEA. Colonoscopy and CXR every 12 months. Liver USS every 4 months for 16 months, then yearly			Control: 52.7%; intensive: 47.8%
Verberne (CEAWatch) [23]	Control: 5-year follow-up. Clinic every 6/12 for 3 years, then annually thereafter. Liver USS and CXR at each visit. CEA every 3 to 6 months for 3 years and annually thereafter.	Specific time interval not given; however, the authors stated that the time to diagnosis of recurrent disease decreased with the intensive follow-up protocol as compared to the control protocol (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.08–1.95; P = 0.013)	Overall recurrence rate: 7.5%; control: 3.6%; intensive: 4.4%	No difference in OS or DFS between 2 arms. Survival significantly worse when detected by patients self-report rather than CEA or imaging.	An intensified protocol with CEA monitoring and assessment of CEA rise rather than absolute value detected recurrences earlier than the standard protocol. This does not affect overall or disease-free survival.
Verberne (CEAWatch) [23]	Intensive: bimonthly CEA and yearly imaging for 3 years. CEA every 3/12 for next 2 years. Annual clinic review with imaging of chest and abdomen for 3 years. If 20% increase in CEA, another blood sample was drawn 4 weeks later. If a consecutive rise, CT scan of chest and abdomen was advised. Normal value was considered to be ≤2.5 ng/mL
Wille-Jørgensen (COLOFOL) [13]	Nonintensive: CT scan of liver and lungs (or CT of liver + plain X-ray of lungs) + CEA after 12 and 36 months.	-	-	-	Recruitment ended 2015. Results awaited.
Wille-Jørgensen (COLOFOL) [13]	Intensive: CT scan of liver and lungs (or CT of liver + plain X-ray of lungs) + CEA after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months	-	-	-	Recruitment ended 2015. Results awaited.
Lepage (PRODIGE 13) [14]	Standard: Abdo USS every 3/12 for 3 years, 6/12 for 2 years, then annually. CXR ever 6/12 for 3 years, then annually.	-	-	-	Recruitment ended. Results awaited
Lepage (PRODIGE 13) [14]	Intensive: A CT thorax/abdominal/pelvis alternating with abdominal USS every 3/12 for 3 years, then every 6/12 for 2 years. CEA every 3/12 for 3 years, then 6/12 2 years	-	-	-	Recruitment ended. Results awaited

FACS, Follow-up After Colorectal Surgery; GILDA, Gruppo Italiano di Lavoro per la Diagnosi Anticipata; CEAWatch, Carcino-Embryonic Antigen Watch; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CRC, colorectal cancer; CT, computed tomography; FU, follow-up; CXR, chest X-Ray; USS, UltraSound Scan; CBC, complete blood count; CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival; DFS, disease-free survival.

Table 4.

CEA and screening/diagnosis: selected studies

Author	Year	Origin	Study type	Asymptomatic vs. symptomatic	Endpoint	No. of patients	Age (yr), median	Sex ratio (%male)	Outcome summary
Lee [32]	2011	Korea	Case control	Asymptomatic	Detection of colorectal cancer	546	(A) 56	A) 77	4.6% of high CEA group had CRC compared to 1.3% of normal CEA group.
						(A) CEA ≥5 ng/mL	(B) 54	B) 73.4	CEA more likely to be elevated in advanced colorectal cancer.
						(B) CEA ≤5 ng/mL	(B) 54	B) 73.4
Nielsen [33]	2011	Denmark	Case control	Symptomatic	Detection of colorectal cancer	4,509	61	45.9	CEA more likely to be elevated in advanced colorectal cancer. Median of 8.1 ng/mL in stage 4 disease
Wild [35]	2010	Germany	Case control	Mixed	Comparison of serum-biomarker panel with Faecal occult blood testing	1,027	(A) 67	(A) 52.2	CEA more likely to be elevated in advanced colorectal cancer. 88.2% sensitivity in stage 4 disease.
						(A) CRC 301	(B) 62	(B) 39.1
						(B) GI disease control 104	(C) 66	(C) 58.7
						(C) Adenoma 143	(D) 62	(D) 46.1	CEA, seprase, CYFRA 21-1, ferritin and anti-p53 biomarker combination was comparable with faecal immunochemical testing with 82.4% versus 81.8% at 95% specificity,
						(D) Other disease 141	(E) 64	(E) 42.6
						(E) Other malignancy 176	(E) 64	(E) 42.6
Wen [34]	2015	Taiwan	Case control	Mixed	Detection of cancer using panel of 8 markers	41,516			CEA sensitivity 53.8%. Increases, when used in combination as panel of 8 biomarkers, to 76.9%

CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CRC, colorectal cancer; GI, gastrointestinal.

Table 5.

Conditions associated with elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level

Nonmalignant	Malignant
Smoking	Tumors associated with high CEA expression
Infections	Colorectal^a
Peptic ulcer disease	Ovarian^a
Inflammatory bowel disease	Cervical^a
Pancreatitis	Lung
Hypothyroidism	Oesophageal
Liver cirrhosis, hepatitis	Gastric
Benign breast conditions	Small intestinal
Other benign tumors usually in organs where the cancers are associate with raised CEAd	Hepatobiliary
	Pancreatic
	Breast
	Medullary
	Other CEA-expressing tumors
	Choriocarcinoma
	Osteosarcoma
	Retinoblastoma
	Hepatoma
	Melanoma
	Lymphoma
	Urinary bladder, prostate and renal cell carcinoma

CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.

^a CEA monitoring used clinically.

