Back

Association between serum CEA levels and ctDNA-detected Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor mutations in lung adenocarcinoma

Roy, S.; Soroar, M. K. I.; Ara, H.; Nur, S. A.; Akanda, R. A.; Saha, S.; Alam, M. M.

2026-07-17 oncology
10.64898/2026.07.14.26358115 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background with objective: Detecting EGFR mutations is critical for treating lung adenocarcinoma with highly effective targeted therapies. However, standard genetic testing is expensive, complex, and often unavailable in resource-limited settings like Bangladesh. Because elevated serum CEA has been linked to these genetic alterations, it could serve as an accessible screening tool. This study aims to evaluate the association between serum CEA levels and EGFR mutation status to determine if routine CEA testing can reliably predict these mutations and guide treatment. Methodology: In this cross-sectional analytical study, we recruited 58 patients with histologically confirmed treatment naive lung adenocarcinoma. The presence of EGFR mutations in the ctDNA was determined via ARMS (Amplification Refractory Mutation System) PCR. Patient data was statistically analyzed to assess the diagnostic correlation between serum CEA levels and the presence of EGFR mutations. Result: The overall EGFR mutation rate was 43.1% with exon 19 deletion (48%) and exon 21 mutations (44%) were the predominant types. Median serum CEA levels were significantly higher in patients with EGFR mutations compared to wild-type cases (14.6 ng/ml vs 2.8 ng/ml, p<0.001). A multivariate analysis revealed a 14% increased likelihood of an EGFR mutation for 1 ng/ml rise in serum CEA. Furthermore, serum CEA showed strong diagnostic accuracy for ctDNA samples at a 6.39 ng/ml cut-off (AUC 0.82, sensitivity 68.0%, specificity 84.8%). Conclusion: Serum CEA is a valuable, cost-effective, and non-invasive biomarker demonstrating significantly higher levels and strong diagnostic accuracy in EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinoma compared to wild-type cases.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 5%
27.4%
2
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.1%
3
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.9%
4
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
Heliyon
152 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.3%
6
Molecular Biology Reports
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
7
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 31%
3.3%
8
Health Science Reports
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
9
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.9%
10
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.8%
11
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.5%
12
Gene Reports
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.0%
13
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
14
BMC Infectious Diseases
133 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
Journal of Medical Virology
140 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
16
Cancer Medicine
26 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
17
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.2%
18
Pan African Medical Journal
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
19
FEBS Open Bio
31 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
20
British Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
21
Microbiology Spectrum
469 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.6%
22
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
23
BMC Health Services Research
51 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%