ArticleInternational journal of cancer2026
Head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic value of fecal and serum carcinoembryonic antigen for colorectal cancer detection.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic value of fecal and serum carcinoembryonic antigen for colorectal cancer detection.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to conduct a head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic value of serum carcinoembryonic antigen (sCEA) and fecal CEA (fCEA) for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection. Fecal and serum samples from 80 CRC cases at various tumor stages and 100 controls free of colorectal neoplasms at screening colonoscopy were randomly selected from two ongoing large prospective CRC detection studies (IDA and BLITZ) for CEA measurements. Fecal samples were processed using two methods: with and without mechanical homogenization. Diagnostic performance (area under the curve value [AUC], sensitivity) of fCEA and sCEA was compared individually and in combination with fecal immunochemical test (FIT). The fCEA concentrations obtained using both sample processing methods were highly correlated in both CRC cases and controls, but neither correlated with sCEA. The sCEA concentrations demonstrated significantly greater differences between the CRC and control group compared to fCEA concentrations. The diagnostic performance of fCEA obtained with both fecal sample processing methods was significantly lower than that of sCEA (AUC: 0.62 and 0.57 vs. 0.83, both p < .001; sensitivity at 85% specificity: 36.2% and 26.2% vs. 52.5%, p = .067 and .002). Algorithms combining sCEA with fCEA did not significantly improve the diagnostic performance compared to sCEA alone. Combining FIT with sCEA improved diagnostic performance over FIT alone. However, combining FIT with fCEA showed no improvement. In conclusion, fCEA is inferior to sCEA as a non-invasive biomarker for CRC detection. Combination of FIT with sCEA demonstrates greater potential for CRC screening than combination of FIT with fCEA.
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.