Journal List > Lab Med Online > v.9(3) > 1131943

TOOLS
Chung: False-positive Elevations in Carcinoembryonic Antigen Levels at a Health Screening Center
Original Article

Lab Med Online 2019;9(3):146-152.

Published online: 20 July 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3343/lmo.2019.9.3.146

False-positive Elevations in Carcinoembryonic Antigen Levels at a Health Screening Center

Soie Chung, M.D.

Department of Laboratory Medicine and Healthcare Research Institute, Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Soie Chung, M.D. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4528-1534 Department of Laboratory Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, 39th Fl. GFC, 152 Teheran-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06236, Korea Tel: +82-2-2112-5686, Fax: +82-2-2112-5794, E-mail: soiec@naver.com

Received 19 June 2018       Revised 20 August 2018       Accepted 21 August 2018

Copyright © 2019 The Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

Although routine screening of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is not recommended for the early diagnosis of colorectal cancers, CEA levels are frequently measured in practice and during opportunistic health screening programs. We evaluated the frequency of false-positive results according to CEA level at a health screening center.

Methods

The medical records of 25,786 participants who underwent a general health check-up and CEA testing at the Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center from March 2015 to February 2016 were reviewed. CEA levels were measured using the Architect i2000sr (Abbott Laboratories, USA). The cut-off level for elevated CEA was 5.0 ng/mL.

Results

Among 25,786 participants who underwent CEA screening, 597 (2.3%) had CEA levels >5.0 ng/mL. Among 597 participants with elevated CEA levels, 12 (2.0%) had actual malignancies with CEA levels of 8.3–155.3 ng/mL. Diabetes, smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and colonic polyps were considered as causes of false elevation. The false-positive rates of CEA according to level were as follows: 5.1–10.0 ng/mL, 99.5%; 10.1–15.0 ng/mL, 87.2%; 15.1–20.0 ng/mL, 100.0%; >20.0 ng/mL, 33.3%. A subsequent decrease in the CEA level after a 1-month follow-up was observed in 47.6% of all cases with elevated CEA levels.

Conclusions

False elevation in CEA levels in the range of 5.0–20.0 ng/mL is common in patients who underwent testing at a health screening center. False-positive results above 20.0 ng/mL are less common. These data could provide a guide for the interpretation of elevated CEA level at a health screening center.

