The Clinical Significance of CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 in Management of Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma - Yousef, Abdelrahman; Yousef, Mahmoud; Zeineddine, Mohammad; More, Aditya; Chowdhury, Saikat; Knafl, Mark; Edelkamp, Paul; Ito, Ichiaki; Gu, Yue; Pattalachinti, Vinay; Naini, Zahra Alavi; Zeineddine, Fadl; et al. (medRxiv, 2023)
Importance Serum tumor markers CEA, CA19-9, & CA125 have been useful in the management of gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers, however there is limited information regarding their utility in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma.Objective Assessing the association of serum tumor markers (CEA, CA19-9, and CA125) with clinical outcomes, pathologic, and molecular features in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma.Design This is a retrospective study with results reported in 2023. The median follow-up time was 43 months.Setting Single tertiary care comprehensive cancer center.Participants Under an approved Institutional Review Board protocol, the Palantir Foundry software system was used to query the MD Anderson internal patient database to identify patients with a diagnosis of appendiceal adenocarcinoma and at least one tumor marker measured at MD Anderson between 2016 and 2023.Results A total of 1,338 patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma were included, with a median age of 56.5 years. The majority of the patients had metastatic disease (80.7%). CEA was elevated in more than half of the patients tested (56%), while CA19-9 and CA125 were elevated in 34% and 27%, respectively. Individually, elevation of CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 were associated with worse 5-year survival; 82% vs 95%, 84% vs 92%, and 69% vs 93% elevated vs normal for CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 respectively (all p<0.0001). Quantitative evaluation of tumor markers increased prognostic ability. Patients with highly elevated (top 10th percentile) CEA, CA19-9 or CA125 had markedly worse survival with 5-year survival rates of 59%, 64%, and 57%, respectively (HR vs. normal : 9.8, 6.0, 7.6, all p<0.0001). Although metastatic tumors had higher levels of all tumor markers, when restricting survival analysis to 1080 patients with metastatic disease elevated CEA, CA19-9 or CA125 were all still associated worse survival (HR vs. normal : 3.4, 1.8, 3.9, p<0.0001 for CEA and CA125, p=0.0019 for CA19-9). Interestingly tumor grade was not associated with CEA or CA19-9 level, while CA-125 was slightly higher in high relative to low-grade tumors (18.3 vs. 15.0, p=0.0009). Multivariable analysis identified an incremental increase in the risk of death with an increase in the number of elevated tumor markers, with a 11-fold increased risk of death in patients with all three tumor markers elevated relative to those with none elevated. Mutation in KRAS and GNAS were associated with significantly higher levels of CEA and CA19-9.Conclusions These findings demonstrate the utility of measuring CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 in the management of appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Given their prognostic value, all three biomarkers should be included in the initial workup of patients diagnosed with appendiceal adenocarcinoma.Question Can serum tumor markers CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 be useful in management of patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma?Findings In this single institution retrospective cohort study, elevation of CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 were associated with significantly worse 5-year survival; 82% vs 95%, 84% vs 92%, and 69% vs 93% elevated vs normal respectively. Moreover, quantitative evaluation of tumor markers increased prognostic ability. Further analysis identified an incremental increase in the risk of death with an increase in the number of elevated tumor markers, with a 11-fold increased risk of death in patients with all three tumor markers elevated relative to those with none elevated.Meaning Given their prognostic value, all three biomarkers should be included in the initial workup of patients diagnosed with appendiceal adenocarcinoma.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Col. Daniel Connelly Memorial Fund, the National Cancer Institute (K22 CA234406 to J.P.S., Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA016672), the Cancer Prevention &; Research Institute of Texas (RR180035 to J.P.S., J.P.S. is a CPRIT Scholar in Cancer Research), and a Conquer Cancer Career Development Award (to J.P.S.). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the American Society of Clinical Oncology or Conquer CancerAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Institutional Review BoardI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.Yes