REFERENCES

1. Gold P, Freedman SO. Demonstration of tumor-specific antigens in human colonic carcinomata by immunological tolerance and absorption techniques. J Exp Med 1965;121:439–62.Article PubMed PMC PDF
2. Thomson DM, Krupey J, Freedman SO, Gold P. The radioimmunoassay of circulating carcinoembryonic antigen of the human digestive system. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1969;64:161–7.Article PubMed PMC
3. Becerra AZ, Probst CP, Tejani MA, Aquina CT, González MG, Hensley BJ, et al. Evaluating the prognostic role of elevated preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen levels in colon cancer patients: results from the national cancer database. Ann Surg Oncol 2016;23:1554–61.Article PubMed PDF
4. Ozawa H, Kotake K, Hosaka M, Hirata A, Nakagawa Y, Fujita S, Sugihara K. Incorporation of serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels into the prognostic grouping system of colon cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 2017;32:821–9.Article PubMed PDF
5. Spindler BA, Bergquist JR, Thiels CA, Habermann EB, Kelley SR, Larson DW, et al. Incorporation of CEA improves risk stratification in stage II colon cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2017;21:770–7.Article PubMed PDF
6. Katoh H, Yamashita K, Kokuba Y, Satoh T, Ozawa H, Hatate K, et al. Diminishing impact of preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in prognosis of Dukes’ C colorectal cancer. Anticancer Res 2008;28(3B): 1933–41.PubMed
7. Kim JY, Kim NK, Sohn SK, Kim YW, Kim KJ, Hur H, et al. Prognostic value of postoperative CEA clearance in rectal cancer patients with high preoperative CEA levels. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:2771–8.Article PubMed PMC PDF
8. Abe S, Kawai K, Ishihara S, Nozawa H, Hata K, Kiyomatsu T, et al. Prognostic impact of carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 in stage IV colorectal cancer patients after R0 resection. J Surg Res 2016;205:384–92.Article PubMed
9. Probst CP, Becerra AZ, Aquina CT, Tejani MA, Hensley BJ, González MG, et al. Watch and Wait?--elevated pretreatment CEA Is associated with decreased pathological complete response in rectal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2016;20:43–52.Article PubMed PDF
10. Mokhles S, Macbeth F, Farewell V, Fiorentino F, Williams NR, Younes RN, et al. Meta-analysis of colorectal cancer follow-up after potentially curative resection. Br J Surg 2016;103:1259–68.Article PubMed PMC
11. Jeffery M, Hickey BE, Hider PN, See AM. Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;Nov 24 11:CD002200. Article PubMed
12. Treasure T, Monson K, Fiorentino F, Russell C. The CEA Second-Look Trial: a randomised controlled trial of carcinoembryonic antigen prompted reoperation for recurrent colorectal cancer. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004385.Article PubMed PMC
13. Wille-Jørgensen P, Laurberg S, Påhlman L, Carriquiry L, Lundqvist N, Smedh K, et al. An interim analysis of recruitment to the COLOFOL trial. Colorectal Dis 2009;11:756–8.Article PubMed
14. Lepage C, Phelip JM, Cany L, Faroux R, Manfredi S, Ain JF, et al. Effect of 5 years of imaging and CEA follow-up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer: The FFCD PRODIGE 13 randomised phase III trial. Dig Liver Dis 2015;47:529–31.Article PubMed
15. Primrose JN, Perera R, Gray A, Rose P, Fuller A, Corkhill A, et al. Effect of 3 to 5 years of scheduled CEA and CT follow-up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer: the FACS randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014;311:263–70.Article PubMed
16. Verberne CJ, Zhan Z, van den Heuvel E, Grossmann I, Doornbos PM, Havenga K, et al. Intensified follow-up in colorectal cancer patients using frequent Carcino-Embryonic Antigen (CEA) measurements and CEA-triggered imaging: Results of the randomized “CEAwatch” trial. Eur J Surg Oncol 2015;41:1188–96.Article PubMed
17. Verberne CJ, Wiggers T, Grossmann I, de Bock GH, Vermeulen KM. Cost-effectiveness of a carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) based follow-up programme for colorectal cancer (the CEA Watch trial). Colorectal Dis 2016;18:O91–6.Article PubMed
18. Rosati G, Ambrosini G, Barni S, Andreoni B, Corradini G, Luchena G, et al. A randomized trial of intensive versus minimal surveillance of patients with resected Dukes B2-C colorectal carcinoma. Ann Oncol 2016;27:274–80.Article PubMed PDF
19. Makela JT, Laitinen SO, Kairaluoma MI. Five-year follow-up after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 1995;130:1062–7.Article PubMed
20. Ohlsson B, Breland U, Ekberg H, Graffner H, Tranberg KG. Follow-up after curative surgery for colorectal carcinoma. Randomized comparison with no follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38:619–26.Article PubMed
21. Pietra N, Sarli L, Costi R, Ouchemi C, Grattarola M, Peracchia A. Role of follow-up in management of local recurrences of colorectal cancer: a prospective, randomized study. Dis Colon Rectum 1998;41:1127–33.Article PubMed
22. Shinkins B, Nicholson BD, Primrose J, Perera R, James T, Pugh S, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of a single CEA blood test in detecting colorectal cancer recurrence: Results from the FACS trial. PLoS One 2017;12:e0171810.Article PubMed PMC
23. Verberne CJ, Zhan Z, van den Heuvel ER, Oppers F, de Jong AM, Grossmann I, et al. Survival analysis of the CEAwatch multicentre clustered randomized trial. Br J Surg 2017;104:1069–77.Article PubMed
24. Nicholson BD, Shinkins B, Pathiraja I, Roberts NW, James TJ, Mallett S, et al. Blood CEA levels for detecting recurrent colorectal cancer. In: Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons; 2015.
25. Saito G, Sadahiro S, Kamata H, Miyakita H, Okada K, Tanaka A, et al. Monitoring of serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels after curative resection of colon cancer: cutoff values determined according to preoperative levels enhance the diagnostic accuracy for recurrence. Oncology 2017;92:276–82.Article PubMed PMC
26. Huang SC, Lin JK, Lin TC, Chen WS, Yang SH, Wang HS, et al. Concordance of carcinoembryonic antigen ratio and response evaluation criteria in solid tumors as prognostic surrogate indicators of metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2015;22:2262–8.Article PubMed PDF
27. Michl M, Koch J, Laubender RP, Modest DP, Giessen C, Schulz Ch, et al. Tumor markers CEA and CA 19-9 correlate with radiological imaging in metastatic colorectal cancer patients receiving first-line chemotherapy. Tumour Biol 2014;35:10121–7.Article PubMed PDF
28. Michl M, Stintzing S, Fischer von Weikersthal L, Decker T, Kiani A, Vehling-Kaiser U, et al. CEA response is associated with tumor response and survival in patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type and extended RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer receiving first-line FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab (FIRE-3 trial). Ann Oncol 2016;27:1565–72.Article PubMed PDF
29. Heinemann V, von Weikersthal LF, Decker T, Kiani A, VehlingKaiser U, Al-Batran SE, et al. FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, openlabel, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:1065–75.Article PubMed
30. Saito G, Sadahiro S, Okada K, Tanaka A, Suzuki T, Kamijo A. Relation between carcinoembryonic antigen levels in colon cancer tissue and serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels at initial surgery and recurrence. Oncology 2016;91:85–9.Article PubMed
31. Gray-Owen SD, Blumberg RS. CEACAM1: contact-dependent control of immunity. Nat Rev Immunol 2006;6:433–46.Article PubMed PDF
32. Lee JH, Hong SP, Jeon TJ, Kang GH, Choi WC, Jeon SM, et al. Should a colonoscopy be recommended for healthy individuals with increased carcinoembryonic antigen levels? A case-control study. Dig Dis Sci 2011;56:2396–403.Article PubMed PDF
33. Nielsen HJ, Brünner N, Jorgensen LN, Olsen J, Rahr HB, Thygesen K, et al. Plasma TIMP-1 and CEA in detection of primary colorectal cancer: a prospective, population based study of 4509 high-risk individuals. Scand J Gastroenterol 2011;46:60–9.Article PubMed
34. Wen YH, Chang PY, Hsu CM, Wang HY, Chiu CT, Lu JJ. Cancer screening through a multi-analyte serum biomarker panel during health check-up examinations: Results from a 12-year experience. Clin Chim Acta 2015;450:273–6.Article PubMed
