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 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.