| Literature DB >> 22969796 |
Rani Kanthan1, Jenna-Lynn Senger, Selliah Chandra Kanthan.
Abstract
Despite multiple screening techniques, including colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, radiological imaging, and fecal occult blood testing, colorectal cancer remains a leading cause of death. As these techniques improve, their sensitivity to detect malignant lesions is increasing; however, detection of precursor lesions remains problematic and has generated a lack of general acceptance for their widespread usage. Early detection by an accurate, noninvasive, cost-effective, simple-to-use screening technique is central to decreasing the incidence and mortality of this disease. Recent advances in the development of molecular markers in faecal specimens are encouraging for its use as a screening tool. Genetic mutations and epigenetic alterations that result from the carcinogenetic process can be detected by coprocytobiology in the colonocytes exfoliated from the lesion into the fecal matter. These markers have shown promising sensitivity and specificity in the detection of both malignant and premalignant lesions and are gaining popularity as a noninvasive technique that is representative of the entire colon. In this paper, we summarize the genetic and epigenetic fecal molecular markers that have been identified as potential targets in the screening of colorectal cancer.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22969796 PMCID: PMC3226355 DOI: 10.1155/2012/184343
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract ISSN: 1687-6121 Impact factor: 2.260
Studies of KRAS genetic alterations in fecal samples.
| Authors and reference | Technique | Specimen | Specimen | Control | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhang et al. [ | Chip-based temperature gradient capillary electrophoresis (TGCE) | CRC | 30 | 15 | 57% | 93% |
| Chien et al. [ | RT-PCR + amplified restricted fragment length polymorphism analysis | CRC | 29 | 20 | 41% | 95% |
| Rengucci et al. [ | Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis | CRC | 46 | 18 | 33% | 100% |
| Notarnicola et al. [ | PCR amplification and restriction enzyme analysis | CRC | 26 | None | 26.9% | NA |
| Smith-Ravin et al. [ | PCR amplification using allele-specific mismatch method | CRC | 11 | None | 50% | NA |
Studies of SFRP2 genetic alterations in fecal samples.
| Authors and references | Technique | Specimen | Specimen | Control | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tang et al. [ | MS-PCR | CRC | 169 | 30 | 84% | 54% |
| Wang and Tang [ | Fluorescence-based RT-PCR | CRC | 69 | 30 | 87.0% | 93.3% |
| Oberwalder et al. [ | MethyLight analysis | Adenoma | 13 | 6 | 46% | 100% |
|
Huang et al. [ | MS-PCR | CRC | 52 | 24 | 94.2% | 95.8% |
| Müller et al. [ | MethyLight analysis | CRC | 13 | 13 | 77% | 77% |
Studies of the PreGen panel in the detection of genetic alterations in fecal samples.
| Authors and references | Markers | Specimen | Specimen | Control | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahlquist et al. [ | 15 markers: Kras, APC, p53, BAT26, DIA | CRC | 22 | 28 | 91% | 93% |
|
| ||||||
| Berger et al. [ | 19 markers: p523, Kras, APC, BAT26 | CRC | 100 | None | 83% | NA |
|
| ||||||
| Berger et al. [ | 19 markers: p53, APC, KRAS, BAT26 | Polyps ≥1 cm | 32 | None | 88% | NA |
|
| ||||||
| Tagore et al. [ | 23 markers: full panel | Advanced CRC | 52 | 212 | 63.5% | 96.2% |
| Adenoma | 28 | 57.1% | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Brand [ | 23 markers: full panel | CRC | 16 | None | 69% | NA |
|
| ||||||
| Imperiale et al. [ | 23 markers: full panel | CRC | 31 | 1423 | 51.6% | 94.4% |
|
| ||||||
| Syngal et al. [ | 23 markers: full panel | CRC | 68 | None | 63% | NA |