35. Wild N, Andres H, Rollinger W, Krause F, Dilba P, Tacke M, et al. A combination of serum markers for the early detection of colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:6111–21.Article PubMed
36. Hammarström S. The carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) family: structures, suggested functions and expression in normal and malignant tissues. Semin Cancer Biol 1999;9:67–81.Article PubMed
37. Benchimol S, Fuks A, Jothy S, Beauchemin N, Shirota K, Stanners CP. Carcinoembryonic antigen, a human tumor marker, functions as an intercellular adhesion molecule. Cell 1989;57:327–34.Article PubMed
38. Yap BS, Yap HY, Fritsche HA, Blumenschein G, Bodey GP. CSF carcinoembryonic antigen in meningeal carcinomatosis from breast cancer. JAMA 1980;244:1601–3.Article PubMed
39. Herbeth B, Bagrel A. A study of factors influencing plasma CEA levels in an unselected population. Oncodev Biol Med 1980;1:191–8.PubMed
40. Beaudonnet A, Gounon G, Pichot J, Revenant MC. Sex- and agerelated influences on carcinoembryonic antigen in blood. Clin Chem 1981;27:771. Article PDF
41. van Nagell JR Jr, Donaldson ES, Hanson MB, Gay EC, Pavlik EJ. Biochemical markers in the plasma and tumors of patients with gynecologic malignancies. Cancer 1981;48(2 Suppl): 495–503.Article PubMed
42. Goldenberg DM, Neville AM, Carter AC, Go VL, Holyoke ED, Isselbacher KJ, et al. CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen): its role as a marker in the management of cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1981;101:239–42.Article PubMed PDF
43. Booth SN, Jamieson GC, King JP, Leonard J, Oates GD, Dykes PW. Carcinoembryonic antigen in management of colorectal carcinoma. Br Med J 1974;4:183–7.Article PubMed PMC
44. Arnaud JP, Koehl C, Adloff M. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in diagnosis and prognosis of colorectal carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 1980;23:141–4.Article PubMed
45. Szymendera JJ, Nowacki MP, Szawłowski AW, Kamińska JA. Predictive value of plasma CEA levels: preoperative prognosis and postoperative monitoring of patients with colorectal carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 1982;25:46–52.Article PubMed
46. Wanebo HJ, Rao B, Pinsky CM, Hoffman RG, Stearns M, Schwartz MK, et al. Preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen level as a prognostic indicator in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 1978;299:448–51.Article PubMed
47. 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.PubMed
48. Midiri G, Amanti C, Benedetti M, Campisi C, Santeusanio G, Castagna G, et al. CEA tissue staining in colorectal cancer patients. A way to improve the usefulness of serial serum CEA evaluation. Cancer 1985;55:2624–9.Article PubMed
49. Duffy MJ. Carcinoembryonic antigen as a marker for colorectal cancer: is it clinically useful? Clin Chem 2001;47:624–30.Article PubMed
50. Reiter W, Stieber P, Reuter C, Nagel D, Lau-Werner U, Lamerz R. Multivariate analysis of the prognostic value of CEA and CA 19-9 serum levels in colorectal cancer. Anticancer Res 2000;20(2D): 5195–8.PubMed
51. Diez M, Pollan M, Müguerza JM, Gaspar MJ, Duce AM, Alvarez MJ, et al. Time-dependency of the prognostic effect of carcinoembryonic antigen and p53 protein in colorectal adenocarcinoma. Cancer 2000;88:35–41.Article PubMed
52. Nissan A, Stojadinovic A, Shia J, Hoos A, Guillem JG, Klimstra D, et al. Predictors of recurrence in patients with T2 and early T3, N0 adenocarcinoma of the rectum treated by surgery alone. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4078–84.Article PubMed
53. Takagawa R, Fujii S, Ohta M, Nagano Y, Kunisaki C, Yamagishi S, et al. Preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen level as a predictive factor of recurrence after curative resection of colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15:3433–9.Article PubMed PDF
54. Kanellos I, Zacharakis E, Kanellos D, Pramateftakis MG, Tsahalis T, Altsitsiadis E, et al. Prognostic significance of CEA levels and detection of CEA mRNA in draining venous blood in patients with colorectal cancer. J Surg Oncol 2006;94:3–8.Article PubMed
55. Lin JK, Lin CC, Yang SH, Wang HS, Jiang JK, Lan YT, et al. Early postoperative CEA level is a better prognostic indicator than is preoperative CEA level in predicting prognosis of patients with curable colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 2011;26:1135–41.Article PubMed PDF
56. Lee WS, Baek JH, Kim KK, Park YH. The prognostic significant of percentage drop in serum CEA post curative resection for colon cancer. Surg Oncol 2012;21:45–51.Article PubMed
57. Oussoultzoglou E, Rosso E, Fuchshuber P, Stefanescu V, Diop B, Giraudo G, et al. Perioperative carcinoembryonic antigen measurements to predict curability after liver resection for colorectal metastases: a prospective study. Arch Surg 2008;143:1150–8.Article PubMed
58. Suarez J, Vera R, Balen E, Gomez M, Arias F, Lera JM, et al. Pathologic response assessed by Mandard grade is a better prognostic factor than down staging for disease-free survival after preoperative radiochemotherapy for advanced rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2008;10:563–8.Article PubMed
59. Park YA, Sohn SK, Seong J, Baik SH, Lee KY, Kim NK, et al. Serum CEA as a predictor for the response to preoperative chemoradiation in rectal cancer. J Surg Oncol 2006;93:145–50.Article PubMed
60. Perez RO, São Julião GP, Habr-Gama A, Kiss D, Proscurshim I, Campos FG, et al. The role of carcinoembriogenic antigen in predicting response and survival to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for distal rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2009;52:1137–43.Article PubMed
61. 1997 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer. Adopted on November 7, 1997 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:793–5.Article PubMed
62. Meyerhardt JA, Mangu PB, Flynn PJ, Korde L, Loprinzi CL, Minsky BD, et al. Follow-up care, surveillance protocol, and secondary prevention measures for survivors of colorectal cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:4465–70.Article PubMed
63. National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE). Colorectal cancer: diagnosis and management [Internet]. London, National Institute of Clinical Excellence; 2011 [2018 Nov 1]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg131
64. Yamamoto M, Maehara Y, Sakaguchi Y, Mine H, Yamanaka T, Korenaga D, et al. Distributions in CEA doubling time differ in patients with recurrent colorectal carcinomas. Hepatogastroenterology 2004;51:147–51.PubMed
65. Wood CB, Ratcliffe JG, Burt RW, Malcolm AJ, Blumgart LH. The clinical significance of the pattern of elevated serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels in recurrent colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 1980;67:46–8.Article PubMed
66. The Royal College of Phycisians; The The Royal College of Radiologists. Evidence-based Indications for the use of PET-CT in the UK 2013. London: Royal College of Phycisians; 2013.
67. Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, Siegel BA, Lowe VJ, Lyman GH, et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med 2008;49:480–508.Article PubMed
68. Stelzner S, Hellmich G, Koch R, Ludwig K. Factors predicting survival in stage IV colorectal carcinoma patients after palliative treatment: a multivariate analysis. J Surg Oncol 2005;89:211–7.Article PubMed
69. Sun LC, Chu KS, Cheng SC, Lu CY, Kuo CH, Hsieh JS, et al. Preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen, albumin and age are supplementary to UICC staging systems in predicting survival for colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgical treatment. BMC Cancer 2009;9:288. Article PubMed PMC PDF
70. Thirunavukarasu P, Talati C, Munjal S, Attwood K, Edge SB, Francescutti V. Effect of Incorporation of pretreatment serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels into AJCC staging for colon cancer on 5-year survival. JAMA Surg 2015;150:747. Article PubMed
71. Kim CG, Ahn JB, Jung M, Beom SH, Heo SJ, Kim JH, et al. Preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen level as a prognostic factor for recurrence and survival after curative resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2017;24:227–35.Article PubMed PDF
72. Makela JT, Laitinen SO, Kairaluoma MI. Five-year follow-up after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 1995;130:1062–7.Article PubMed

