Background: Serum CEA has been widely used to screen for potential recurrent disease after resection in rectal cancer. However, the influence of baseline CEA on the performance of CEA in recurrence surveillance needs to be investigated. Patients and Methods: This longitudinal cohort study included 484 patients with nonmetastatic rectal cancer from 18,013 patients in a prospectively enrolled institutional database program of colorectal disease. Baseline CEA levels were determined before treatment, and CEA-based follow-up tests and examinations were applied in the surveillance after treatment. Results: A total of 62.6% (62/99) overall, 53.5% (23/43) local, and 64.9% (50/77) distant recurrences were seen in patients who had similar CEA levels with their baseline statuses. The sensitivity of elevated CEA levels during surveillance for overall recurrence was significantly lower in patients with negative baseline CEA than in those with elevated baseline CEA levels (41.3% vs 69.4%; P =.007). Moreover, similar results were observed in the surveillance for local (50% vs 61.5%; P =.048) and distant (39.6% vs 72.4%; P =.005) recurrences between these 2 patient groups. However, CEA had comparable and excellent specificity during surveillance for recurrent disease in these groups. The addition of CA19-9 to the CEA assay significantly improved the sensitivity in recurrence surveillance for patients with negative baseline CEA (49.2% vs 41.3%; P =.037). Finally, we identified a subgroup of CEA-turn recurrences characterized by negative CEA at baseline, elevated CEA at recurrence, and worse survival outcomes after recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.07–3.30; P =.026). Conclusions: In patients with rectal cancer with negative baseline CEA, serum CEA had insufficient sensitivity in recurrence surveillance after treatment, and additional surveillance may improve oncologic outcomes. Baseline CEA should be considered before CEA-based surveillance can be applied in the follow-up trials.
Dingcheng Shen, Xiaolin Wang, Heng Wang, Gaopo Xu, Yumo Xie, Zhuokai Zhuang, Ziying Huang, Juan Li, Jinxin Lin, Puning Wang, Meijin Huang, Yanxin Luo, and Huichuan Yu
Li-Ting Liu, Qiu-Yan Chen, Lin-Quan Tang, Shan-Shan Guo, Ling Guo, Hao-Yuan Mo, Yang Li, Qing-Nan Tang, Xue-Song Sun, Yu-Jing Liang, Chong Zhao, Xiang Guo, Chao-Nan Qian, Mu-Sheng Zeng, Jin-Xin Bei, Ming-Huang Hong, Jian-Yong Shao, Ying Sun, Jun Ma, and Hai-Qiang Mai
Background: The goal of this study was to explore the value of adding neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) or adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) with different risks of treatment failure. Patients and Methods: A total of 2,263 eligible patients with stage III–IVb NPC treated with CCRT ± NACT or ACT were included in this retrospective study. Distant metastasis–free survival (DMFS), overall survival, and progression-free survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and differences were compared using the log-rank test. Results: Patients in the low-risk group (stage N0–1 disease and Epstein-Barr virus [EBV] DNA <4,000 copies/mL) who received NACT followed by CCRT achieved significantly better 5-year DMFS than those treated with CCRT alone (96.2% vs 91.3%; P= .008). Multivariate analyses also demonstrated that additional NACT was the only independent prognostic factor for DMFS (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22–0.80; P=.009). In both the intermediate-risk group (stage N0–1 disease and EBV DNA ≥4,000 copies/mL and stage N2–3 disease and EBV DNA <4,000 copies/mL) and the high-risk group (stage N2–3 disease and EBV DNA ≥4,000 copies/mL), comparison of NACT or ACT + CCRT versus CCRT alone indicated no significantly better survival for all end points. Conclusions: The addition of NACT to CCRT could reduce distant failure in patients with low risk of treatment failure.