Request criteria for carcinoembryonic antigen at the Florida Hospital (July 2012-July 2013)

  • Daniel González González Universidad de la República, Hospital Maciel, Clínica Quirúrgica 3. Universidad de la República, Hospital Maciel, Clínica Quirúrgica 3. Clínica Quirúrgica. Profesor Agregado
  • Luis Ruso Martínez Universidad de la República, Hospital Maciel, Clínica Quirúrgica 3. Clínica Quirúrgica. Profesor Titular
Keywords: COLORRECTAL NEOPLASMS, CARCINOEMBRYONIC ANTIGEN

Abstract

Cancer is the second cause of death in Uruguay, colorectal cancer being one of the most frequent. Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) is a particularly recommended for, not for screening.
This study aims to determine the technical criteria that supports the request for the CEA in the Florida Hospital in the period between July 2012 and July 2013 by conducting a transversal observational study that analysed a sample made up of 500 CEA determinations. Variables were the following: age, personal history of colorectal cancer, reason for request and physician (specialist or GP) who requested the study. 494 medical records were analysed. Average and median age were 61.2 and 63 years old, ranging from 18 to 92 years old, rank being 74. 10.9% of users had a personal history of Colorectal cancer. Reasons to request were: colorectal cancer oncologic follow-up (9.5%), initial assessment of colorectal cancer (1.4%), routine practice (13.2%) and other (75.9%).
29.1% of specialists and 16.6% of GPs requested the studies, whereas in 54.3% of cases it was not possible to find out who had requested it.
When users with a history of colorectal cancer are excluded, specialists and GPs requested 19.7% and 18.5% of studies respectively, and in 61.8% of cases it was not possible to find out who had requested it.
Conclusions: in most cases (89.1%) no oncologic criteria was used to request CEA; it was run for non-oncologic patients, some of them when they were young and no difference was found between specialists and GPs, although it was not possible to find out who had requested the study in a high percentage of cases.

References

(1) Uruguay. Ministerio de Salud Pública. Indicadores básicos de salud, Uruguay 2013. Montevideo: MSP, 2014. Disponibe en: http://www.msp.gub.uy/sites/default/files/archivos_adjuntos/OPS%20INDICADORES%202013.pdf. Consulta: 15 mayo 2014.
(2) Uruguay. Comisión Honoraria de Lucha Contra el Cáncer. Registro Nacional de Cáncer. Cáncer en Uruguay: principales tipos de cáncer. Montevideo, CHLCC, 2011. Disponible en: http://www.comisioncancer.org.uy/uc_209_ 1.html. Consulta: 18 mayo 2014.
(3) Sangre oculta en heces. En: Ministerio de Salud Pública. Dirección General de la Salud. Programa Nacional de Prevención del Cáncer. Manual de oncología para el primer nivel de atención. Montevideo: Del Este Sol, 2008:87.
(4) Montano D, Fenocchi E, Martínez L, Tolve J, Rondán M. Detección de cáncer colo rectal mediante fecatest inmunológico. En: 14° Congreso Latinoamericano de Cirugía, Asunción del Paraguay - Setiembre del 2001. Disponible en: http://www.bvsoncologia.org.uy/pdfs/urucan/fecatest.pdf. Consulta: 15 julio 2014.
(5) Fenocchi E, Martínez L, Tolve J, Montano D, Rondán M, Parra-Blanco A, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer in Uruguay with an immunochemical faecal occult blood test. Eur J Cancer Prev 2006; 15(5):384-90.
(6) Davis T, Arnold C, Rademaker A, Bennett C, Bailey S, Platt D, et al. Improving colon cancer screening in community clinics. Cancer 2013; 119(21):3879-86.
(7) Antígeno carcinoembrionario. En: Ministerio de Salud Pública. Dirección General de la Salud. Programa Nacional de Prevención del Cáncer. Manual de oncología para el primer nivel de atención. Montevideo: Del Este Sol, 2008:88.
(8) Téllez-Avila FI, García-Osogobio SM. El antígeno carcinoembrionario: a propósito de un viejo conocido. Rev Invest Clin 2005; 57(6):814-9.
(9) Walsh JM, Terdiman JP. Colorectal cancer screening: scientific review. JAMA 2003; 289(10):1288-96.
(10) Leddin D, Hunt R, Champion M, Cockeram A, Flook N, Gould M, et al. Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and the Canadian Digestive Health Foundation: Guidelines on colon cancer screening. Can J Gastroenterol 2004; 18(2):93-9.
(11) Carbajal Garcés CF, Morales Clavijo M. Sensibilidad y especificidad de los marcadores tumorales. Rev Méd (Cochabamba) 2010; 21(1):86-97.
(12) Iade B, Tchekmedyian A, Bianchi C, San Martín J, Raggio A, Rocha M, et al. Recomendaciones de la Sociedad de Gastroenterología del Uruguay para la detección precoz y el seguimiento del cáncer colorrectal. Rev Med Urug 2003; 19(2):172-7.
(13) Bast RC Jr, Ravdin P, Hayes DF, Bates S, Fritsche H Jr, Jessup JM, et al. 2000 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19(6):1865-78.
(14) Carriquiry LA, Piñeyro A. El lugar del antígeno carcinoembrionario (CEA) en una estrategia de diagnóstico y tratamiento de los pacientes con cáncer colorrectal: una experiencia clínica en curso. Cir Urug 1992; 62(1-2-3):45-54.
(15) Carriquiry LA, Piñeyro A. Should carcinoembryonic antigen be used in the management of patients with colorectal cancer? Dis Colon Rectum 1999; 42(7):921-9.
(16) Thomas DS, Fourkala EO, Apostolidou S, Gunu R, Ryan A, Jacobs I, et al. Evaluation of serum CEA, CYFRA21-1 and CA125 for the early detection of colorectal cancer using longitudinal preclinical samples. Br J Cancer 2015; 113(2):268-74.
(17) Wilson AP, Van Dalen A, Sibley PE, Kasper LA, Durham AP, el Shami AS. Multicentre tumour marker reference range study. Anticancer Res 1999; 19(4A):2749-52.
(18) Sørbye H, Dahl O. Carcinoembryonic antigen surge in metastatic colorectal cancer patients responding to oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy: implications for tumor marker monitoring and guidelines. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21(23): 4466-7.
Published
2016-06-30
How to Cite
1.
González González D, Ruso Martínez L. Request criteria for carcinoembryonic antigen at the Florida Hospital (July 2012-July 2013). Rev. Méd. Urug. [Internet]. 2016Jun.30 [cited 2024Nov.25];32(2):98-103. Available from: http://www2.rmu.org.uy/ojsrmu311/index.php/rmu/article/view/174