A Re-Evaluation of Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) as a Serum Marker for Breast Cancer
Purpose: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is still a widely used test for monitoring breast cancer, although recent reports discourage its routine use because of low sensitivity. This is a prospective study evaluating the efficacy of CEA and CA 15.3 in monitoring breast cancer. Experimental Design: Se...
Saved in:
Published in | Clinical cancer research Vol. 7; no. 8; p. 2357 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
American Association for Cancer Research
01.08.2001
|
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Purpose: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is still a widely used test for monitoring breast cancer, although recent reports discourage
its routine use because of low sensitivity. This is a prospective study evaluating the efficacy of CEA and CA 15.3 in monitoring
breast cancer.
Experimental Design: Serum CEA and CA 15.3 were measured in 2191 patients with either benign ( n = 738) or malignant ( n = 1453) breast diseases. Five hundred and forty-nine patients were monitored during postsurgical follow-up for either a minimum
of 5 years or until time of recurrence. Fifty-three patients with metastases were also monitored during chemotherapy.
Results: Elevated CEA and CA 15.3 levels were found in 16.7% and 33.0% of patients, respectively. CEA sensitivity rose to 41.3% and
CA 15.3 sensitivity rose to 80.8% in metastatic patients. The adjunct of CEA increased the CA 15.3 sensitivity by 6% in the
overall population and by only 2.1% for patients with metastases. During postsurgical follow-up, CEA was elevated in 38.0%
and CA 15.3 in 70.2% of patients with recurrence. The combination of CEA and CA 15.3 increased the overall sensitivity by
only 1.4%. Longitudinal monitoring of 53 metastatic patients undergoing chemotherapy demonstrated that, when positive, both
CEA and CA 15.3 paralleled response to treatment, although CA 15.3 was a significantly more powerful marker for determining
response to treatment. The cost effectiveness ratio of CEA was clearly less favorable than that of CA 15.3.
Conclusions: CEA monitoring should be considered an expensive and inefficient method of follow-up evaluation for breast cancer patients,
and it provides no additional value when used in combination with CA 15.3. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1078-0432 1557-3265 |