ArticleBiomolecules & biomedicine2025
Effect of elevated CEA levels on the outcome of colorectal cancer patients with different histopathologic types:A SEER population-based study.
Article in Biomolecules & biomedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic value of lymphovascular invasion and CEA for cancer-specific survival in octogenarian colorectal cancer patients.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- High resolution genome-wide SNP array analyses on matched colorectal-based lung and brain metastases.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Article
- A multi-model prediction of a stage-specific prognosis for colorectal cancer using attention-driven deep ensemble learning on genomic profiling data.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Study on ensemble model with weight allocation based on improved dung beetle optimization algorithm for screening colorectal cancer using laboratory test indicators.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Limited and contradictory evidence has been reported regarding the prognostic effects of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) on the prognosis and metastasis of classical adenocarcinoma (CA), mucinous adenocarcinoma (MA), and signet-ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. We investigated the associations between histological subtypes and preoperative serum CEA levels in determining the oncologic outcomes of CRC patients. A total of 47,692 patients with clearly diagnosed CRC were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and divided into two cohorts based on serum CEA levels: CEA-normal (C0) and CEA-elevated (C1). Chi-square analysis revealed a correlation between CEA levels and histological classification. We then included a newly defined interaction variable (H&CEA) in the Cox regression analysis, which demonstrated that this variable could serve as an independent prognostic factor (P < 0.001). CA, in the context of elevated serum CEA levels, differed from the other two histopathological types, showing unexpectedly higher risks for both overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.65-1.75, P < 0.001) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) (HR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.72-1.85, P < 0.001). Furthermore, elevated CEA levels significantly increased the proportion of liver metastases in the CA group (25.43% vs 3.95%, P < 0.001). The interaction variable H&CEA can be used as an independent prognostic factor for CRC and should be considered in the diagnosis of CRC and the development of personalized treatment plans. Additionally, in the context of elevated CEA levels, CA is associated with poor prognosis and increased liver metastases. This CRC subgroup warrants special clinical attention from oncologists.
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.