Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25879931›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

The prognostic significance of pretreatment serum CEA levels in gastric cancer: a meta-analysis including 14651 patients.

Kai Deng, Li Yang, Bing Hu, Hao Wu, Hong Zhu, Chengwei Tang

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

75 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Prognostic value of tumor markers and ctDNA in patients with resectable gastric cancer receiving perioperative treatment: results from the CRITICS trial.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2022
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kai DengDepartment of Gastroenterology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Li YangDepartment of Gastroenterology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Bing HuDepartment of Gastroenterology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Hao WuDepartment of Gastroenterology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Hong ZhuDepartment of Abdominal Cancer, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Chengwei TangDepartment of Gastroenterology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCarcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is commonly used as a serum tumor marker in clinical practice; however, its prognostic value for gastric cancer patients remains uncertain. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the prognostic value of CEA and investigate CEA as a tumor marker.

methodsPubMed, EMBASE and other databases were searched for potentially eligible studies. Forty-one studies reporting the prognostic effect of pretreatment serum CEA expression in gastric cancer patients were selected. Data on 14651 eligible patients were retrieved for the meta-analysis. Based on the data extracted from the available literature, the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for an adverse prognosis were estimated for gastric cancer patients with elevated pretreatment serum levels of CEA (CEA+) relative to patients with normal pretreatment CEA levels (CEA-).

resultsThe CEA+ patients had a significantly poorer prognosis than the CEA- patients in terms of overall survival (OS: HR 1.716, 95% CI 1.594 - 1.848, P< 0.001), disease-specific survival (DSS: HR 1.940, 95% CI 1.563 - 2.408, P< 0.001), and disease-free survival (DFS: HR 2.275, 95% CI 1.836 - 2.818, P< 0.001). Publication bias and an influence of different cut-off values were not observed (all P> 0.05). In the pooled analyses of multivariate-adjusted HRs, the results suggested that pretreatment serum CEA may be an independent prognostic factor in gastric cancer (OS: HR 1.681, 95% CI 1.425 - 1.982; DSS: HR 1.900, 95% CI 1.441 - 2.505; DFS: HR 2.579, 95% CI 1.935 - 3.436). CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The meta-analysis based on the available literature supported the association of elevated pretreatment serum CEA levels with a poor prognosis for gastric cancer and a nearly doubled risk of mortality in gastric cancer patients. CEA may be an independent prognostic factor for gastric cancer patients and may aid in determining appropriate treatment which may preferentially benefit the CEA+ patients.

Indexed as

Carcinoembryonic AntigenFemaleHumansMaleMortalityPrognosisRisk FactorsStomach NeoplasmsCarcinoembryonic Antigen

Identifiers

PMID25879931
PMCPMC4400039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.