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

A fluorescent platform integrated with a “one-pot” nicking endonuclease signal amplification and magnetic separation for simultaneous detection of tumor markers
Miaomiao Liu, Lie Liu, Mengsi Du, Qilong Li, Shiqi Wu, Shengxiang Su, Ningge Jian, Yongjun Wu, Yilin Wang
Talanta.2025; 282: 127011. CrossRef
Determination of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) by surface plasmon resonance-enhanced total internal reflection ellipsometry (SPRe-TIRE)
Aslı Erkal-Aytemur, Samet Şahin, Zafer Üstündağ, İbrahim Ender Mülazımoğlu, Mustafa Oguzhan Caglayan
Instrumentation Science & Technology.2024; 52(2): 203. CrossRef
Peptide absent sequences emerging in human cancers
Georgios Christos Tsiatsianis, Candace S.Y. Chan, Ioannis Mouratidis, Nikol Chantzi, Anna Maria Tsiatsiani, Nelson S. Yee, Apostolos Zaravinos, Verena Kantere, Ilias Georgakopoulos-Soares
European Journal of Cancer.2024; 196: 113421. CrossRef
Electrochemical nanobiosensors for the detection of cancer biomarkers in real samples: Trends and challenges
Fethi Achi, Aisha M. Attar, Abdellatif Ait Lahcen
TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry.2024; 170: 117423. CrossRef
Biosensor-Based Nanodiagnosis of Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA): an Approach to Classification and Precise Detection of Cancer Biomarker
Maryam Hariri, Vahid Alivirdiloo, Nastaran Safavi Ardabili, Sarah Gholami, Sajjad Masoumi, Mohammad Reza Mehraban, Mahsa Alem, Reza Shah Hosseini, Ahmad Mobed, Farhood Ghazi, Iraj Alipourfard
BioNanoScience.2024; 14(1): 429. CrossRef
Circulating Tumour Cells in the Prediction of Bone Metastasis
Siu-Wai Choi, Aria Kaiyuan Sun, Jason Pui-Yin Cheung, Jemmi Ching-Ying Ho
Cancers.2024; 16(2): 252. CrossRef
Next-Generation CEA-CAR-NK-92 Cells against Solid Tumors: Overcoming Tumor Microenvironment Challenges in Colorectal Cancer
Alexander Sebastian Franzén, Abdelhadi Boulifa, Clarissa Radecke, Sebastian Stintzing, Martin J. Raftery, Gabriele Pecher
Cancers.2024; 16(2): 388. CrossRef
Normal CEA Levels After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Cytoreduction with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemoperfusion Predict Improved Survival from Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases
Michael M. Wach, Geoffrey Nunns, Ahmed Hamed, Joshua Derby, Mark Jelinek, Curtis Tatsuoka, Matthew P. Holtzman, Amer H. Zureikat, David L. Bartlett, Steven A. Ahrendt, James F. Pingpank, M. Haroon A. Choudry, Melanie Ongchin
Annals of Surgical Oncology.2024; 31(4): 2391. CrossRef
Electrochemically Synthesized MIP Sensors: Applications in Healthcare Diagnostics
Akinrinade George Ayankojo, Jekaterina Reut, Vitali Syritski
Biosensors.2024; 14(2): 71. CrossRef
Optical fiber sensing probe for detecting a carcinoembryonic antigen using a composite sensitive film of PAN nanofiber membrane and gold nanomembrane
Jinze Li, Xin Liu, Hao Sun, Jiawei Xi, Chen Chang, Li Deng, Yanxin Yang, Xiang Li
Optics Express.2024; 32(11): 20024. CrossRef
DNAzyme-based ultrasensitive immunoassay: Recent advances and emerging trends
Meng Wang, Zhe Liu, Chang Liu, Wanghong He, Dui Qin, Minli You
Biosensors and Bioelectronics.2024; 251: 116122. CrossRef
Predictive modeling algorithms for liver metastasis in colorectal cancer: A systematic review of the current literature
Isaac Seow-En, Ye Xin Koh, Yun Zhao, Boon Hwee Ang, Ivan En-Howe Tan, Aik Yong Chok, Emile John Kwong Wei Tan, Marianne Kit Har Au
Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery.2024; 28(1): 14. CrossRef
Realizing the label-free sensitive detection of carcinoembryogenic antigen (CEA) in blood serum via a MNC-decorated flexible immunosensor
Daisy Mehta, Sukhjot Kaur, Tharamani C. Nagaiah
Analytical Methods.2024; 16(10): 1473. CrossRef
Postbiotic butyrate: role and its effects for being a potential drug and biomarker to pancreatic cancer
Abinaya Elango, Vineeta Debbie Nesam, Padmaja Sukumar, Infancia Lawrence, Arunkumar Radhakrishnan
Archives of Microbiology.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Classifying Raman Spectra of Colon Cells Based on Machine Learning Algorithms
Maria Lasalvia, Crescenzio Gallo, Vito Capozzi, Giuseppe Perna
Photonics.2024; 11(3): 275. CrossRef
Electrochemical immunosensing of tumor markers
Venkata Narayana Palakollu, Y. Veera Manohara Reddy, Mehdihasan I. Shekh, S.V. Prabhakar Vattikuti, Jaesool Shim, Rajshekhar Karpoormath
Clinica Chimica Acta.2024; 557: 117882. CrossRef
Improving CEA detection Sensitivity: Carboxyfluorescein-Loaded liposomes in aptamer sandwich assay
Mohamed Aimene Benariba, Kanza Hannachi, Yuting Zhang, Xiaoli Wang, Nandi Zhou
Microchemical Journal.2024; 200: 110463. CrossRef
Targeted Biodegradable Near-Infrared Fluorescent Nanoparticles for Colorectal Cancer Imaging
Seock-Jin Chung, Kay Hadrick, Md Nafiujjaman, Ehsanul Hoque Apu, Meghan L. Hill, Md Nurunnabi, Christopher H. Contag, Taeho Kim
ACS Applied Bio Materials.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Use of tumor markers in distinguishing lung adenocarcinoma-associated malignant pleural effusion from tuberculous pleural effusion
Ling Ai, Wenjun Wang, Jingyuan Li, Ting Ye, Yuying Li
The American Journal of the Medical Sciences.2024; 368(2): 136. CrossRef
Carcinoembryonic antigen in the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of focal liver lesions
Osman Nuri Dilek, Dilara İrem Arslan Kahraman, Gökhan Kahraman
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.2024; 16(4): 999. CrossRef
Complex Presentation of Lung Cancer with Obstructive Jaundice
Ruxandra Oprita, Bogdan Oprita, Ioana Adriana Serban, Lidia Aurelia Stefan, Ciprian Mihai Neacsu, Alice Elena Diaconu, Valentin Enache
Reports.2024; 7(2): 30. CrossRef
A simplified lateral flow immunosensor for the assay of carcinoembryonic antigen in low-resource settings
Ioanna Tsogka, Electra Mermiga, Varvara Pagkali, Christos Kokkinos, Anastasios Economou
Analytical Methods.2024; 16(18): 2921. CrossRef
Relevance of glyco-biomakers and glycan profiles in cancer stem cells
Rohit Pujari, Shiv Kumar Dubey
Glycobiology.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Prognostic prediction model of colorectal cancer based on preoperative serum tumor markers
Yu-Hang Diao, Si-Qi Rao, Xin-Peng Shu, Yong Cheng, Can Tan, Li-Juan Wang, Dong Peng
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.2024; 16(5): 1344. CrossRef
Label-free electrochemical biosensor based on dual amplification of gold nanoparticles and polycaprolactones for CEA detection
Xia Wang, Zhe Qin, Fei Zhang, Chong Li, Xianxian Yuan, Jing Yang, Huaixia Yang
Talanta.2024; 278: 126468. CrossRef
Biotin-functionalized nanoparticles: an overview of recent trends in cancer detection
Sonia Fathi-karkan, Saman Sargazi, Shirin Shojaei, Bahareh Farasati Far, Shekoufeh Mirinejad, Marco Cordani, Arezoo Khosravi, Ali Zarrabi, Saeid Ghavami
Nanoscale.2024; 16(27): 12750. CrossRef
Mortality rate and predictors of colorectal cancer patients in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Zewdu Bishaw Aynalem, Abebaw Bires Adal, Temesgien Fentahun Ayele, Gashaw Melkie Bayeh, Almaw Genet Yeshiwas, Tadesse Miretie Dessie, Tilahun Degu Tsega
BMC Cancer.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Opto-electrochemical transducers for molecular sensing utilizing nanozyme-based sensing technologies
Indrani Nandi, Vinay Patel, Rohit Srivastava, Pranjal Chandra
Microchemical Journal.2024; 205: 111360. CrossRef
Five-Segment THz Refractive Index Metamaterial Biosensor With Perfect Absorption for Carcinoembryonic Antigen Measurement
Hamid Bahador
IEEE Sensors Journal.2024; 24(16): 25715. CrossRef
Near-infrared light-enhanced colorimetric signal amplification strategy for tumor marker detection based on MoS2/CuO/Au nanocomposite
Jiawang Xiang, Bing Zhang, Yuan Yuan, Zhihuan Zhao, Jianying Lin, Jing Li
Microchimica Acta.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Development and validation of a novel combinational index of liquid biopsy biomarker for longitudinal lung cancer patient management
Min-Yi Liao, Yun-Jie Hao, Ching-Shan Luo, Ching-Mei Chen, Po-Hao Feng, Hsin-Yu Yang, Da-Jeng Yao, Kang-Yun Lee, Fan-Gang Tseng
The Journal of Liquid Biopsy.2024; : 100167. CrossRef
The AC010247.2/miR-125b-5p axis triggers the malignant progression of acute myelocytic leukemia by IL-6R
Fang Xie, Jialu Xu, Lina Yan, Xia Xiao, Liang Liu
Heliyon.2024; 10(18): e37715. CrossRef
Biofilm mediated integrin activation and directing acceleration of colorectal cancer
Vaijayanthi Saravanan, Vinoj Gopalakrishnan, Maria Infant Majula Shifani Mahendran, Rajan Vaithianathan, Sowmya Srinivasan, Vinoth Boopathy, SriKrishna Krishnamurthy
APMIS.2024; 132(10): 688. CrossRef
Comparison of the clinical efficacy of dienogest and drospirone/ethinyl estradiol in the treatment of ovarian endometriosis cysts
Qian Xiao, Liwei Hong, Chun Li, Sijie Hong, Yunsong Li, Dingding Yu, Hongli Liu
Journal of Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Disorders.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Recent advances in surface plasmon resonance for the detection of ovarian cancer biomarkers: a thorough review
Shahnam Valizadeh Shahbazlou, Somayeh Vandghanooni, Bahareh Dabirmanesh, Morteza Eskandani, Sadegh Hasannia
Microchimica Acta.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Expression of regulatory T cells in driver-gene-negative advanced non-small cell lung cancer as well as its effect on the therapeutic efficacy and prognosis of immune checkpoint inhibitors
Y. Chen, S. Chen, Y. Li, X. Guo, Q. Liang, L. Yang, C. Lei
