Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Greaves, Ronda / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 3.638

CiteScore 2018: 2.44

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.191
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.205

Online
ISSN
1437-4331
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 55, Issue 2

Issues

Predictive performance of TPA testing for recurrent disease during follow-up after curative intent surgery for colorectal carcinoma

Frederik J. van der Sluis
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Zhuozhao Zhan
  • Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Charlotte J. Verberne
  • Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Anneke C. Muller Kobold
  • Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Theo Wiggers
  • Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Geertruida H. de Bock
  • Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-08-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2016-0207

Abstract

Background:

The aim of the present study was to investigate the predictive performance of serial tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA) testing after curative intent resection for detection of recurrence of colorectal malignancy.

Methods:

Serum samples were obtained in 572 patients from three different hospitals during follow-up after surgery. Test characteristics of serial TPA testing were assessed using a cut-off value of 75 U/L. The relation with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage and the potential additive value of tissue polypeptide antigen testing upon standard carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing were investigated.

Results:

The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of TPA for recurrent disease was 0.70, indicating marginal usefulness as a predictive test. Forty percent of cases that were detected by CEA testing would have been missed by TPA testing alone, whilst most cases missed by CEA were also not detected by TPA testing. In the subpopulation of patients with stage III disease predictive performance was good (area under the curve 0.92 within 30 days of diagnosing recurrent disease). In this group of patients, 86% of cases that were detected by CEA were also detected by TPA.

Conclusions:

Overall, TPA is a relatively poor predictor for recurrent disease during follow-up. When looking at the specific subpopulation of patients with stage III disease predictive performance of TPA was good. However, TPA testing was not found to be superior to CEA testing in this specific subpopulation.

Keywords: carcinoembryonic antigen; colorectal cancer; local neoplasm recurrence; metastasis; tissue polypeptide antigen; tumor markers

References

  • 1.

    Baca B, Beart RW, Jr., Etzioni DA. Surveillance after colorectal cancer resection: a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum 2011;54:1036–48.Google Scholar

  • 2.

    Hine KR, Dykes PW. Serum CEA testing in the post-operative surveillance of colorectal carcinoma. Br J Cancer 1984;49:689–93.Google Scholar

  • 3.

    McCall JL, Black RB, Rich CA, Harvey JR, Baker RA, Watts JM, et al. The value of serum carcinoembryonic antigen in predicting recurrent disease following curative resection of colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:875–81.Google Scholar

  • 4.

    Park IJ, Choi GS, Lim KH, Kang BM, Jun SH. Serum carcinoembryonic antigen monitoring after curative resection for colorectal cancer: clinical significance of the preoperative level. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:3087–93.Google Scholar

  • 5.

    Zeng Z, Cohen AM, Urmacher C. Usefulness of carcinoembryonic antigen monitoring despite normal preoperative values in node-positive colon cancer patients. Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:1063–8.Google Scholar

  • 6.

    Meyerhardt JA, Mangu PB, Flynn PJ, Korde L, Loprinzi CL, Minsky BD, et al. Follow-up care, surveillance protocol, and secondary prevention measures for survivors of colorectal cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:4465–70.Google Scholar

  • 7.

    Labianca R, Nordlinger B, Beretta GD, Mosconi S, Mandalà M, Cervantes A, et al. Early colon cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2013;24(Suppl 6):vi64–72.Google Scholar

  • 8.

    Desch CE, Benson AB, 3rd, Somerfield MR, Flynn PJ, Krause C, Loprinzi CL, et al. Colorectal cancer surveillance: 2005 update of an American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8512–9.Google Scholar

  • 9.

    Hara M, Kanemitsu Y, Hirai T, Komori K, Kato T. Negative serum carcinoembryonic antigen has insufficient accuracy for excluding recurrence from patients with Dukes C colorectal cancer: analysis with likelihood ratio and posttest probability in a follow-up study. Dis Colon Rectum 2008;51:1675–80.Google Scholar

  • 10.

