Imperial College London
Alternate

ProfessorGeorgeHanna

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery & Cancer

Head of Department of Surgery and Cancer
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

+44 (0)20 7594 3396g.hanna

 
 
//

Assistant

 

Ms Aoibheann Byrne +44 (0)20 7594 3396

 
//

Location

 

Block B Hammersmith HospitalHammersmith Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Acharya:2016:10.1245/s10434-016-5717-y,
author = {Acharya, A and Markar, S and Matar, M and Ni, M and Hanna, G},
doi = {10.1245/s10434-016-5717-y},
journal = {Annals of Surgical Oncology},
pages = {1--9},
title = {Use of tumour markers in gastrointestinal cancers: surgeon perceptions and cost-benefit trade-off analysis},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5717-y},
volume = {24},
year = {2016}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - Background:Gastrointestinal cancers constitute the third most common cancers worldwide. Tumor markers have long since been used in the postoperative surveillance of these malignancies; however, the true value in clinical practice remains undetermined.Objective:This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of three tumor markers in colorectal and esophagogastric cancer.Methods:A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to elicit the sensitivity, specificity, statistical heterogeneity and ability to predict recurrence and metastases for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen (CA) 19-9 and CA125. European surgeons were surveyed to assess their current practice and the characteristics of tumor markers they most valued. Data from the included studies and survey were combined in a cost-benefit trade-off analysis to assess which tumor markers are of most use in clinical practice.Results:Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were ranked the most desirable characteristics of a tumor marker by those surveyed. Overall, 156 studies were included to inform the cost-benefit trade-off. The cost-benefit trade-off showed that CEA outperformed both CA19-9 and CA125, with lower financial cost and a higher sensitivity, and diagnostic accuracy for metastases at presentation (area under the curve [AUC] 0.70 vs. 0.61 vs. 0.46), as well as similar diagnostic accuracy for recurrence (AUC 0.46 vs. 0.48).Conclusions:Cost-benefit trade-off analysis identified CEA to be the best performing tumor marker. Further studies should seek to evaluate new tumor markers, with investigation tailored to factors that meet the requirements of practicing clinicians.
AU  - Acharya,A
AU  - Markar,S
AU  - Matar,M
AU  - Ni,M
AU  - Hanna,G
DO  - 10.1245/s10434-016-5717-y
EP  - 9
PY  - 2016///
SN  - 1534-4681
SP  - 1
TI  - Use of tumour markers in gastrointestinal cancers: surgeon perceptions and cost-benefit trade-off analysis
T2  - Annals of Surgical Oncology
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5717-y
UR  - http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000388277800160&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=1ba7043ffcc86c417c072aa74d649202
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/44601
VL  - 24
ER  -
Download