Circulating Tumor DNA, Imaging, and Carcinoembryonic Antigen: Comparison of Surveillance Strategies Among Patients Who Underwent Resection of Colorectal Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
• Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
• Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
• Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
• Emerging · Emerging topic under active research

Abstract (original English)

Background Almost one-third of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients experience recurrence after resection; nevertheless, follow-up strategies remain controversial. We sought to systematically assess and compare the accuracy of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), imaging [positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) scans], and circulating tumor DNA (CtDNA) as surveillance strategies. Patients and methods PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL were systematically searched. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) was used to assess methodological quality. We performed a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and reported pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) values for each surveillance strategy. Results Thirty studies were included in the analysis. PET scans had the highest sensitivity to detect recurrence (0.95; 95%CI 0.91-0.97), followed by CT scans (0.77; 95%CI 0.67-0.85). CtDNA positivity had the highest specificity to detect recurrence (0.95; 95%CI 0.91-0.97), followed by increased CEA levels (0.88; 95%CI 0.82-0.92). Furthermore, PET scans had the highest DOR to detect recurrence (DOR 120.7; 95%CI 48.9-297.9) followed by CtDNA (DOR 37.6; 95%CI 20.8-68.0). Conclusion PET scans had the highest sensitivity and DOR to detect recurrence, while CtDNA had the highest specificity and sec

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.