Lois A Daamen1, Vincent P Groot2, Hanne D Heerkens3, Martijn P W Intven3, Hjalmar C van Santvoort4, I Quintus Molenaar5. 1. Dept. of Surgery, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Dept. of Radiation Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, The Netherlands. 2. Dept. of Surgery, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Dept. of Surgery, The John L. Cameron Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Dept. of Radiation Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, The Netherlands. 4. Dept. of Surgery, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Dept. of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands. 5. Dept. of Surgery, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: I.Q.Molenaar@umcutrecht.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biomarker testing can be helpful to monitor disease progression after resection of pancreatic cancer. This systematic review aims to give an overview of the literature on the diagnostic value of serum tumor markers for the detection of recurrent pancreatic cancer during follow-up. METHODS: A systematic search was performed to 2 October 2017. All studies reporting on the diagnostic value of postoperatively measured serum biomarkers for the detection of pancreatic cancer recurrence were included. Data on diagnostic accuracy of tumor markers were extracted. Forest plots and pooled values of sensitivity and specificity were calculated. RESULTS: Four articles described test results of CA 19-9. A pooled sensitivity and specificity of respectively 0.73 (95% CI 0.66-0.80) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.73-0.91) were calculated. One article reported on CEA, showing a sensitivity of 50% and specificity of 65%. No other serum tumor markers were discussed for surveillance purposes in the current literature. CONCLUSION: Although testing of serum CA 19-9 has considerable limitations, CA 19-9 remains the most used serum tumor marker for surveillance after surgical resection of pancreatic cancer. Further studies are needed to assess the role of serum tumor marker testing in the detection of recurrent pancreatic cancer and to optimize surveillance strategies.
BACKGROUND: Biomarker testing can be helpful to monitor disease progression after resection of pancreatic cancer. This systematic review aims to give an overview of the literature on the diagnostic value of serum tumor markers for the detection of recurrent pancreatic cancer during follow-up. METHODS: A systematic search was performed to 2 October 2017. All studies reporting on the diagnostic value of postoperatively measured serum biomarkers for the detection of pancreatic cancer recurrence were included. Data on diagnostic accuracy of tumor markers were extracted. Forest plots and pooled values of sensitivity and specificity were calculated. RESULTS: Four articles described test results of CA 19-9. A pooled sensitivity and specificity of respectively 0.73 (95% CI 0.66-0.80) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.73-0.91) were calculated. One article reported on CEA, showing a sensitivity of 50% and specificity of 65%. No other serum tumor markers were discussed for surveillance purposes in the current literature. CONCLUSION: Although testing of serum CA 19-9 has considerable limitations, CA 19-9 remains the most used serum tumor marker for surveillance after surgical resection of pancreatic cancer. Further studies are needed to assess the role of serum tumor marker testing in the detection of recurrent pancreatic cancer and to optimize surveillance strategies.
Authors: Casey J Allen; Danny Yakoub; Francisco Igor Macedo; Austin R Dosch; Jessica Brosch; Vikas Dudeja; Ronda Ayala; Nipun B Merchant Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Vincent P Groot; Georgios Gemenetzis; Alex B Blair; Roberto J Rivero-Soto; Jun Yu; Ammar A Javed; Richard A Burkhart; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; I Quintus Molenaar; John L Cameron; Matthew J Weiss; Christopher L Wolfgang; Jin He Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Vincent P Groot; Georgios Gemenetzis; Alex B Blair; Roberto J Rivero-Soto; Jun Yu; Ammar A Javed; Richard A Burkhart; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; I Quintus Molenaar; John L Cameron; Matthew J Weiss; Christopher L Wolfgang; Jin He Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 13.787
Authors: Vincent P Groot; Stacy Mosier; Ammar A Javed; Jonathan A Teinor; Georgios Gemenetzis; Ding Ding; Lisa M Haley; Jun Yu; Richard A Burkhart; Alina Hasanain; Marija Debeljak; Hirohiko Kamiyama; Amol Narang; Daniel A Laheru; Lei Zheng; Ming-Tseh Lin; Christopher D Gocke; Elliot K Fishman; Ralph H Hruban; Michael G Goggins; I Quintus Molenaar; John L Cameron; Matthew J Weiss; Victor E Velculescu; Jin He; Christopher L Wolfgang; James R Eshleman Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 13.801
Authors: Sven H Loosen; Pia Hoening; Niklas Puethe; Mark Luedde; Martina Spehlmann; Tom F Ulmer; David V Cardenas; Sanchari Roy; Frank Tacke; Christian Trautwein; Ulf P Neumann; Tom Luedde; Christoph Roderburg Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 4.379