Diagnostic accuracy of follow-up tests for detecting colorectal cancer recurrences in primary care: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Geertje B Liemburg, Daan Brandenbarg*, Marjolein Y Berger, Saskia F A Duijts, Gea A Holtman, Geertruida H de Bock, Joke C Korevaar, Annette J Berendsen

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)
106 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Introduction Traditionally, follow-up of colorectal cancer (CRC) is performed in secondary care. In new models of care, the screening part care could be replaced to primary care. We aimed to synthesise evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of commonly used screeners in CRC follow-up applicable in primary care: carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), ultrasound and physical examination.

Methods Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Trial Register and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. Studies were included if they provided sufficient data for a 2 x 2 contingency tables. QUADAS-2 was used to assess methodological quality. We performed bivariate random effects meta-analysis, generated a hypothetical cohort, and reported sensitivity and specificity.

Results We included 12 studies (n = 3223, median recurrence rate 19.6%). Pooled estimates showed a sensitivity for CEA (

Conclusion In practice, GPs could perform CEA screening. Radiological examination in a hospital setting should remain part of the surveillance strategy. Personalised algorithms accounting for recurrence risk and changes of CEA-values over time might add to the diagnostic value of CEA in primary care.

Original languageEnglish
Article number13432
Number of pages11
JournalEuropean journal of cancer care
Volume30
Issue number5
Early online date11-Mar-2021
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sept-2021

Keywords

  • Colorectal cancer
  • follow&#8208
  • up care
  • primary care
  • recurrences

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Diagnostic accuracy of follow-up tests for detecting colorectal cancer recurrences in primary care: A systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this