Serum Tumor Markers: Comparison between Guidelines and the Clinical Practice in a University Hospital Center
Abstract
Background: Among the different existing serum tumor markers (TM), none fulfills criteria for a clinical practice in screening, diagnosis, prognosis, targeted therapy and follow-up, due to a weak sensitivity and specificity. Guidelines from different national and international expert groups in cancer have been edited relating to the best use of those serums TM for a given cancer. The goal of our study was to evaluate the pattern of serum TM used in our University Hospital Center and to determine whether their prescriptions were appropriate related to those guidelines. Methods: We analyzed all the prescriptions including at least one serum TM among CEA (carcino-embryonic antigen), CA (carbohydrate antigen or cancer antigen) 125, CA15-3, CA19-9, NSE (neuron-specific enolase) and Cyfra 21-1 recorded in our biochemistry department between June 2012 and June 2013. For each prescription, we determined the clinical department, the use of the serum TM (diagnostic phase or follow-up), the serum TM and their number. Results: We analyzed 1682 serum TM among 778 prescriptions. Whatever the medical or surgical department, CEA and CA19-9 were the two most prescribed TM corresponding to 29.8% and 25.4% of all assays, respectively. However, we noticed a more targeted prescription of TM for departments with an oncology activity. We also observed that serum TM was mainly used for diagnosis in about 2/3 of cases, which isn’t consistent with national and international guidelines. Conclusion: Oncologists have a targeted use of serum TM which enables a better rationalization of prescriptions while non-oncologists are less experienced resulting in multiple TM prescriptions for unrelated cancers. Discrepancies regarding the use of serum TM among national and international guidelines still exist; this requires a harmonization for a better clinical care of cancer patients with a lower medical expenditure.
Related
- Comparison of national and international pediatric fever clinical practice guidelines: A systematic review
- Appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in dental practice: results of two clinical audits conducted at a university hospital
- Barriers and facilitators to translating infection prevention knowledge into clinical practice at Bule Hora University Teaching Hospital, Ethiopia: mixed-methods study
- Barriers and Facilitators Influencing Physiotherapists’ Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines and Return to Sport Criteria after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Qualitative Study in Austria.
- Evaluation of Large Language Model Concordance With AAOS Clinical Practice Guidelines for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
BibTeX
@article{gravey2026serum,
title = {{Serum Tumor Markers: Comparison between Guidelines and the Clinical Practice in a University Hospital Center}},
author = {François Gravey and Jean-Baptiste Davy and Frédérique Grandhomme and Stéphane Allouche},
journal = {Journal of Clinical \& Experimental Pathology},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.4172/2161-0681.1000246},
url = {https://hal.science/hal-05781469v1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Serum Tumor Markers: Comparison between Guidelines and the Clinical Practice in a University Hospital Center
AU - François Gravey
AU - Jean-Baptiste Davy
AU - Frédérique Grandhomme
AU - Stéphane Allouche
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/06
JO - Journal of Clinical & Experimental Pathology
DO - 10.4172/2161-0681.1000246
UR - https://hal.science/hal-05781469v1
AB - Background: Among the different existing serum tumor markers (TM), none fulfills criteria for a clinical practice in screening, diagnosis, prognosis, targeted therapy and follow-up, due to a weak sensitivity and specificity. Guidelines from different national and international expert groups in cancer have been edited relating to the best use of those serums TM for a given cancer. The goal of our study was to evaluate the pattern of serum TM used in our University Hospital Center and to determine whether their prescriptions were appropriate related to those guidelines. Methods: We analyzed all the prescriptions including at least one serum TM among CEA (carcino-embryonic antigen), CA (carbohydrate antigen or cancer antigen) 125, CA15-3, CA19-9, NSE (neuron-specific enolase) and Cyfra 21-1 recorded in our biochemistry department between June 2012 and June 2013. For each prescription, we determined the clinical department, the use of the serum TM (diagnostic phase or follow-up), the serum TM and their number. Results: We analyzed 1682 serum TM among 778 prescriptions. Whatever the medical or surgical department, CEA and CA19-9 were the two most prescribed TM corresponding to 29.8% and 25.4% of all assays, respectively. However, we noticed a more targeted prescription of TM for departments with an oncology activity. We also observed that serum TM was mainly used for diagnosis in about 2/3 of cases, which isn’t consistent with national and international guidelines. Conclusion: Oncologists have a targeted use of serum TM which enables a better rationalization of prescriptions while non-oncologists are less experienced resulting in multiple TM prescriptions for unrelated cancers. Discrepancies regarding the use of serum TM among national and international guidelines still exist; this requires a harmonization for a better clinical care of cancer patients with a lower medical expenditure.
SN - 2161-0681
SN - 2161-0681
ER -