Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28979147›Full record

ReviewOncoTargets and therapy2017

Diagnostic and prognostic value of carcinoembryonic antigen in pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Qingcai Meng, Si Shi, Chen Liang, Dingkong Liang, Wenyan Xu, Shunrong Ji, Bo Zhang, Quanxing Ni, Jin Xu, Xianjun Yu

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in OncoTargets and therapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

90 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 146 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Challenges of early detection of pancreatic cancer.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Proteomics in pancreatic cancer.Biomarker research · 2025
    Review
  20. Review

30 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Qingcai Meng *Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center.
Si Shi *Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center.
Chen Liang *Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center.
Dingkong LiangDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center.
Wenyan XuDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center.
Shunrong JiDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center.
Bo ZhangDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center.
Quanxing NiDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center.
Jin XuDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center.
Xianjun YuDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center.
Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCarcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is one of the most widely used tumor markers and is increased in 30%-60% of patients with pancreatic cancer. Although carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) is the most important serum biomarker in pancreatic cancer, the diagnostic and prognostic value of CEA is gradually being recognized. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched for related literature published until January 2017. Diagnostic accuracy variables were pooled using the Meta-Disc software. The pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for prognostic data were calculated and analyzed using Stata software.

resultsA total of 3,650 participants enrolled in 19 studies met our inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of a CEA-based panel were 0.45 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.50), 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86-0.91), 5.39 (95% CI, 3.16-9.18), and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.41-0.72), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC, 0.90) and Q-value (0.84) of the CEA-based panel indicated a significantly higher diagnostic accuracy compared with CEA or CA19-9 alone. Moreover, there was also a significant association between high levels of CEA and worse overall survival (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.31-1.56).

conclusionOur meta-analysis indicated that elevated serum CEA level, as a vital supplementary to CA19-9, can play an important role in the clinical diagnosis of pancreatic cancer patients and predict poor prognosis.

Indexed as

carcinoembryonic antigendiagnosismeta-analysispancreatic cancerprognosis

Identifiers

PMID28979147
PMCPMC5608082
OpenAlexW2755397594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.