Clinician Article

Blood CEA levels for detecting recurrent colorectal cancer.

  • Nicholson BD
  • Shinkins B
  • Pathiraja I
  • Roberts NW
  • James TJ
  • Mallett S, et al.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Dec 10;(12):CD011134. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011134.pub2. (Review)
PMID: 26661580
Read abstract Read evidence summary Read full text
  • Oncology - Gastrointestinal
    Relevance - 7/7
    Newsworthiness - 5/7
  • Oncology - General
    Relevance - 6/7
    Newsworthiness - 5/7
  • Gastroenterology
    Relevance - 6/7
    Newsworthiness - 4/7
  • Surgery - Oncology
    Relevance - 6/7
    Newsworthiness - 4/7
  • Surgery - Gastrointestinal
    Relevance - 4/7
    Newsworthiness - 4/7


BACKGROUND: Testing for carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) in the blood is a recommended part of follow-up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer following primary curative treatment. There is substantial clinical variation in the cut-off level applied to trigger further investigation.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic performance of different blood CEA levels in identifying people with colorectal cancer recurrence in order to inform clinical practice.

SEARCH METHODS: We conducted all searches to January 29 2014. We applied no language limits to the searches, and translated non-English manuscripts. We searched for relevant reviews in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, MEDION and DARE databases. We searched for primary studies (including conference abstracts) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Science Citation Index & Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. We identified ongoing studies by searching WHO ICTRP and the ASCO meeting library.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy studies, cohort studies, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of post-resection colorectal cancer follow-up that compared CEA to a reference standard. We included studies only if we could extract 2 x 2 accuracy data. We excluded case-control studies, as the ratio of cases to controls is determined by the study design, making the data unsuitable for assessing test accuracy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (BDN, IP) assessed the quality of all articles independently, discussing any disagreements. Where we could not reach consensus, a third author (BS) acted as moderator. We assessed methodological quality against QUADAS-2 criteria. We extracted binary diagnostic accuracy data from all included studies as 2 x 2 tables. We conducted a bivariate meta-analysis. We used the xtmelogit command in Stata to produce the pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity and we also produced hierarchical summary ROC plots.

MAIN RESULTS: In the 52 included studies, sensitivity ranged from 41% to 97% and specificity from 52% to 100%. In the seven studies reporting the impact of applying a threshold of 2.5 µg/L, pooled sensitivity was 82% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78% to 86%) and pooled specificity 80% (95% CI 59% to 92%). In the 23 studies reporting the impact of applying a threshold of 5 µg/L, pooled sensitivity was 71% (95% CI 64% to 76%) and pooled specificity 88% (95% CI 84% to 92%). In the seven studies reporting the impact of applying a threshold of 10 µg/L, pooled sensitivity was 68% (95% CI 53% to 79%) and pooled specificity 97% (95% CI 90% to 99%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: CEA is insufficiently sensitive to be used alone, even with a low threshold. It is therefore essential to augment CEA monitoring with another diagnostic modality in order to avoid missed cases. Trying to improve sensitivity by adopting a low threshold is a poor strategy because of the high numbers of false alarms generated. We therefore recommend monitoring for colorectal cancer recurrence with more than one diagnostic modality but applying the highest CEA cut-off assessed (10 µg/L).

Clinical Comments


Monitoring patients for colon cancer recurrence using CEA levels alone generates a significant numbers of false alarms.

Oncology - Gastrointestinal

The impact of CEA in the colorectal cancer patients follow up needs to be studied in randomised controlled trials. The sensitivity or specificity are not as important as the real impact in preventing deaths due to delay in recurrence detection.

Register for free access to all Professional content

Want the latest in aging research? Sign up for our email alerts.

Support for the Portal is largely provided by the Labarge Optimal Aging Initiative. AGE-WELL is a contributing partner. Help us to continue to provide direct and easy access to evidence-based information on health and social conditions to help you stay healthy, active and engaged as you grow older. Donate Today.

© 2012 - 2020 McMaster University | 1280 Main Street West | Hamilton, Ontario L8S4L8 | +1 905-525-9140 | Terms Of Use