BACKGROUND: Stool DNA testing is a new approach to colorectal cancer detection. Few data are available from the screening setting. OBJECTIVE: To compare stool DNA and fecal blood testing for detection of screen-relevant neoplasia (curable-stage cancer, high-grade dysplasia, or adenomas >1 cm). DESIGN: Blinded, multicenter, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Communities surrounding 22 participating academic and regional health care systems in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 4482 average-risk adults. MEASUREMENTS: Fecal blood and DNA markers. Participants collected 3 stools, smeared fecal blood test cards and used same-day shipment to a central facility. Fecal blood cards (Hemoccult and HemoccultSensa, Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, California) were tested on 3 stools and DNA assays on 1 stool per patient. Stool DNA test 1 (SDT-1) was a precommercial 23-marker assay, and a novel test (SDT-2) targeted 3 broadly informative markers. The criterion standard was colonoscopy. RESULTS: Sensitivity for screen-relevant neoplasms was 20% by SDT-1, 11% by Hemoccult (P = 0.020), 21% by HemoccultSensa (P = 0.80); sensitivity for cancer plus high-grade dysplasia did not differ among tests. Specificity was 96% by SDT-1, compared with 98% by Hemoccult (P < 0.001) and 97% by HemoccultSensa (P = 0.20). Stool DNA test 2 detected 46% of screen-relevant neoplasms, compared with 16% by Hemoccult (P < 0.001) and 24% by HemoccultSensa (P < 0.001). Stool DNA test 2 detected 46% of adenomas 1 cm or larger, compared with 10% by Hemoccult (P < 0.001) and 17% by HemoccultSensa (P < 0.001). Among colonoscopically normal patients, the positivity rate was 16% with SDT-2, compared with 4% with Hemoccult (P = 0.010) and 5% with HemoccultSensa (P = 0.030). LIMITATIONS: Stool DNA test 2 was not performed on all subsets of patients without screen-relevant neoplasms. Stools were collected without preservative, which reduced detection of some DNA markers. CONCLUSION: Stool DNA test 1 provides no improvement over HemoccultSensa for detection of screen-relevant neoplasms. Stool DNA test 2 detects significantly more neoplasms than does Hemoccult or HemoccultSensa, but with more positive results in colonoscopically normal patients. Higher sensitivity of SDT-2 was particularly apparent for adenomas.
BACKGROUND: Stool DNA testing is a new approach to colorectal cancer detection. Few data are available from the screening setting. OBJECTIVE: To compare stool DNA and fecal blood testing for detection of screen-relevant neoplasia (curable-stage cancer, high-grade dysplasia, or adenomas >1 cm). DESIGN: Blinded, multicenter, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Communities surrounding 22 participating academic and regional health care systems in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 4482 average-risk adults. MEASUREMENTS: Fecal blood and DNA markers. Participants collected 3 stools, smeared fecal blood test cards and used same-day shipment to a central facility. Fecal blood cards (Hemoccult and HemoccultSensa, Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, California) were tested on 3 stools and DNA assays on 1 stool per patient. Stool DNA test 1 (SDT-1) was a precommercial 23-marker assay, and a novel test (SDT-2) targeted 3 broadly informative markers. The criterion standard was colonoscopy. RESULTS: Sensitivity for screen-relevant neoplasms was 20% by SDT-1, 11% by Hemoccult (P = 0.020), 21% by HemoccultSensa (P = 0.80); sensitivity for cancer plus high-grade dysplasia did not differ among tests. Specificity was 96% by SDT-1, compared with 98% by Hemoccult (P < 0.001) and 97% by HemoccultSensa (P = 0.20). Stool DNA test 2 detected 46% of screen-relevant neoplasms, compared with 16% by Hemoccult (P < 0.001) and 24% by HemoccultSensa (P < 0.001). Stool DNA test 2 detected 46% of adenomas 1 cm or larger, compared with 10% by Hemoccult (P < 0.001) and 17% by HemoccultSensa (P < 0.001). Among colonoscopically normal patients, the positivity rate was 16% with SDT-2, compared with 4% with Hemoccult (P = 0.010) and 5% with HemoccultSensa (P = 0.030). LIMITATIONS: Stool DNA test 2 was not performed on all subsets of patients without screen-relevant neoplasms. Stools were collected without preservative, which reduced detection of some DNA markers. CONCLUSION: Stool DNA test 1 provides no improvement over HemoccultSensa for detection of screen-relevant neoplasms. Stool DNA test 2 detects significantly more neoplasms than does Hemoccult or HemoccultSensa, but with more positive results in colonoscopically normal patients. Higher sensitivity of SDT-2 was particularly apparent for adenomas.
Authors: Wai K Leung; Ka-Fai To; Ellen P S Man; Michael W Y Chan; Aric J Hui; Simon S M Ng; James Y W Lau; Joseph J Y Sung Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2007-03-22 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Hongzhi Zou; Jonathan J Harrington; Kristie K Klatt; David A Ahlquist Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Lisa Kann; James Han; David Ahlquist; Theodore Levin; Douglas Rex; Duncan Whitney; Sanford Markowitz; Anthony Shuber Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2006-11-02 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Elizabeth Ward; Taylor Murray; Jiaquan Xu; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Steven H Itzkowitz; Lina Jandorf; Randall Brand; Linda Rabeneck; Paul C Schroy; Stephen Sontag; David Johnson; Joel Skoletsky; Kris Durkee; Sanford Markowitz; Anthony Shuber Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2006-12-08 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Sarah Derks; Cindy Postma; Peter T M Moerkerk; Sandra M van den Bosch; Beatriz Carvalho; Mario A J A Hermsen; Walter Giaretti; James G Herman; Matty P Weijenberg; Adriaan P de Bruïne; Gerrit A Meijer; Manon van Engeland Journal: Cell Oncol Date: 2006 Impact factor: 6.730
Authors: Yuriko Mori; Alexandru V Olaru; Yulan Cheng; Rachana Agarwal; Jian Yang; Delgermaa Luvsanjav; Wayne Yu; Florin M Selaru; Susan Hutfless; Mark Lazarev; John H Kwon; Steven R Brant; Michael R Marohn; David F Hutcheon; Mark D Duncan; Ajay Goel; Stephen J Meltzer Journal: Endocr Relat Cancer Date: 2011-07-04 Impact factor: 5.678
Authors: David A Ahlquist; Hongzhi Zou; Michael Domanico; Douglas W Mahoney; Tracy C Yab; William R Taylor; Malinda L Butz; Stephen N Thibodeau; Linda Rabeneck; Lawrence F Paszat; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Niels Chr Bjerregaard; Søren Laurberg; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Barry M Berger; Graham P Lidgard Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2011-11-04 Impact factor: 22.682