Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 5/2017

Open Access 01-05-2017 | Gastrointestinal Oncology

Use of Tumor Markers in Gastrointestinal Cancers: Surgeon Perceptions and Cost-Benefit Trade-Off Analysis

Authors: Amish Acharya, MRCS, Sheraz R. Markar, MRCS, Michael Matar, MBBS, Melody Ni, PhD, George B. Hanna, PhD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 5/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Gastrointestinal cancers constitute the third most common cancers worldwide. Tumor markers have long since been used in the postoperative surveillance of these malignancies; however, the true value in clinical practice remains undetermined.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of three tumor markers in colorectal and esophagogastric cancer.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to elicit the sensitivity, specificity, statistical heterogeneity and ability to predict recurrence and metastases for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen (CA) 19-9 and CA125. European surgeons were surveyed to assess their current practice and the characteristics of tumor markers they most valued. Data from the included studies and survey were combined in a cost-benefit trade-off analysis to assess which tumor markers are of most use in clinical practice.

Results

Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were ranked the most desirable characteristics of a tumor marker by those surveyed. Overall, 156 studies were included to inform the cost-benefit trade-off. The cost-benefit trade-off showed that CEA outperformed both CA19-9 and CA125, with lower financial cost and a higher sensitivity, and diagnostic accuracy for metastases at presentation (area under the curve [AUC] 0.70 vs. 0.61 vs. 0.46), as well as similar diagnostic accuracy for recurrence (AUC 0.46 vs. 0.48).

