ArticleCureus2025
When Carcinoembryonic Antigen Misleads: A Benign Cause of Tumor Marker Elevation.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is a commonly used tumor marker, primarily for the surveillance of colorectal and other gastrointestinal malignancies. However, its diagnostic specificity is limited, as CEA levels may be elevated in several benign conditions. This case report aims to highlight the potential diagnostic confusion and psychological distress caused by incidental CEA elevation in asymptomatic individuals when tested outside of an appropriate clinical context. We describe the case of a 39-year-old Kuwaiti woman who underwent a routine health check-up at a private laboratory, during which CEA was measured despite the absence of cancer-related symptoms. Her CEA level was markedly elevated, prompting anxiety and a cascade of investigations. Clinical history, physical examination, laboratory testing, endoscopic procedures, and imaging were employed to determine the cause of elevation. The patient's elevated CEA level (49.02 ng/mL) was not associated with any detectable malignancy. Her past medical history included a laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy a year earlier. Clinical assessment revealed chronic dyspepsia, anemia, and right upper quadrant tenderness. A comprehensive workup, including colonoscopy, upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, and contrast-enhanced CT imaging excluded neoplastic processes. Abdominal ultrasound revealed chronic calculous cholecystitis. Following laparoscopic cholecystectomy, her symptoms improved and repeat CEA levels normalized, confirming a benign inflammatory etiology. This case illustrates the limitations of CEA as a screening tool and the importance of interpreting tumor markers within the appropriate clinical context. Routine ordering of tumor markers in asymptomatic patients can result in unnecessary anxiety, diagnostic delays, and resource use. Clinicians should rely on symptom-guided evaluations rather than indiscriminate testing.
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.