International Journal of Radiation Research.2024; 22(2): 455. CrossRef
Glycosylation in cancer as a source of biomarkers
Sara Khorami-Sarvestani, Samir M. Hanash, Johannes F. Fahrmann, Ricardo A. León-Letelier, Hiroyuki Katayama
Expert Review of Proteomics.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Diagnostic value of joint detection of serum tumor markers in different pathological types of lung cancer
W. Liu, D. Zang
International Journal of Radiation Research.2024; 22(2): 315. CrossRef
Serum cytokines in astrocytic brain tumors: a prospective study
Tariq Ansari, Gautam Dutta, Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Anita Jagetia, Daljit Singh, Hukum Singh, Rohit Bharti, Anand Prakash, Anil Kumar
British Journal of Neurosurgery.2023; 37(1): 35. CrossRef
Recent advancement in sensitive detection of carcinoembryonic antigen using nanomaterials based immunosensors
Bazilah Awang Abd Manaf, Shyang Pei Hong, Mohammad Rizwan, Fareeha Arshad, Christopher Gwenin, Minhaz Uddin Ahmed
Surfaces and Interfaces.2023; 36: 102596. CrossRef
A nomogram diagnostic prediction model of pancreatic metastases of small cell lung carcinoma based on clinical characteristics, radiological features and biomarkers
Jian-Xia Xu, Jin-Bao Hu, Xiao-Yan Yang, Na Feng, Xiao-Shan Huang, Xiao-Zhong Zheng, Qin-Pan Rao, Yu-Guo Wei, Ri-Sheng Yu
Frontiers in Oncology.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
The hidden potential of glycomarkers: Glycosylation studies in the service of cancer diagnosis and treatment
Karolina Grzesik, Marcelina Janik, Dorota Hoja-Łukowicz
Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Reviews on Cancer.2023; 1878(3): 188889. CrossRef
Transient Changes in Serum CEA, CA19-9, CRP, YKL-40, and IL-6 during Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Survival of Patients with Colorectal Cancer
Kaisa Lehtomäki, Eetu Heervä, Pirkko-Liisa Kellokumpu-Lehtinen, Harri Mustonen, Tapio Salminen, Heikki Joensuu, Kethe Hermunen, Mogens Karsbøl Boisen, Julia Sidenius Johansen, Caj Haglund, Pia Osterlund
International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2023; 24(7): 6753. CrossRef
Unexplained increase of serum carcinoembryonic antigen: don’t forget the thyroid!
Filipe Miguel Montes de Jesus, Luca Giovanella
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM).2023; 61(10): e203. CrossRef
The Clinical Significance of Serum Free Light Chains in Bladder Cancer
Monika Gudowska-Sawczuk, Jacek Kudelski, Michał Olkowicz, Grzegorz Młynarczyk, Piotr Chłosta, Barbara Mroczko
Journal of Clinical Medicine.2023; 12(9): 3294. CrossRef
Target selection and clinical chimeric antigen receptor T cell activity against solid tumors
Eric von Hofe, Yanping Yang, Moonsoo M. Jin
iLABMED.2023; 1(1): 29. CrossRef
Sequence of colorectal and liver resection in patients with surgically-treatable stage IV colorectal cancer
Calista Harbaugh, Aneel Damle
Seminars in Colon and Rectal Surgery.2023; 34(3): 100969. CrossRef
CXC ELR-Positive Chemokines as Diagnostic and Prognostic Markers for Breast Cancer Patients
Joanna Motyka, Aleksandra Kicman, Monika Kulesza, Sławomir Ławicki
Cancers.2023; 15(12): 3118. CrossRef
Impedimetric aptasensor based on MOF based composite for measuring of carcinoembryonic antigen as a tumor biomarker
Ping He, Qiang Zhang, Qiwei Liu
Chemosphere.2023; 338: 139339. CrossRef
Two-dimensional substrate assisted SERS immunosensor for accurate detection of carcinoembryonic antigen
Dechan Lu, Cairou Chen, PeiPei Xu, Ruiyun You, Zhenzhen Lu, Yudong Lu
Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy.2023; 302: 123142. CrossRef
The Significance of CXCL1 and CXCR1 as Potential Biomarkers of Colorectal Cancer
Marta Łukaszewicz-Zając, Monika Zajkowska, Sara Pączek, Agnieszka Kulczyńska-Przybik, Kamil Safiejko, Marcin Juchimiuk, Leszek Kozłowski, Barbara Mroczko
Biomedicines.2023; 11(7): 1933. CrossRef
New luminescent hydrophilic iridium(III) nanoflower at low potential for electrochemiluminescence immunosensing
Li Song, Guangrong Kuang, Gui Zhang, Jiang Guo, Yingzi Fu
Chemical Engineering Journal.2023; 472: 144923. CrossRef
MOF-Based Biosensors for the Detection of Carcinoembryonic Antigen: A Concise Review
May R. Ibrahim, Yaser E. Greish
Molecules.2023; 28(16): 5970. CrossRef
Proteomics-Driven Biomarkers in Pancreatic Cancer
Luís Ramalhete, Emanuel Vigia, Rúben Araújo, Hugo Pinto Marques
Proteomes.2023; 11(3): 24. CrossRef
Clinicopathologic Significance of Heat Shock Protein 60 as a Survival Predictor in Colorectal Cancer
Myunghee Kang, Soyeon Jeong, Jungsuk An, Sungjin Park, Seungyoon Nam, Kwang An Kwon, Debashis Sahoo, Pradipta Ghosh, Jung Ho Kim
Cancers.2023; 15(16): 4052. CrossRef
Colorimetric immunoassay of carcinoembryonic antigen based on the glucose oxidase/MnO2 nanosheet cascade reaction with self-supplying oxygen
Yuanzhi Yao, Jinhong Wang, Ziqi Wang, Shenghua Li, Hongliang Tan
Analytical Methods.2023; 15(40): 5351. CrossRef
Combined effect of serum carcinoembryonic antigen and hepatic steatosis on new-onset ischemic heart disease among middle-aged and older Korean adults: a cohort study
Ji Won Kwak, Yong Jae Lee, Byoungjin Park, Dong Hyuk Jung
Frontiers in Nutrition.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Digestive cancer surgery in low-mid income countries: analysis of postoperative mortality and complications in a single-center study
Hamza Sekkat, Hassan Agouzoul, Zineb Loudyi, Jaouad Naddouri, Jihane El Hamzaoui, Samira El Fakir, Mohammed Omari, Youness Bakali, Mouna Mhamdi Alaoui, Mohammed Raiss, Abdelmalek Hrora, Farid Sabbah
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Exploring the Role of Biomarkers Associated with Alveolar Damage and Dysfunction in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis—A Systematic Review
Alexandra-Simona Zamfir, Mihai Lucian Zabara, Raluca Ioana Arcana, Tudor Andrei Cernomaz, Andreea Zabara-Antal, Marius Traian Dragoș Marcu, Antigona Trofor, Carmen Lăcrămioara Zamfir, Radu Crișan-Dabija
Journal of Personalized Medicine.2023; 13(11): 1607. CrossRef
CEA vaccines
Anchit Bhagat, Herbert K. Lyerly, Michael A. Morse, Zachary C. Hartman
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Biomarkers in Cancer Detection, Diagnosis, and Prognosis
Sreyashi Das, Mohan Kumar Dey, Ram Devireddy, Manas Ranjan Gartia
Sensors.2023; 24(1): 37. CrossRef
Disparities in post-operative surveillance testing for metastatic recurrence among colorectal cancer survivors
Janeth I. Sanchez, Veena Shankaran, Joseph M. Unger, Margaret M. Madeleine, Noah Espinoza, Beti Thompson
Journal of Cancer Survivorship.2022; 16(3): 638. CrossRef
T‐cell surface generation of dual bivalent, bispecific T‐cell engaging, RNA duplex cross‐linked antibodies (dbBiTERs) for re‐directed tumor cell lysis
Maciej Kujawski, Lin Li, Harry Li, Paul J. Yazaki, Piotr Swiderski, John E. Shively
Biotechnology Journal.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Application of Proteomics in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Biomarker Investigations: A Review
Christina Jane Vellan, Jaime Jacqueline Jayapalan, Boon-Koon Yoong, Azlina Abdul-Aziz, Sarni Mat-Junit, Perumal Subramanian
International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2022; 23(4): 2093. CrossRef
Biomarkers and Genetic Markers of Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Cholangiocarcinoma—What Do We Already Know
Jacek Baj, Łukasz Bryliński, Filip Woliński, Michał Granat, Katarzyna Kostelecka, Piotr Duda, Jolanta Flieger, Grzegorz Teresiński, Grzegorz Buszewicz, Marzena Furtak-Niczyporuk, Piero Portincasa
Cancers.2022; 14(6): 1493. CrossRef
Preparation of a disposable electrochemiluminescence sensor chip based on an MXene-loaded ruthenium luminescent agent and its application in the detection of carcinoembryonic antigens
Weiwei Luo, Zhuoxin Ye, Pinyi Ma, Qiong Wu, Daqian Song
The Analyst.2022; 147(9): 1986. CrossRef
Circulating Nucleic Acids as Novel Biomarkers for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma
Ryan McGowan, Áine Sally, Anthony McCabe, Brian Michael Moran, Karen Finn
Cancers.2022; 14(8): 2027. CrossRef
Recent Advances in Nanomaterial‐based Optical Biosensors as Potential Point‐of‐Care Testing (PoCT) Probes in Carcinoembryonic Antigen Detection
Siew Suan Ng, Hooi Ling Lee, Pandian Bothi Raja, Ruey‐an Doong
Chemistry – An Asian Journal.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Carbon Material Hybrid Construction on an Aptasensor for Monitoring Surgical Tumors
Renyuan Ma, Subash C. B. Gopinath, Thangavel Lakshmipriya, Yeng Chen, Larisa Lvova
Journal of Analytical Methods in Chemistry.2022; 2022: 1. CrossRef
CEA-regulated Oncolytic Virus Anticancer Therapy: A Promising Strategy for Rare Solid Tumors
Yuqi Yang, Shuhang Wang, Peiwen Ma, Qiyu Tang, Yandong Li, Yuan Fang, Qi Zhu, Wei Tao, Yan Zha, Ning Li
Current Cancer Drug Targets.2022; 22(2): 126. CrossRef
Nomogram for Predicting Occult Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Before Surgery
Zhixin Huang, Zhinuan Hong, Ling Chen, Mingqiang Kang
Frontiers in Surgery.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Predicting the benefit of stereotactic body radiotherapy of colorectal cancer metastases
Sara Lindberg, Eva Onjukka, Peter Wersäll, Caroline Staff, Rolf Lewensohn, Giuseppe Masucci, Karin Lindberg
Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology.2022; 36: 91. CrossRef
Prognostic Value of Carcinoembryonic Antigen Changes Before and After Operation for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Zhinuan Hong, Zhixin Huang, Zhen Chen, Mingqiang Kang
