Literature DB >> 20929882

Fecal DNA for noninvasive diagnosis of colorectal cancer in immunochemical fecal occult blood test-positive individuals.

Daniele Calistri1, Claudia Rengucci, Andrea Casadei Gardini, Giovanni Luca Frassineti, Emanuela Scarpi, Wainer Zoli, Fabio Falcini, Rosella Silvestrini, Dino Amadori.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We aimed to define the potential of the fecal DNA assay as an alternative or in addition to the currently used immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT) for the early diagnosis of colorectal cancer.
METHODS: A total of 560 individuals aged 50 to 69 years with a positive iFOBT were recruited from an Italian FOBT regional screening program. Twenty-six were diagnosed with adenocarcinoma, 264 with high-risk adenoma, and 54 with low-risk adenoma, whereas 216 subjects did not have premalignant or malignant lesions. Fecal DNA integrity was analyzed blindly by the fluorescence long DNA (FL-DNA) test.
RESULTS: iFOBT and FL-DNA were largely independent variables (rs = 0.036, P = 0.42), with values ranging from 101 to 5,826 ng/mL and from 0 to 515 ng, respectively. Median values of both variables were significantly higher in cancer patients than in patients with noncancerous lesions or in healthy individuals. Moreover, iFOBT and FL-DNA values were individually associated with a number of pathologic parameters. Sequential use of the diagnostic iFOBT and FL-DNA methods showed that fecal DNA provided more accurate diagnostic information and was able to identify subgroups at different risk of cancer in iFOBT-positive individuals.
CONCLUSIONS: A combined approach based on FL-DNA and iFOBT evaluation could help to better identify colorectal cancers and to determine a patient's risk of harboring a preneoplastic or neoplastic lesion. Further evaluation in a screening setting is needed to confirm this hypothesis. IMPACT: Fecal DNA could be a useful tool to better predict cancer risk in FOBT-positive individuals. ©2010 AACR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20929882     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0291

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  7 in total

Review 1.  Fecal DNA testing for colorectal cancer screening: Molecular targets and perspectives.

Authors:  Amaninder Dhaliwal; Panagiotis J Vlachostergios; Katerina G Oikonomou; Yitzchak Moshenyat
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2015-10-15

Review 2.  Circulating and stool nucleic acid analysis for colorectal cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Giulia De Maio; Claudia Rengucci; Wainer Zoli; Daniele Calistri
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  New strategies for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Maria Di Lena; Elisabetta Travaglio; Donato F Altomare
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-03-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 4.  Colorectal cancer: from prevention to personalized medicine.

Authors:  Gemma Binefa; Francisco Rodríguez-Moranta; Alex Teule; Manuel Medina-Hayas
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Role of intestinal flora in colorectal cancer from the metabolite perspective: a systematic review.

Authors:  Shuwen Han; Jianlan Gao; Qing Zhou; Shanshan Liu; Caixia Wen; Xi Yang
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 3.989

Review 6.  Fecal Immunochemical Tests Combined With Other Stool Tests for Colorectal Cancer and Advanced Adenoma Detection: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Tobias Niedermaier; Korbinian Weigl; Michael Hoffmeister; Hermann Brenner
Journal:  Clin Transl Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 4.488

7.  Comparative Analysis of Sample Extraction and Library Construction for Shotgun Metagenomics.

Authors:  Zonghui Peng; Xiaolong Zhu; Zhijiao Wang; Xianting Yan; Guangbiao Wang; Meifang Tang; Awei Jiang; Karsten Kristiansen
Journal:  Bioinform Biol Insights       Date:  2020-06-03
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.