MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Survival Outcomes in Asymptomatic Patients With Normal Conventional Imaging but Raised Carcinoembryonic Antigen Levels in Colorectal Cancer Following Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography Imaging

2016· article· en· W2529995173 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Khurum Khan, Avani Athauda, K. Aitken, David Cunningham, David Watkins, Naureen Starling, Gary Cook, Eleftheria Kalaitzaki, Ian Chau, Sheela Rao

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Oncologist · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Cancer ResearchCancer Research UKNIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer Research
KeywordsMedicineCarcinoembryonic antigenInterquartile rangeAsymptomaticColorectal cancerPositron emission tomographyConfidence intervalRadiologyOccultCancerInternal medicineNuclear medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study had two aims: (a) to evaluate the utility of fluorine 18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography (CT) in detecting occult disease recurrence with raised carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and (b) to establish the prognostic effects of early detection of disease recurrence in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinico-pathological data were obtained from all consecutive patients undergoing CRC surveillance from 2004 to 2010 who had an elevated CEA level (>3 ng/mL in nonsmokers, >5 ng/mL in smokers) but normal or equivocal conventional investigations. Histopathological confirmation or a minimum of 12 months' clinical and radiological follow-up were required to ascertain disease relapse. RESULTS: A total of 1,200 patients were screened; of those, 88 (59% men; mean age, 66 years [SD, 9.6]) eligible patients (67 with normal and 21 with equivocal results on conventional investigations) were identified. Recurrent disease was detected in 56 of 88 patients (64%). The sensitivity of FDG PET-CT to detect recurrence was 49 of 56 (88%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 76%-95%) and specificity was 28 of 32 (88%; 95% CI, 71%-97%). Twenty-seven of 49 (55%) patients with PET-CT-detected relapsed disease were deemed eligible for further curative therapy; 19 (70%) went on to receive potentially curative therapy. The median time to progression (8.8 months [interquartile range (IQR), 4.5-19.1 months] vs. 2.2 months [IQR, 0.7-5.6]), median overall survival (39.9 months [IQR, 23.6-65.4 months] vs. 15.6 months [IQR, 7.3-25.7 months]), and 5-year survival (36.8% [95% CI, 16.5%-57.5%] vs. 6.1% [95% CI, 1.1%-17.6%]; p ≤ .001) were higher in patients who received potentially curative therapy than in those who received noncurative therapy. CONCLUSION: FDG PET-CT is a highly sensitive and specific tool for the detection of occult CRC recurrence. In >50% of patients, recurrent disease may still be potentially amenable to curative therapy. Long-term survival can be achieved in such patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who, on follow-up, have normal or equivocal results on clinical investigations but raised carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels pose a significant challenge to treating physicians. This study supported the notion that the early use of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography (CT) may have predictive and prognostic value in management of such patients. Long-term disease control and cure can be achieved in a subgroup of this patient population with low-volume disease relapse who are amenable to potentially curative treatment strategies. Reassuringly, the sensitivity and specificity for recurrence did not significantly vary as a function of the CEA level, suggesting that even with a minimal CEA rise, benefit can be attained by conducting FDG PET-CT in a timely manner.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe OncologistSame topicColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207