World Journal of Surgery.2022; 46(11): 2725. CrossRef
Toxic metals in cement induced hematological and DNA damage as well as carcinogenesis in occupationally-Exposed block-factory workers in Lagos, Nigeria
Tajudeen Yahaya, Esther Oladele, Titilola Salisu, Esther Orji, Zafira Zakari, Umar Usman Liman, Clement Boniface Gomo, Mustapha Abdullahi
Egyptian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences.2022; 9(1): 499. CrossRef
Identification of a Five-MiRNA Expression Assay to Aid Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis
Matthew G. Davey, Gerard Feeney, Heidi Annuk, Maxwell Paganga, Emma Holian, Aoife J. Lowery, Michael J. Kerin, Nicola Miller
Gastrointestinal Disorders.2022; 4(3): 190. CrossRef
Label-Free Immunosensor Based on Polyaniline-Loaded MXene and Gold-Decorated β-Cyclodextrin for Efficient Detection of Carcinoembryonic Antigen
Qi Wang, Huaqian Xin, Zhou Wang
Biosensors.2022; 12(8): 657. CrossRef
The tumor microenvironment of hepatocellular carcinoma and its targeting strategy by CAR-T cell immunotherapy
Zhang Guizhen, Ji Guanchang, Liu Liwen, Wang Huifen, Ren Zhigang, Sun Ranran, Yu Zujiang
Frontiers in Endocrinology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Increased Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) Level Is Highly Associated with Low Skeletal Muscle Mass in Asymptomatic Adults: A Population-Based Study
Chul-Hyun Park, Antonio Diaz Lizarraga, Yong-Taek Lee, Kyung-Jae Yoon, Tae-Kyung Yoo
Journal of Clinical Medicine.2022; 11(17): 5009. CrossRef
Preoperative albumin–bilirubin score as a prognostic indicator in patients with stage III colon cancer
Hyun Gu Lee, Seok-Byung Lim, Jong Lyul Lee, Chan Wook Kim, Yong Sik Yoon, In Ja Park, Jin Cheon Kim
Scientific Reports.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
A Novel, Quick, and Reliable Smartphone-Based Method for Serum PSA Quantification: Original Design of a Portable Microfluidic Immunosensor-Based System
Francisco Gabriel Ortega, Germán E. Gómez, Coral González-Martinez, Teresa Valero, José Expósito-Hernández, Ignacio Puche, Alba Rodriguez-Martinez, María José Serrano, José Antonio Lorente, Martín A. Fernández-Baldo
Cancers.2022; 14(18): 4483. CrossRef
Microfluidics‐Based Urine Biopsy for Cancer Diagnosis: Recent Advances and Future Trends
Yanping Wang, Yanfeng Gao, Yujun Song
ChemMedChem.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Combined hepatocellular carcinoma-cholangiocarcinoma with a predominant HCC component: better survival and MRI-based prediction
Yuyao Xiao, Xinde Zheng, Changwu Zhou, Peng Huang, Fei Wu, Chun Yang, Mengsu Zeng
European Radiology.2022; 33(2): 1412. CrossRef
The recent advancements in the early detection of cancer biomarkers by DNAzyme-assisted aptasensors
Hossein Kamali, Shiva Golmohammadzadeh, Hamed Zare, Rahim Nosrati, Mohammad Fereidouni, Hossein Safarpour
Journal of Nanobiotechnology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
The Indicative Value of Serum Tumor Markers for Metastasis and Stage of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Chunyang Jiang, Mengyao Zhao, Shaohui Hou, Xiaoli Hu, Jinchao Huang, Hongci Wang, Changhao Ren, Xiaoying Pan, Ti Zhang, Shengnan Wu, Shun Zhang, Bingsheng Sun
Cancers.2022; 14(20): 5064. CrossRef
Immunometabolic profiling of cervicovaginal lavages identifies key signatures associated with adenomyosis
Georgia M. Lorentzen, Paweł Łaniewski, Haiyan Cui, Denise J. Roe, Jamal Mourad, Nichole D. Mahnert, Leslie V. Farland, Melissa M. Herbst-Kralovetz
iScience.2022; 25(12): 105508. CrossRef
Detection of circulating KRAS mutant DNA in extracellular vesicles using droplet digital PCR in patients with colon cancer
Jeesoo Choi, Ho Yeon Cho, Jeongseok Jeon, Kyung-A Kim, Yoon Dae Han, Joong Bae Ahn, Inbal Wortzel, David Lyden, Han Sang Kim
Frontiers in Oncology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Old and New Blood Markers in Human Colorectal Cancer
Jean-Luc Wautier, Marie-Paule Wautier
International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2022; 23(21): 12968. CrossRef
Adnexal masses in patients with colorectal cancer
Utku Akgor, Oguzhan Kuru, Burcu Soyak, Ali Can Gunes, Esra Uyanık, Murat Gultekin, Nejat Ozgul, Coskun Salman
Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction.2021; 50(5): 101898. CrossRef
Identifying Novel Biomarkers Ready for Evaluation in Low-Prevalence Populations for the Early Detection of Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Systematic Review
Natalia Calanzani, Paige E. Druce, Claudia Snudden, Kristi M. Milley, Rachel Boscott, Dawnya Behiyat, Smiji Saji, Javiera Martinez-Gutierrez, Jasmeen Oberoi, Garth Funston, Mike Messenger, Jon Emery, Fiona M. Walter
Advances in Therapy.2021; 38(2): 793. CrossRef
Prognostic value of carcinoembryonic antigen levels before and after curative surgery in colon cancer patients
Hyun Ryung Kim, Jeong Il Joo, Sang Woo Lim, Bo Young Oh
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research.2021; 100(1): 33. CrossRef
Site-Specific N-Linked Glycosylation Analysis of Human Carcinoembryonic Antigen by Sheathless Capillary Electrophoresis–Tandem Mass Spectrometry
Laura Pont, Valeriia Kuzyk, Fernando Benavente, Victoria Sanz-Nebot, Oleg A. Mayboroda, Manfred Wuhrer, Guinevere S. M. Lageveen-Kammeijer
Journal of Proteome Research.2021; 20(3): 1666. CrossRef
A two-tiered targeted proteomics approach to identify pre-diagnostic biomarkers of colorectal cancer risk
Sophia Harlid, Justin Harbs, Robin Myte, Carl Brunius, Marc J. Gunter, Richard Palmqvist, Xijia Liu, Bethany Van Guelpen
Scientific Reports.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
The Roadmap of Colorectal Cancer Screening
Enea Ferlizza, Rossella Solmi, Michela Sgarzi, Luigi Ricciardiello, Mattia Lauriola
Cancers.2021; 13(5): 1101. CrossRef
Optimizing the diagnosis and management of ductal prostate cancer
Weranja Ranasinghe, Daniel D. Shapiro, Miao Zhang, Tharakeswara Bathala, Nora Navone, Timothy C. Thompson, Bradley Broom, Ana Aparicio, Shi-Ming Tu, Chad Tang, John W. Davis, Louis Pisters, Brian F. Chapin
Nature Reviews Urology.2021; 18(6): 337. CrossRef
Identifying Novel Biomarkers Ready for Evaluation in Low-Prevalence Populations for the Early Detection of Lower Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Paige Druce, Natalia Calanzani, Claudia Snudden, Kristi Milley, Rachel Boscott, Dawnya Behiyat, Javiera Martinez-Gutierrez, Smiji Saji, Jasmeen Oberoi, Garth Funston, Mike Messenger, Fiona M. Walter, Jon Emery
Advances in Therapy.2021; 38(6): 3032. CrossRef
Metachronous pulmonary and pancreatic metastases arising from sigmoid colon cancer: A case report
Jian Yang, Yu-Chen Tang, Ni Yin, Wei Liu, Zhi-Fei Cao, Xi Li, Xiao Zou, Zi-Xiang Zhang, Jian Zhou
World Journal of Clinical Cases.2021; 9(15): 3668. CrossRef
Biomarkers in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: Are we closer to finding the golden ticket?
Robert S O'Neill, Alina Stoita
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2021; 27(26): 4045. CrossRef
Unique structural features of the adenylate kinase hCINAP/AK6 and its multifaceted functions in carcinogenesis and tumor progression
Ruidan Xu, Yongfeng Yang, Xiaofeng Zheng
FEBS Letters.2021; 595(16): 2071. CrossRef
Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Caused Upshifting in Colorectal Cancer Stage?
Ji Ha Lim, Woo Yong Lee, Seong Hyeon Yun, Hee Cheol Kim, Yong Beom Cho, Jung Wook Huh, Yoon Ah Park, Jung Kyong Shin
Annals of Coloproctology.2021; 37(4): 253. CrossRef
SERS liquid biopsy: An emerging tool for medical diagnosis
Vlad Moisoiu, Stefania D. Iancu, Andrei Stefancu, Tudor Moisoiu, Barbara Pardini, Mihnea P. Dragomir, Nicolae Crisan, Lucretia Avram, Dana Crisan, Iulia Andras, Daniela Fodor, Loredana F. Leopold, Carmen Socaciu, Zoltán Bálint, Ciprian Tomuleasa, Florin E
Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces.2021; 208: 112064. CrossRef
Risk-Predictive and Diagnostic Biomarkers for Colorectal Cancer; a Systematic Review of Studies Using Pre-Diagnostic Blood Samples Collected in Prospective Cohorts and Screening Settings
Sophia Harlid, Marc J. Gunter, Bethany Van Guelpen
Cancers.2021; 13(17): 4406. CrossRef
The Level of Preoperative Plasma KRAS Mutations and CEA Predict Survival of Patients Undergoing Surgery for Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases
Jiri Polivka, Jindra Windrichova, Martin Pesta, Katerina Houfkova, Hana Rezackova, Tereza Macanova, Ondrej Vycital, Radek Kucera, David Slouka, Ondrej Topolcan
Cancers.2020; 12(9): 2434. CrossRef
Thionine-doped nanometer-sized silica conjugated with phenylboronic acid: An innovative recognition/signal element for voltammetric aptasensing of colorectal cancer-related carcinoembryonic antigen
Liangjie Chi, Chao Xu, Shuyuan Li, Xiangyu Wang, Dianping Tang, Fangqin Xue
Analytica Chimica Acta.2020; 1136: 91. CrossRef
Molecularly Imprinted Polymers in Biological Applications
Zahra El-Schich, Yuecheng Zhang, Marek Feith, Sarah Beyer, Louise Sternbæk, Lars Ohlsson, Maria Stollenwerk, Anette Gjörloff Wingren
BioTechniques.2020; 69(6): 407. CrossRef
Predictive Value of Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Symptomatic Patients without Colorectal Cancer: A Post-Hoc Analysis within the COLONPREDICT Cohort
Noel Pin-Vieito, María José Iglesias, David Remedios, Victoria Álvarez-Sánchez, Fernando Fernández-Bañares, Jaume Boadas, Eva Martínez-Bauer, Rafael Campo, Luis Bujanda, Ángel Ferrández, Virginia Piñol, Daniel Rodríguez-Alcalde, Martín Menéndez-Rodríguez,
Diagnostics.2020; 10(12): 1036. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite this Article