    Meyerhardt JA, Mayer RJ. Follow-up strategies after curative resection of colorectal cancer. Semin Oncol 2003;30:349–60.Google Scholar

  • 11.

    Verberne CJ, Zhan Z, van den Heuvel E, Grossmann I, Doornbos PM, Havenga K, et al. Intensified follow-up in colorectal cancer patients using frequent Carcino-Embryonic Antigen (CEA) measurements and CEA-triggered imaging: Results of the randomized “CEAwatch” trial. Eur J Surg Oncol 2015;41:1188–96.Google Scholar

  • 12.

    Verberne CJ, Jong de H, Grossmann I, de Bock GH, Wiggers T, Kema I, et al. Tumor markers in finding recurrent disease in colorectal cancer. J Mol Biochem 2013;2:56–68.Google Scholar

  • 13.

    Alvarez JA, Marin J, Jover JM, Fernández R, Fradejas J, Moreno M. Sensitivity of monoclonal antibodies to carcinoembryonic antigen, tissue polypeptide antigen, alpha-fetoprotein, carbohydrate antigen 50, and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 in the diagnosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38:535–42.Google Scholar

  • 14.

    Fernandes LC, Kim SB, Matos D. Cytokeratins and carcinoembryonic antigen in diagnosis, staging and prognosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2005;11:645–8.Google Scholar

  • 15.

    Plebani M, De Paoli M, Basso D, Roveroni G, Giacomini A, Galeotti F, et al. Serum tumor markers in colorectal cancer staging, grading, and follow-up. J Surg Oncol 1996;62:239–44.Google Scholar

  • 16.

    Fernandes LC, Kim SB, Saad SS, Matos D. Value of carcinoembryonic antigen and cytokeratins for the detection of recurrent disease following curative resection of colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12:3891–4.Google Scholar

  • 17.

    Nicolini A, Ferrari P, Duffy MJ, Antonelli A, Rossi G, Metelli MR, et al. Intensive risk-adjusted follow-up with the CEA, TPA, CA19.9, and CA72.4 tumor marker panel and abdominal ultrasonography to diagnose operable colorectal cancer recurrences: effect on survival. Arch Surg 2010;145:1177–83.Google Scholar

  • 18.

    Zhan Z, van den Heuvel ER, Doornbos PM, Burger H, Verberne CJ, Wiggers T, et al. Strengths and weaknesses of a stepped wedge cluster randomized design: its application in a colorectal cancer follow-up study. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:454–61.Google Scholar

  • 19.

    Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29–36.Google Scholar

  • 20.

    Lorenzi M, Vindigni C, Minacci C, Tripodi SA, Iroatulam A, Petrioli R, et al. Histopathological and prognostic evaluation of immunohistochemical findings in colorectal cancer. Int J Biol Markers 1997;12:68–74.Google Scholar

  • 21.

    Bystrom P, Berglund A, Nygren P, Wernroth L, Johansson B, Larsson A, et al. Evaluation of predictive markers for patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Acta Oncol 2012;51:849–59.Google Scholar

  • 22.

    Holdenrieder S, Stieber P, Liska V, Treska V, Topolcan O, Dreslerova J, et al. Cytokeratin serum biomarkers in patients with colorectal cancer. Anticancer Res 2012;32:1971–6.Google Scholar

  • 23.

    Treska V, Topolcan O, Stanislav K, Liska V, Holubec L. Preoperative tumor markers as prognostic factors of colorectal liver metastases. Hepatogastroenterology 2009;56:317–20.Google Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Frederik J. van der Sluis, MD, Department of Surgical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands, Tel.: +31 50 361 85 00


Received: 2016-03-13

Accepted: 2016-07-14

Published Online: 2016-08-13

Published in Print: 2017-02-01


Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission. Statistical analysis was carried out by Z.Z.

Research funding: For this study, a research grant was received from the Dutch Society for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. The encompassing study “CEAwatch” was sponsored by ZonMw, The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: None declared.

Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.


Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), Volume 55, Issue 2, Pages 269–274, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2016-0207.

Export Citation

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in