Impact of CEA alone or as part of a high intensity surveillance strategy in detecting curative colorectal cancer recurrence: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
566 Background: Consensus is lacking regarding an effective surveillance strategy for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence at a curative stage. This study aims to evaluate the effect of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) measurement alone vs. CEA as part of an intensive surveillance strategy for the detection of curative CRC recurrence. Methods: A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2000 to April 2016 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, quasi-experimental design studies, and case control studies including stage II/III CRC patients with curative resection and surveillance with repeated CEA measurements. Data screening, abstraction, and risk of bias assessment was independently performed by two reviewers. Risks of recurrence amenable to surgical resection, local and distant recurrence, disease-specific mortality and overall mortality were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Results: Two RCTs and 9 cohort studies were included. A meta-analysis of 861 patients in RCTs demonstrated a non-significant reduction in the detection of curative recurrence using CEA measurement alone vs. intensive surveillance strategies with CEA (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.41-1.41). There were no significant differences observed in the risk of locoregional or distant recurrence. Patients with CEA alone had a non-significant higher risk of disease specific and overall mortality ([RR 1.19; 95% CI 0.89-1.60], [RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.84-1.76], respectively). The heterogeneity of the cohort studies inhibited a quantitative meta-analysis. Among 2783 patients in 9 cohort studies using intensive surveillance strategies with CEA measurement, the rate of curative recurrence ranged from 21.3% to 56.8%. Conclusions: Limited data exists to guide the optimal surveillance strategy post-curative CRC resection. This study highlights the potential benefit of intensive surveillance strategies with CEA measurement as compared to CEA measurement alone in detecting curative CRC recurrence. However, further research to determine optimal CRC surveillance strategies is warranted.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".