The clinical value of carcinoembryonic antigen for tumor metastasis assessment in lung cancer

PeerJ. 2019 Aug 7:7:e7433. doi: 10.7717/peerj.7433. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

Background: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as a diagnostic or prognostic marker has been widely studied in patients with lung cancer. However, the relationship between serum CEA and tumor metastasis in lung cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the ability of serum CEA to assess tumor metastasis in lung cancer patients.

Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 238 patients diagnosed with lung cancer from January to December 2016 at pneumology department of Dazhou Central Hospital (Dazhou, China). Serum CEA levels were quantified in each patient at the time of diagnosis of lung cancer. Metastasis was confirmed by computed tomography (CT), and/or positron emission tomography (PET) and/or surgery or other necessary detecting methods.

Results: Of the 213 patients eligible for final analysis, 128 were diagnosed with metastasis and 85 were diagnosed without metastasis. Compared to non-metastatic patients, the serum CEA was markedly higher in patients with metastasis (p < 0.001), and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.724 (95% CI [0.654-0.793]). Subsequent analyses regarding the number and location of tumor metastases showed that CEA also had clinical value for multiple metastases versus single metastasis (AUC = 0.780, 95% CI [0.699-0.862]) and distant metastasis versus non-distant metastasis (AUC = 0.815, 95% CI [0.733-0.897]). In addition, we found that tumor size, histology diagnosis, age and gender had no impact on the assessment performance of CEA.

Conclusion: Our study suggested the serum CEA as a valuable marker for tumor metastases assessment in newly diagnosed lung cancer patients, which could have some implications in clinical application.

Keywords: Lung cancer; Performance of assessment; Receiver operating characteristic; Serum carcinoembryonic antigen; Tumor metastasis.

Grants and funding

This work was supported by the Scientific Research Fund of Sichuan health and Health Committee (No. 18PJ361) and the Scientific Research Fund of Technology Bureau in Sichuan Province (No. 2018138, No. 2018JY0324). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.