ReviewCancers2023
Potential of Fecal Carcinoembryonic Antigen for Noninvasive Detection of Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic value of fecal and serum carcinoembryonic antigen for colorectal cancer detection.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- The combined evaluation of preoperative serum CEA and postoperative tissue CEA as a prognostic factor in stages 0-IV colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is more abundant in feces than in serum; however, evidence for the role of fecal CEA (FCEA) in the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) is limited. We conducted a systematic review of studies that evaluated FCEA for the noninvasive detection and diagnosis of CRC. PubMed and Web of Science were searched for relevant studies published until 18 January 2023. Information on publication year, study design, country, study population characteristics, FCEA and serum CEA (SCEA) concentrations, and diagnostic performance was summarized. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and applicability of each included study. Seven studies published between 1979 and 2021, all conducted in clinical settings and together involving 399 CRC patients and 889 controls, were identified. Significant differences in FCEA concentrations were observed between CRC and control groups in all studies. Methods for detecting FCEA varied, with the electronic chemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) being used in the most recent studies. Reported sensitivities, specificities, and area under the curves of FCEA ranged from 50.0% to 85.7%, 73.0% to 100.0%, and 0.704 to 0.831, respectively. In direct comparisons, the diagnostic performance of FCEA was better than that of SCEA. The potential role of FCEA as a novel, noninvasive, easily measurable biomarker for the diagnosis of CRC requires further evaluation in screening settings.
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.