The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An Evaluation of the Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) Test for Monitoring Patients With Resected Colon Cancer
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) monitoring in detecting surgically curable recurrence of colon cancer. DESIGN: Clinical data were collected from a national surgical adjuvant trial in which CEA monitoring was elective. SETTING: Cancer centers, universities, and community clinics. PATIENTS: A total of 1216 patients with resected colon cancer, 1017 (84%) of whom had CEA monitoring. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of CEA testing for cancer recurrence and CEA-motivated diagnostic and surgical interventions and their end results. RESULTS: Among 417 monitored patients with recurrence, 59% had a preceding elevation of CEA concentration. Sixteen percent of 600 patients without recurrence showed a false-positive test result. Carcinoembryonic antigen testing was most sensitive for hepatic or retroperitoneal metastasis and relatively insensitive for local, pulmonary, or peritoneal involvement. Surgical explorations were performed in 115 patients with CEA elevations, and 47 recurrences, usually hepatic, were resected with curative intent. On the other hand, 38 patients with normal CEA concentrations and 23 patients not monitored also underwent such resections--usually for pulmonary or local recurrence. Of all CEA-monitored patients, 2.3% are alive and disease free more than 1 year after salvage surgery (2.9% of those with CEA elevations and 1.9% of those with no elevations). Of patients with no CEA monitoring, 2.0% are also alive and disease free more than 1 year after salvage surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer cures attributable to CEA monitoring are, at best, infrequent. It is questionable whether this small gain justifies the substantial cost in dollars and physical and emotional stress that this intervention may cause for patients.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer
Jeffery, M., Hickey, B. E., Hider, P. N., & See, A. M. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd002200.pub3 · Cited by 640
Carcinoembryonic Antigen in the Staging and Follow-up of Patients with Colorectal Cancer
Goldstein, M. J., & Mitchell, E. P. (2005) · Cancer Investigation · doi:10.1081/cnv-58878 · Cited by 419
Labianca, R., Beretta, G. D., Kildani, B., Milesi, L., Merlin, F., Mosconi, S., Pessi, M. A., Prochilo, T., Quadri, A., Gatta, G., et al. (2010) · Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology · doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2010.01.010 · Cited by 409
Follow-up after curative surgery for colorectal carcinoma: Randomized comparison with no follow-up
Ohlsson, B., Breland, U., Ekberg, H., Graffner, H., & Tranberg, K.-G. (1995) · Diseases of the Colon & Rectum · doi:10.1007/bf02054122 · Cited by 308
PET and [18F]-FDG in oncology: A clinical update
Conti, P. S., Lilien, D. L., Hawley, K., Keppler, J., Grafton, S. T., & Bading, J. R. (1996) · Nuclear Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1016/0969-8051(96)00074-1 · Cited by 259
Metadata
- Authors
- Moertel, C. G.
- Venue
- JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1993-08-25
- Volume
- 270
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 943
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2075565351
- Cited by
- 449
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Evaluation of the Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) Test for Monitoring Patients With Resected Colon Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.1993.03510080047030
- The paper
- Moertel, C. G. (1993). An Evaluation of the Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) Test for Monitoring Patients With Resected Colon Cancer. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1993.03510080047030
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.