Elevated tumour marker: an indication for imaging?

Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10147/207798
Title:
Elevated tumour marker: an indication for imaging?
Authors:
McMahon, Colm J; Crowley, Vivion; McCarroll, Nuala; Dunne, Ruth; Keogan, Mary T
Affiliation:
Department of Diagnostic Imaging, St James Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland., colmjmcmahon@yahoo.co.uk
Citation:
Ann Clin Biochem. 2010 Jul;47(Pt 4):327-30. Epub 2010 May 28.
Journal:
Annals of clinical biochemistry
Issue Date:
1-Feb-2012
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10147/207798
DOI:
10.1258/acb.2010.009235
PubMed ID:
20511377
Abstract:
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of imaging examinations in patients with elevated tumour markers when (a) the tumour marker is not validated for as a primary diagnostic test; (b) the patient had no personal history of cancer and (c) the patient had no other imaging indication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients without known cancer who had abnormal carcinoembryonic antigen, CA19-9, CA125 and/or CA15-3 serology over a one-year period were included. A retrospective medical record review was performed to assess the number of these cases who underwent imaging because of 'elevated tumour marker' in the absence of a clinical indication for imaging. The number and result of these imaging studies were evaluated. RESULTS: Eight hundred and nineteen patients were included. Of those, 25 patients (mean age: 67.8 [range 41-91] y), were imaged to evaluate: 'elevated tumour marker'. They underwent 29 imaging studies (mean [+/-standard deviation (SD)] per patient = 1.2 [+/-0.4]), and had 42 elevated tumour marker serology tests (mean [+/-SD] per patient = 1.7 [+/-0.7]). Four patients had >1 imaging test. No patient had an imaging study which diagnosed a malignancy or explained the elevated tumour marker. CONCLUSION: The non-judicious use of tumour markers can prompt further unnecessary investigations including imaging. In this study, there was no positive diagnostic yield for imaging performed for investigation of 'elevated tumour marker'. 'Elevated tumour marker', in the absence of a known underlying malignancy, should not be considered an independent indication for imaging.
Language:
eng
MeSH:
Diagnostic Imaging/*statistics & numerical data; Humans; Neoplasms/blood/diagnosis; Retrospective Studies; Tumor Markers, Biological/*blood
ISSN:
1758-1001 (Electronic); 0004-5632 (Linking)

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorMcMahon, Colm Jen_GB
dc.contributor.authorCrowley, Vivionen_GB
dc.contributor.authorMcCarroll, Nualaen_GB
dc.contributor.authorDunne, Ruthen_GB
dc.contributor.authorKeogan, Mary Ten_GB
dc.date.accessioned2012-02-01T10:45:01Z-
dc.date.available2012-02-01T10:45:01Z-
dc.date.issued2012-02-01T10:45:01Z-
dc.identifier.citationAnn Clin Biochem. 2010 Jul;47(Pt 4):327-30. Epub 2010 May 28.en_GB
dc.identifier.issn1758-1001 (Electronic)en_GB
dc.identifier.issn0004-5632 (Linking)en_GB
dc.identifier.pmid20511377en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1258/acb.2010.009235en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10147/207798-
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of imaging examinations in patients with elevated tumour markers when (a) the tumour marker is not validated for as a primary diagnostic test; (b) the patient had no personal history of cancer and (c) the patient had no other imaging indication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients without known cancer who had abnormal carcinoembryonic antigen, CA19-9, CA125 and/or CA15-3 serology over a one-year period were included. A retrospective medical record review was performed to assess the number of these cases who underwent imaging because of 'elevated tumour marker' in the absence of a clinical indication for imaging. The number and result of these imaging studies were evaluated. RESULTS: Eight hundred and nineteen patients were included. Of those, 25 patients (mean age: 67.8 [range 41-91] y), were imaged to evaluate: 'elevated tumour marker'. They underwent 29 imaging studies (mean [+/-standard deviation (SD)] per patient = 1.2 [+/-0.4]), and had 42 elevated tumour marker serology tests (mean [+/-SD] per patient = 1.7 [+/-0.7]). Four patients had >1 imaging test. No patient had an imaging study which diagnosed a malignancy or explained the elevated tumour marker. CONCLUSION: The non-judicious use of tumour markers can prompt further unnecessary investigations including imaging. In this study, there was no positive diagnostic yield for imaging performed for investigation of 'elevated tumour marker'. 'Elevated tumour marker', in the absence of a known underlying malignancy, should not be considered an independent indication for imaging.en_GB
dc.language.isoengen_GB
dc.subject.meshDiagnostic Imaging/*statistics & numerical dataen_GB
dc.subject.meshHumansen_GB
dc.subject.meshNeoplasms/blood/diagnosisen_GB
dc.subject.meshRetrospective Studiesen_GB
dc.subject.meshTumor Markers, Biological/*blooden_GB
dc.titleElevated tumour marker: an indication for imaging?en_GB
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, St James Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland., colmjmcmahon@yahoo.co.uken_GB
dc.identifier.journalAnnals of clinical biochemistryen_GB
dc.description.provinceLeinster-

Related articles on PubMed

All Items in Lenus, The Irish Health Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.