Conclusions

Cost-benefit trade-off analysis identified CEA to be the best performing tumor marker. Further studies should seek to evaluate new tumor markers, with investigation tailored to factors that meet the requirements of practicing clinicians.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Bagaria B, Sood S, Sharma R, Lalwani S. Comparative study of CEA and CA19-9 in esophageal, gastric and colon cancers individually and in combination (ROC curve analysis). Cancer Biol Med. 2013;10(3):148–157.PubMedPubMedCentral Bagaria B, Sood S, Sharma R, Lalwani S. Comparative study of CEA and CA19-9 in esophageal, gastric and colon cancers individually and in combination (ROC curve analysis). Cancer Biol Med. 2013;10(3):148–157.PubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Carpelan-Holmstrom M, Louhimo J, Stenman UH, Alfthan H, Haglund C. CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 improve the diagnostic accuracy in gastrointestinal cancers. Anticancer Res. 2002;22(4):2311–2316.PubMed Carpelan-Holmstrom M, Louhimo J, Stenman UH, Alfthan H, Haglund C. CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 improve the diagnostic accuracy in gastrointestinal cancers. Anticancer Res. 2002;22(4):2311–2316.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Yang XQ, Chen C, Wang FB, Peng CW, Li Y. Preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen, carbohydrate antigen19-9 and carbohydrate antigen 125 as prognostic factors for recurrence-free survival in colorectal cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011;12(5):1251–1256.PubMed Yang XQ, Chen C, Wang FB, Peng CW, Li Y. Preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen, carbohydrate antigen19-9 and carbohydrate antigen 125 as prognostic factors for recurrence-free survival in colorectal cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011;12(5):1251–1256.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Locker GY, Hamilton S, Harris J, Jessup JM, Kemeny N, Macdonald JS, et al. ASCO 2006 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in gastrointestinal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(33):5313–5327.CrossRef Locker GY, Hamilton S, Harris J, Jessup JM, Kemeny N, Macdonald JS, et al. ASCO 2006 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in gastrointestinal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(33):5313–5327.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Tas F, Faruk Aykan N, Aydiner A, Yasasever V, Topuz E. Measurement of serum CA 19-9 may be more valuable than CEA in prediction of recurrence in patients with gastric cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2001;24(2):148–149.CrossRefPubMed Tas F, Faruk Aykan N, Aydiner A, Yasasever V, Topuz E. Measurement of serum CA 19-9 may be more valuable than CEA in prediction of recurrence in patients with gastric cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2001;24(2):148–149.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Tian SB, Yu JC, Kang WM, Ma ZQ, Ye X, Cao ZJ, et al. Combined detection of CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242 and CA 50 in the diagnosis and prognosis of resectable gastric cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(15):6295–6300.CrossRefPubMed Tian SB, Yu JC, Kang WM, Ma ZQ, Ye X, Cao ZJ, et al. Combined detection of CEA, CA 19-9, CA 242 and CA 50 in the diagnosis and prognosis of resectable gastric cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(15):6295–6300.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–536.CrossRefPubMed Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–536.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Harbord RM, Whiting P, Sterne JA, Egger M, Deeks JJ, Shang A, et al. An empirical comparison of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy showed hierarchical models are necessary. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(11):1095–1103.CrossRefPubMed Harbord RM, Whiting P, Sterne JA, Egger M, Deeks JJ, Shang A, et al. An empirical comparison of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy showed hierarchical models are necessary. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(11):1095–1103.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Zhou XH, Tu W. Confidence intervals for the mean of diagnostic test charge data containing zeros. Biometrics. 2000;56(4):1118–1125.CrossRefPubMed Zhou XH, Tu W. Confidence intervals for the mean of diagnostic test charge data containing zeros. Biometrics. 2000;56(4):1118–1125.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.CrossRef Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Muennig P. Cost effectiveness analysis in health: a practical approach. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2007. Muennig P. Cost effectiveness analysis in health: a practical approach. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2007.
14.
go back to reference Thokala P. The multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2011. Thokala P. The multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2011.
15.
go back to reference Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple criteria decision making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3(4):229–248.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple criteria decision making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3(4):229–248.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Chester SJ, Maimonis P, Vanzuiden P, Finkelstein M, Bookout J, Vezeridis MP. A new radioimmunoassay detecting early stages of colon cancer: a comparison with CEA, AFP, and Ca 19-9. Dis Markers. 1991;9(5):265–271.PubMed Chester SJ, Maimonis P, Vanzuiden P, Finkelstein M, Bookout J, Vezeridis MP. A new radioimmunoassay detecting early stages of colon cancer: a comparison with CEA, AFP, and Ca 19-9. Dis Markers. 1991;9(5):265–271.PubMed
17.
go back to reference Feng B, Zheng MH, Zheng YF, Lu AG, Li JW, Wang ML, et al. Normal and modified urinary nucleosides represent novel biomarkers for colorectal cancer diagnosis and surgery monitoring. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;20(12):1913–1919.CrossRefPubMed Feng B, Zheng MH, Zheng YF, Lu AG, Li JW, Wang ML, et al. Normal and modified urinary nucleosides represent novel biomarkers for colorectal cancer diagnosis and surgery monitoring. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;20(12):1913–1919.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Lee JC, Lee SY, Kim CY, Yang DH. Clinical utility of tumor marker cutoff ratio and a combination scoring system of preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, carbohydrate antigen 72-4 levels in gastric cancer. J Korean Surg Soc. 2013;85(6):283–289.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lee JC, Lee SY, Kim CY, Yang DH. Clinical utility of tumor marker cutoff ratio and a combination scoring system of preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, carbohydrate antigen 72-4 levels in gastric cancer. J Korean Surg Soc. 2013;85(6):283–289.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Narita M, Oussoultzoglou E, Chenard MP, Fuchshuber P, Yamamoto T, Addeo P, et al. Predicting early intrahepatic recurrence after curative resection of colorectal liver metastases with molecular markers. World J Surg. 2015;39(5):1167–1176.CrossRefPubMed Narita M, Oussoultzoglou E, Chenard MP, Fuchshuber P, Yamamoto T, Addeo P, et al. Predicting early intrahepatic recurrence after curative resection of colorectal liver metastases with molecular markers. World J Surg. 2015;39(5):1167–1176.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Choi SE, Hur C. Screening and surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus: current issues and future directions. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2012;28(4):377–381.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Choi SE, Hur C. Screening and surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus: current issues and future directions. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2012;28(4):377–381.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Use of Tumor Markers in Gastrointestinal Cancers: Surgeon Perceptions and Cost-Benefit Trade-Off Analysis
Authors
Amish Acharya, MRCS
Sheraz R. Markar, MRCS
Michael Matar, MBBS
Melody Ni, PhD
George B. Hanna, PhD
Publication date
01-05-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 5/2017
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5717-y

Other articles of this Issue 5/2017

Annals of Surgical Oncology 5/2017 Go to the issue