Differing Serum Cea in Primary and Recurrent Rectal Cancer - A Reflection of Histology?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels are not universally measured in colorectal cancers. CEA levels have been reported to be usually normal at time of primary rectal cancer diagnosis but elevated in recurrent disease. The aims of the study were to (1) compare serum CEA levels performed at time of primary and recurrent colorectal tumour diagnosis; and (2) to determine serum CEA levels in rectal cancers at primary diagnosis to analyse potential factors influencing differing CEA levels. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients treated for colorectal cancers at Modbury Hospital, South Australia was performed. Each admission was reviewed within the electronic database. Serum CEA levels and tumour-related factors were determined in patients who underwent curative surgery for their primary tumour and developed tumour recurrence/metastases within the study period. RESULTS: 438 patients were treated for colorectal cancer in the study period. In patients who underwent curative surgery and developed a recurrence, serum CEA was elevated in 20% patients at primary diagnosis and in 46.6% patients at recurrence. Only 1 of 30 patients with rectal cancer had an elevated CEA at diagnosis of primary tumour. Tumour relationship to the peritoneal reflection did not appear to play a role. CONCLUSIONS: In rectal cancers, serum CEA levels are often normal at the time of initial diagnosis. However, this should not preclude its use in post-operative surveillance. Serum CEA levels noted in primary rectal cancer appear unrelated to the relationship of the tumour to the peritoneal reflection. Stroma-related factors could possibly be involved and merit further investigation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".