Observational studyMedicine2020
Why recurrence was initially suspected during colorectal cancer postoperative surveillance?: A retrospective analysis.
Observational study in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging in the era of risk-adapted treatment in colon cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2024Review
- Significance of carcinoembryonic antigen detection in the early diagnosis of colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Article
- Overview of serum and tissue markers in colorectal cancer: a primer for radiologists.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Routine postoperative surveillance is recommended for the patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to clarify the conditions indicate initial suspicion of CRC recurrence in different preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level groups, including positive physical signs/symptoms, elevated CEA level, positive radiologic studies results, and other elevated tumor markers.A total of 2268 patients with recurrence after curative surgery for CRC were enrolled in this study. The patients were classified into 3 groups according to preoperative serum CEA level (low, <2 ng/mL; intermediate, ≥2 and <5 ng/mL; and high, ≥5 ng/mL).Up to 63.6% of recurrence was suspected based on elevated CEA level in the high preoperative serum CEA level group. Patients in the low preoperative serum CEA level group had a higher rate of initial suspicion of recurrence based on positive physical signs or symptoms (36.7% vs 26.9% vs 20.4%, P < .001) and positive radiologic findings (51.4% vs 40.7% vs 29.5%, P < .001) than those in the intermediate and high preoperative serum CEA groups.Conditions indicate initial suspicion of recurrence varied in the different preoperative serum CEA level groups. In patients with low preoperative serum CEA level, the detection of recurrence depend on abnormal CEA level is less sensitive than intermediate and high preoperative serum CEA groups. We suggest that the strategy for CRC surveillance should not depend on serum CEA level alone. The signs or symptoms of patients, changes in postoperative serial CEA level, and ongoing radiologic or imaging findings must be cautiously monitored.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.