Keywords: Carcinoembryonic antigen, Mass screening, Biomarkers, Tumor

References

1. Fenton JJ, Cai Y, Weiss NS, Elmore JG, Pardee RE, Reid RJ, et al. Delivery of cancer screening: how important is the preventive health examination? Arch Intern Med. 2007; 167:580–5.
2. Lee TW, Lee CY, Kim HS, Ham OK. Health promotion health center project. Public Health Nurs. 2007; 24:529–37.
crossref
3. Lee JH, Hong SP, Jeon TJ, Kang GH, Choi WC, Jeon SM, et al. Should a colonoscopy be recommended for healthy individuals with increased carcinoembryonic antigen levels? A case-control study. Dig Dis Sci. 2011; 56:2396–403.
crossref
4. Lim YK, Kam MH, Eu KW. Carcinoembryonic antigen screening: how far should we go? Singapore Med J. 2009; 50:862–5.
5. Sturgeon CM, Diamandis EP, et al. eds. Use of tumor markers in testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancers. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Clinical Chemistry;2006. p. 27–36.
6. Lee C, Choe EK, Choi JM, Hwang Y, Lee Y, Park B, et al. Health and Prevention Enhancement (H-PEACE): a retrospective, population-based cohort study conducted at the Seoul National University Hospital Gangnam Center, Korea. BMJ Open. 2018; 8:e019327.
crossref
7. Litvak A, Cercek A, Segal N, Reidy-Lagunes D, Stadler ZK, Yaeger RD, et al. False-positive elevations of carcinoembryonic antigen in patients with a history of resected colorectal cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014; 12:907–13.
crossref
8. Jung YS, Park CH, Kim NH, Park JH, Park DI, Sohn CI. Clinical risk stratifcation model for advanced colorectal neoplasia in persons with negative fecal immunochemical test results. PLoS One. 2018; 13:e0191125.
9. Sanguinetti CM, Riccioni G, Marchesani F, Pela R, Cecarini L. Bronchoalveolar lavage fuid level of carcinoembryonic antigen in the diagnosis of peripheral lung cancer. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 1995; 50:177–82.
10. Weber TH and Kerttula Y. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in blood in cases of pneumonia. Scand J Infect Dis. 1986; 18:547–50.
11. Tong J, Wang Y, Chang B, Zhang D, Wang B. Associations between tumor markers and the risk of colorectal polyp recurrence in Chinese people. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015; 8:6397–405.
12. Zayed AA, Beano AM, Amer FN, Maslamani JM, Zmaili MA, Al-Khudary TH, et al. Serum levels of carcinoembryonic antigen in patients with type 2 diabetes. Endocr Pract. 2016; 22:1310–8.
crossref
13. Lu J, Wang H, Zhang X, Yu X. HbA1c is positively associated with serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in patients with diabetes: A cross-sectional study. Diabetes Ther. 2018; 9:209–17.
crossref
14. Ohwada A, Takahashi H, Nagaoka I, Iwabuchi K, Mikami O, Kira S. Effect of cigarette smoke on the mRNA and protein expression of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), a possible chemoattractant for neutrophils in human bronchioloalveolar tissues. Thorax. 1995; 50:651–7.
crossref
15. Pezzuto A, Spoto C, Vincenzi B, Tonini G. Short-term effectiveness of smoking-cessation treatment on respiratory function and CEA level. J Comp Eff Res. 2013; 2:335–43.
crossref
16. Tong J, Wang Y, Chang B, Zhang D, Wang B. Associations between tumor markers and the risk of colorectal polyp recurrence in Chinese people. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015; 8:6397–405.
17. Park J, Lee S, Kim Y, Choi A, Lee H, Lim J, et al. Comparison of four automated carcinoembryonic antigen immunoassays: ADVIA Centaur XP, ARCHITECT I2000sr, Elecsys E170, and Unicel Dxi800. Ann Lab Med. 2018; 38:355–61.
crossref

Table 1.
Characteristics of the study population
Parameter All (N=25,786) CEA ≤5.0 (N=25,189) CEA >5.0 (N=597) P value∗
Age, yr (mean±SD) 56.7±8.7 51.0±11.4 57.4±10.7 0.189
Sex, N (%)        
Male 13,945 (54.1) 13,469 (53.5) 476 (79.7) <0.001
Female 11,841 (45.9) 11,720 (46.5) 121 (20.3)  
Smoking, N (%)
Current smoker 1,480 (5.7) 1,434 (5.7) 46 (7.7) 0.023
Non-smoker 24,306 (94.3) 23,755 (94.3) 551 (92.3)  
Diabetes, N (%) 1,740 (6.7) 1,646 (6.5) 94 (15.8) <0.001
COPD or inflammatory lesion in lung, N (%) 1,440 (5.6) 1,400 (5.4) 40 (6.6) <0.001
Colonic polyp, N (%) 4,420 (17.1) 4,163 (16.5) 257 (43.0) <0.001
BMI (kg/m2) 23.1 (21.0–25.2) 23.1 (21.0–25.2) 23.9 (21.9–25.7) 0.768
WBC (×103/µL) 5.4±1.5 5.4±1.5 6.3±1.9 <0.001
Hb, g/dL 14.4±1.5 14.4±1.5 15.0±1.4 0.041
Platelet (×103/µL) 228±52 228±52 221±52 0.536
HbA1c, % 5.7±0.6 5.7±0.6 6.0±1.0 <0.001
FBS, mg/dL 100±18 100±18 110±32 <0.001
Serum creatinine (mg/dL) 0.82±0.19 0.82±0.19 0.87±0.17 0.043
AST (IU/L) 24±12 24±12 27±15 <0.001
ALT (IU/L) 24±18 24±18 26±18 0.909
hs-CRP (mg/dL) 0.12±0.37 0.11±0.36 0.18±0.70 <0.001
FIT, N (%)†
Positive 164 (0.9) 155 (0.9) 9 (2.1) 0.019
Negative 17,239 (99.1) 16,826 (99.1) 413 (97.9)  
CEA, ng/mL 1.6 (1.1–2.3) 1.6 (1.1–2.2) 6.1 (5.4–7.3) <0.001

∗ CEA ≤5.0 vs. CEA >5.0 ng/mL;

† Values were presented as mean (SD), median (interquartile range), or number (percentage). Data were missing in 8,383 participants. Abbreviations: CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; BMI, body mass index; Hb, hemoglobin; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; FBS, fasting blood sugar; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; FIT, fecal immunochemical test; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CA 19–9, cancer antigen 19–9.

