Zaiba Shafik Dawood1, Laura Alaimo2, Henrique A Lima2, Zorays Moazzam2, Chanza Shaikh2, Ahmed Sayed Ahmed3, Muhammad Musaab Munir2, Yutaka Endo2, Timothy M Pawlik4. 1. Medical College, The Aga Khan University Hospital, Stadium Road, Karachi, 74800, Pakistan. 2. Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA. 3. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA. Tim.Pawlik@osumc.edu.
Abstract
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 second highest DOR. Combinations of traditional cross-sectional/functional imaging and newer platforms such as CtDNA may result in optimized surveillance of patients following resection of CRC.
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 second highest DOR. Combinations of traditional cross-sectional/functional imaging and newer platforms such as CtDNA may result in optimized surveillance of patients following resection of CRC.
Authors: Jon D Vogel; Seth I Felder; Anuradha R Bhama; Alexander T Hawkins; Sean J Langenfeld; Virginia O Shaffer; Amy J Thorsen; Martin R Weiser; George J Chang; Amy L Lightner; Daniel L Feingold; Ian M Paquette Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Emile Tan; Nikos Gouvas; R John Nicholls; Paul Ziprin; Evaghelos Xynos; Paris P Tekkis Journal: Surg Oncol Date: 2008-07-10 Impact factor: 3.279
Authors: Rachel Wong; Jeanne Tie; Margaret Lee; Joshua Cohen; Yuxuan Wang; Lu Li; Stephen Ma; Michael Christie; Suzanne Kosmider; Cristian Tomasetti; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Peter Gibbs Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Benjamin A Weinberg; Emily R Winslow; Mohammed Bayasi; Michael R Krainock; Perry M Olshan; Paul R Billings; Alexey Aleshin Journal: Case Rep Oncol Date: 2021-12-10