Cite this Article: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

A Review of the Role of Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Clinical Practice

Ann Coloproctol. 2019;35(6):294-305. Published online December 31, 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2019.11.13

XML Download

Figure

A Review of the Role of Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Clinical Practice

Fig. 1. Identification, screening, and selection of papers for inclusion. CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.

Fig. 2. Algorithm 1: Investigation pathway for a patient with a raised carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) with a previous history of a CEA-expressing cancer. aOrgan-specific investigations: tumor markers, CT scan, colonoscopy, gastroscopy, mammography, cystoscopy, Ultrasound Scan (US), bone scan, biopsy, other test as required. PET/CT, positron emission tomography-computed tomography.

Fig. 3. Algorithm 2: Investigation pathway for a patient with a de novo raised carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). aOrgan-specific investigations: tumor markers, CT scan, colonoscopy, gastroscopy, mammography, cystoscopy, US, bone scan, biopsy, other test as required. Clinical review includes: a full history and examination of the thyroid, breast, thorax, abdomen and pelvis, visual field testing, fundoscopy, long bones examination. Look for melanoma. In females, cervical examination. In males, a prostate examination. PET/CT, positron emission tomography-computed tomography.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

A Review of the Role of Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Clinical Practice

Author	Year	Origin	Study type	Study summary	Endpoint	No. of patients	Age (yr)^a	Sex ratio (%male)	Outcome summary
Stelzner [68]	2005	Germany	Cohort (retrospective database)	Database review for predictors of survival in colorectal cancer	Overall survival in stage IV colorectal cancer	186	68.6 (range, 30–92)	54.3	Preop CEA ≥ 5 ng/mL associated with decreased overall survival in stage IV disease.
Katoh [6]	2008	Japan	Cohort (retrospective database)	Review of preop CEA levels in Dukes C patients	Survival	Retrospective: 237; prospective: 197	54.4% ≥ 60 in retrospective; 63.5% ≥ 60 in prospective	Retrospective: 59.1; prospective: 57.4	CEA ≤ 2.5 ng/mL was a predictor of disease-free survival in Dukes C in earlier cohort. Association lost in later cohort, possibly due to improved chemotherapy.
Kim [7]	2009	Korea	Cohort (retrospective data base)	Postoperative analysis of CEA preop and day 7 and 30-day post op	Survival	122	57.56 ± 12.24	62.3	Significant decrease in survival if CEA levels remain elevated in postop period.
Sun [69]	2009	Taiwan	Cohort (retrospective data base)	Retrospective review of potential prognostic markers	Disease-free and overall survival	1,367	66 (IQR, 19-25)	55.4	Preop CEA ≥ 5 ng/mL 2.38x more likely to die of cancer than those with CEA ≤5 ng/mL (P ≤ 0.001)
Thirunavukarasu [70]	2015	USA	Cohort (retrospective SEER database)	Review of preop CEA levels	5-Year overall and disease-specific mortality	16,619	67.4 ± 13.8	49.7	Elevated CEA was associated with worse overall and disease-specific mortality
Becerra [3]	2016	USA	Cohort (retrospective data base)	Review of preop CEA levels in Stage I-III CRC	Overall survival	69,512	Normal CEA: 69.1 ± 13.0; elevated CEA: 70.3 ± 12.9	Normal CEA: 49.0; elevated CEA: 43.7	Preop CEA level is associated with overall survival
Ozawa [4]	2017	Japan	Cohort (retrospective National Cancer Database)	Review of preop CEA levels	5-Year disease-free survival	7,296	65.3 ± 11.2	54.4	Preop CEA level is independently associated with 5-year disease-free survival
Spindler [5]	2017	USA	Cohort (retrospective National Cancer Database)	Review of preop CEA levels in Stage II CRC	5-Year overall survival	74,945	Normal CEA: 70 (IQR, 59-79); elevated CEA 72 (IQR, 6081)	Normal CEA: 49.3 Elevated CEA: 43.4	Preop elevated CEA is associated with reduced 5-year overall survival
Kim [71]	2017	Korea	Retrospective and prospective cohort	To determine cutoff values for preop CEA in Stage III CRC	5-Year overall and disease-free survival	Retrospective cohort: 965; prospective cohort: 268	Retrospective: 60 (range, 14-84); prospective: 60 (range, 27-80)	Retrospective: 53.9 Prospective: 48.9	A cutoff value of 3 ng/mL is optimal. Preoperative CEA above this level is associated with inferior overall and disease-free survival.

Author	Year	Origin	Study type	Study summary	Endpoint	No. of patients	Age (yr), median (range)	Sex ratio (%male)
Treasure [12]	1984 (published in full 2014)	UK	RCT	티evated CEA prompted randomization to either continued monitoring (conventional arm) or laparotomy (aggressive)	Survival	216	Conventional: 62 (35-75); aggressive: 64 (33-75)	Conventional: 63; aggressive: 56
Makela [72]	1995	Finland	RCT	Intensive vs. conventional follow-up	Recurrence	106	Conventional: 69 (33-85); intensive: 63 (33-81)	Conventional: 50; intensive: 48
Ohlsson [20]	1995	Sweden	RCT	No follow-up vs. intensive follow-up	Recurrence	107	-	47.7
Pietra [21]	1998	Italy	RCT	Conventional or intense follow-up	Recurrence	207	-	-
Primrose [15]	2014	UK	RCT	Intensive vs. minimal follow-up 3 different intensive groups	Detection and curative treatment of recurrence	1,202	CT: 69 (62-76); CEA: 69 (6375); CT & CEA: 70 (64-76); minimal: 70 (63-75)	CT: 61.2; CEA: 61.3; CT & CEA: 61.3; minimal: 61.3
Verberne [16]	2015	Netherlands	RCT (stepped wedge)	Standard vs. intensive follow-up	CRC recurrence	3,223	70 (26-95)	56
Wille-Jørgensen [13]	On-going trial	Europe	Multicenter randomized controlled trial	Intensive vs. nonintensive follow-up	CRC recurrence and mortality	-	-	-
Lepage [14]	On-going trial	France	Multicenter randomized controlled trial	Standard vs. intensive follow-up	5-year overall survival	-	-	-