Table 2.
Diagnosis of patients with elevated carcinoembryonic antigen levels
Diagnosis No. of participants (%) CEA (ng/mL)
Colorectal cancer 5 (0.8) 11.8 (9.8–17.0)
Lung cancer 4 (0.7) 16.9 (11.1–24.2)
Breast cancer 1 (0.2) N/A
Pancreatobiliary cancer 2 (0.3) N/A
Colonic polyp 223 (37.4) 6.0 (5.3–6.9)
Diabetes 38 (6.4) 6.3 (5.4–7.6)
Diabetes and colonic polyp 10 (1.7) 7.5 (5.8–11.5)
Diabetes and smoking 22 (3.7) 6.6 (5.7–8.5)
Diabetes, smoking, and colonic polyp 24 (4.0) 6.0 (5.3–6.7)
COPD or inflammatory lesion in the lung 40 (6.6) 5.7 (5.5–7.0)
No specific clinical condition 228∗ (38.2) 5.9 (5.3–7.4)
Total 597 (100.0) 6.1 (5.4–7.3)

∗ The carcinoembryonic antigen level of 122 out of 228 participants (53.5%) normalized in a follow-up test.

CEA levels were presented as median (interquartile ranges). Abbreviations: CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; N/A, not applicable.

Table 3.
Case reviews for elevated carcinoembryonic antigen levels with malignancy
No. Sex Age CEA (ng/mL) Diagnosis FIT History of smoking
38062 M 54 21.8 Colorectal cancer, newly diagnosed Positive Ex-smoker
21494 M 86 9.9 Colorectal cancer, newly diagnosed Positive Non-smoker
8052 F 73 11.8 Colorectal cancer, newly diagnosed Positive Non-smoker
31435 M 65 12.1 Colorectal cancer, newly diagnosed Negative Ex-smoker
41541 M 77 25.5 Lung cancer, newly diagnosed N/A Current smoker
48991 M 65 10.3 Lung cancer, newly diagnosed N/A Non-smoker
13491 F 61 8.3 Breast cancer, newly diagnosed N/A Non-smoker
18613 M 77 155.3 Cholangiocarcinoma, newly diagnosed N/A Ex-smoker
10798 F 76 9.6 Colorectal cancer, on monitoring N/A Non-smoker
40687 M 45 13.5 Lung cancer, disease progression N/A Ex-smoker
27469 F 71 20.3 Lung cancer, disease progression N/A Non-smoker
35923 M 61 12.7 Pancreatic cancer, disease progression N/A Non-smoker

Abbreviations: CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; FIT, fecal immunochemical test; N/A, not applicable.

Table 4.
False-positive rates of CEA according to level (N=597)
CEA level (ng/mL) Participants with proven malignancy, N Participants without evidence of malignancy, N∗ Subsequent decrease in the CEA level after follow-up, N† (%) False-positive rates (%)
5.1–10.0 (N=547) 3 544 275 (50.3) 99.5
10.1–15.0 (N=39) 5 34 8 (20.5) 87.2
15.1–20.0 (N=5) 0 5 1 (20.0)‡ 100.0
20.1–25.0 (N=3) 2 1§ 0 (0.0) 33.3
>25.0 (N=3) 2 1ll 0 (0.0) 33.3

∗ No evidence of cancer on low-dose chest computed tomography (CT), abdomen CT, thyroid ultrasonography, colonoscopy, and esophagogastroduodenoscopy;

† The percentage of decrease in the CEA level after follow-up according to each CEA level group

‡ The initial and follow-up levels of CEA were 19.6 and 9.9 ng/mL, respectively;

§ The participant's CEA level was 20.8 ng/mL; llThe participant's CEA level was 30.4 ng/mL.

Abbreviation: CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.

TOOLS
Similar articles