Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Best practice in primary care pathology: review 13
  1. J C Cabrera-Abreu1,
  2. W S A Smellie2,
  3. R Bowley3,
  4. N Shaw3
  1. 1Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Royal Berkshire and Battle NHS Trust, London, UK
  2. 2Department of Chemical Pathology, Bishop Auckland General Hospital, Bishop Auckland, UK
  3. 3Sowerby Centre for Health Informatics, Bede House, All Saints Business Centre, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr W S A Smellie, Department of Chemical Pathology, Bishop Auckland General Hospital, Cockton Hill Road, Bishop Auckland, County Durham, England DL14 6AD, UK; stuart.smellie{at}cddft.nhs.uk

Abstract

This 13th best practice review examines tumour marker requesting primary care situations. The review is presented in question–answer format, referenced for each question. This review considers carcinoembryonic antigen carbohydrate antigen 15-3 (Ca15-3) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (Ca19-9). The recommendations represent a précis of guidance found using a standardised literature search of national and international guidance notes, consensus statements, health policy documents and evidence-based medicine reviews, supplemented by MEDLINE EMBASE searches to identify relevant primary research documents. They will be updated periodically to take account of new information.

  • Cholesterol
  • lipids
  • lipoproteins
  • laboratory management
  • laboratory computing
  • medical education
  • management
  • evidence-based pathology
  • colorectal cancer
  • gall bladder
  • oncogenes
  • p53
  • pancreas
  • nutrition
  • molecular biology
  • laboratory tests
  • chemical pathology
  • cancer
  • diagnosis
  • tumour markers

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding This work has been supported (in alphabetical order) by the Association of Clinical Biochemists*, Association of Clinical Pathologists*, Association of Medical Microbiologists, British Society for Haematology, Royal College of General Practitioners, Royal College of Pathologists* and the Sowerby Centre for Health Informatics in Newcastle (SCHIN), representatives of whom have contributed to the reviewing process. The opinions stated are however those of the authors.*These organisations contributed direct funding to support the original project start up.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.