Trial	Type of regimen	Time to first recurrence (mo)	Proportion of recurrences	Overall 5-year survival	Outcome summary
Treasure (CEASL) [12]	All patients had clinical review 3/12 for 2 years and 6/12 for the next 3 years. CEA was measured monthly for the first 3 years and 3/12 for the next 2 years.	Median time from primary surgery to CEA increases and randomization was 403 days (range, 103–1,754)	Conventional: 82%; aggressive: 77%	Not reported. End of trial figures below	Second look laparotomy in the event of CEA elevation did not improve survival.
	Patients were randomized if the CEA became elevated (≥10 ng/mL).			Conventional: 82% died
	216 Patients were randomized.			Aggressive: 84% died
	Conventional: Continued clinical monitoring with clinicians blinded to increased CEA.
	Aggressive: Clinician screen for widespread metastatic disease examinations and CXR. If not found, patient had a laparotomy to look for recurrence.
Makela [72]	Clinic review for all 3/12 for 2 years, the 6/12 for 3 years with history, examination, complete blood cell counts, faecal occult bloods, CEA and CXR.	Conventional: 15 ± 10; intensive: 10 ± 5	Conventional: 39%; intensive: 42%	Conventional: 54%; intensive: 59%	Intensive follow-up leads to earlier detection of recurrence.
	USS liver every 6/12 and CT every year.				Most common sign indicating recurrence was CEA elevation in both groups.
	In addition: Conventional: rigid sigmoidoscopy at each visit for those who had undergone surgery for rectal and sigmoid cancers, and a barium enema was done for all patients at 12 months and once a year thereafter; Intensive: colonoscopy 3 months after the surgery to ensure a clean colon and once a year thereafter on allpatients
Ohlsson [20]	None/Control: No FU	-	Control: 33%; intensive: 32%	Control: 67%; intensive: 75%	Intensive follow-up did not improve survival.
Ohlsson [20]	Intensive: clinical exam, rigid sig, colonoscopy, CT pelvis (in patients with APR), pulmonary X-ray, liver function tests, CEA and faecal hemoglobin at 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, 15-, 18-, 21-, 24-, 30-, 36-, 42-, 48-, and 60-month intervals	-	Control: 33%; intensive: 32%	Control: 67%; intensive: 75%	Intensive follow-up did not improve survival.
Pietra [21]	Conventional: clinical exam + CEA and USS at 6/12 intervals for 1 year then annually thereafter.	Conventional: 20.2 ± 6.1; iIntensive: 10.3 ± 2.7	Conventional:19.4%; intensive: 25.2%	Conventional: 58.3%; intensive: 73.1%	Intense follow-up leads to earlier detection of recurrent disease and improved survival.
	All patients received yearly CXR, colonoscopy and CT.
	Intensive: As above, but with intervals 3/12 for 2 years then 6/12 for 3 years
Primrose (FACS) [15]	Control: CT at 12–18 months or if symptomatic	-	Cancer recurrence in 16.6% of patients, 5.9% of these surgically treated with curative intent		Intensive follow-up (any group) detected recurrence earlier and increased rate of curative surgical treatment. No advantage when using CT and CEA in combination. Could not demonstrate survival advantage.
	Intensive: CT: Scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis every 6 months for 2 years, then annually for 3. CEA: CEA every 3 months for 2 years, then every 6 months for 3 years, with a single CT scan at 12 to 18 months if requested at study entry by hospital clinician. CT and CEA: Both of the regimes combined.
	All had colonoscopy at 2 and 5 years
Rosati (GILDA) [18]	Control: Clinical review and CEA every 3 months for 2 years, then every 6 months for 3 years. Colonoscopy at 1 year. Liver USS at 4 months and 16 months.	Intensive surveillance had earlier detection of 5.9 months (95% CI, 2.71–9.11)	Overall recurrence rate: 20.4%; control: 18.7%; intensive: 22%	Control: 52.7%; intensive: 47.8%	Intensive surveillance detected recurrences earlier, but there was no difference in overall survival. Quality of life was not affected by surveillance strategy.
Rosati (GILDA) [18]	Intensive: Clinical review and CEA as per control group. CBC and CA 19-9 included with CEA. Colonoscopy and CXR every 12 months. Liver USS every 4 months for 16 months, then yearly			Control: 52.7%; intensive: 47.8%
Verberne (CEAWatch) [23]	Control: 5-year follow-up. Clinic every 6/12 for 3 years, then annually thereafter. Liver USS and CXR at each visit. CEA every 3 to 6 months for 3 years and annually thereafter.	Specific time interval not given; however, the authors stated that the time to diagnosis of recurrent disease decreased with the intensive follow-up protocol as compared to the control protocol (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.08–1.95; P = 0.013)	Overall recurrence rate: 7.5%; control: 3.6%; intensive: 4.4%	No difference in OS or DFS between 2 arms. Survival significantly worse when detected by patients self-report rather than CEA or imaging.	An intensified protocol with CEA monitoring and assessment of CEA rise rather than absolute value detected recurrences earlier than the standard protocol. This does not affect overall or disease-free survival.
Verberne (CEAWatch) [23]	Intensive: bimonthly CEA and yearly imaging for 3 years. CEA every 3/12 for next 2 years. Annual clinic review with imaging of chest and abdomen for 3 years. If 20% increase in CEA, another blood sample was drawn 4 weeks later. If a consecutive rise, CT scan of chest and abdomen was advised. Normal value was considered to be ≤2.5 ng/mL
Wille-Jørgensen (COLOFOL) [13]	Nonintensive: CT scan of liver and lungs (or CT of liver + plain X-ray of lungs) + CEA after 12 and 36 months.	-	-	-	Recruitment ended 2015. Results awaited.
Wille-Jørgensen (COLOFOL) [13]	Intensive: CT scan of liver and lungs (or CT of liver + plain X-ray of lungs) + CEA after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months	-	-	-	Recruitment ended 2015. Results awaited.
Lepage (PRODIGE 13) [14]	Standard: Abdo USS every 3/12 for 3 years, 6/12 for 2 years, then annually. CXR ever 6/12 for 3 years, then annually.	-	-	-	Recruitment ended. Results awaited
Lepage (PRODIGE 13) [14]	Intensive: A CT thorax/abdominal/pelvis alternating with abdominal USS every 3/12 for 3 years, then every 6/12 for 2 years. CEA every 3/12 for 3 years, then 6/12 2 years	-	-	-	Recruitment ended. Results awaited

Author	Year	Origin	Study type	Asymptomatic vs. symptomatic	Endpoint	No. of patients	Age (yr), median	Sex ratio (%male)	Outcome summary
Lee [32]	2011	Korea	Case control	Asymptomatic	Detection of colorectal cancer	546	(A) 56	A) 77	4.6% of high CEA group had CRC compared to 1.3% of normal CEA group.
						(A) CEA ≥5 ng/mL	(B) 54	B) 73.4	CEA more likely to be elevated in advanced colorectal cancer.
						(B) CEA ≤5 ng/mL	(B) 54	B) 73.4
Nielsen [33]	2011	Denmark	Case control	Symptomatic	Detection of colorectal cancer	4,509	61	45.9	CEA more likely to be elevated in advanced colorectal cancer. Median of 8.1 ng/mL in stage 4 disease
Wild [35]	2010	Germany	Case control	Mixed	Comparison of serum-biomarker panel with Faecal occult blood testing	1,027	(A) 67	(A) 52.2	CEA more likely to be elevated in advanced colorectal cancer. 88.2% sensitivity in stage 4 disease.
						(A) CRC 301	(B) 62	(B) 39.1
						(B) GI disease control 104	(C) 66	(C) 58.7
						(C) Adenoma 143	(D) 62	(D) 46.1	CEA, seprase, CYFRA 21-1, ferritin and anti-p53 biomarker combination was comparable with faecal immunochemical testing with 82.4% versus 81.8% at 95% specificity,
						(D) Other disease 141	(E) 64	(E) 42.6
						(E) Other malignancy 176	(E) 64	(E) 42.6
Wen [34]	2015	Taiwan	Case control	Mixed	Detection of cancer using panel of 8 markers	41,516			CEA sensitivity 53.8%. Increases, when used in combination as panel of 8 biomarkers, to 76.9%

Nonmalignant	Malignant
Smoking	Tumors associated with high CEA expression
Infections	Colorectal^a
Peptic ulcer disease	Ovarian^a
Inflammatory bowel disease	Cervical^a
Pancreatitis	Lung
Hypothyroidism	Oesophageal
Liver cirrhosis, hepatitis	Gastric
Benign breast conditions	Small intestinal
Other benign tumors usually in organs where the cancers are associate with raised CEAd	Hepatobiliary
	Pancreatic
	Breast
	Medullary
	Other CEA-expressing tumors
	Choriocarcinoma
	Osteosarcoma
	Retinoblastoma
	Hepatoma
	Melanoma
	Lymphoma
	Urinary bladder, prostate and renal cell carcinoma

Table 1. CEA and prognosis: selected studies

CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; IQR, interquartile range; preop, preoperative; postop, postoperative; CRC, colorectal cancer.

Age: meanstandard deviation, mean ± standard deviation, or median (range), or median (IQR).

Table 2. CEA and follow-up after CRC resection: selected studies

RCT, randomized control trial; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CRC, colorectal cancer; CT, computed tomography.

Table 3. CEA and follow-up after CRC: outcome measures in selected studies

Table 4. CEA and screening/diagnosis: selected studies

CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CRC, colorectal cancer; GI, gastrointestinal.

Table 5. Conditions associated with elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level