BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The diagnostic value of stool DNA (sDNA) testing for colorectal neoplasms remains controversial. To compensate for the lack of large-scale unbiased population studies, a meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic value of sDNA testing for multiple markers of colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced adenoma. METHODS: The PubMed, Science Direct, Biosis Review, Cochrane Library and Embase databases were systematically searched in January 2012 without time restriction. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model using sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic OR (DOR), summary ROC curves, area under the curve (AUC), and 95% CIs as effect measures. Heterogeneity was measured using the χ(2) test and Q statistic; subgroup analysis was also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies comprising 5876 individuals were eligible. There was no heterogeneity for CRC, but adenoma and advanced adenoma harboured considerable heterogeneity influenced by risk classification and various detection markers. Stratification analysis according to risk classification showed that multiple markers had a high DOR for the high-risk subgroups of both CRC (sensitivity 0.759 [95% CI 0.711 to 0.804]; specificity 0.883 [95% CI 0.846 to 0.913]; AUC 0.906) and advanced adenoma (sensitivity 0.683 [95% CI 0.584 to 0.771]; specificity 0.918 [95% CI 0.866 to 0.954]; AUC 0.946) but not for the average-risk subgroups of either. In the methylation subgroup, sDNA testing had significantly higher DOR for CRC (sensitivity 0.753 [95% CI 0.685 to 0.812]; specificity 0.913 [95% CI 0.860 to 0.950]; AUC 0.918) and advanced adenoma (sensitivity 0.623 [95% CI 0.527 to 0.712]; specificity 0.926 [95% CI 0.882 to 0.958]; AUC 0.910) compared with the mutation subgroup. There was no significant heterogeneity among studies for subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: sDNA testing for multiple markers had strong diagnostic significance for CRC and advanced adenoma in high-risk subjects. Methylation makers had more diagnostic value than mutation markers.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The diagnostic value of stool DNA (sDNA) testing for colorectal neoplasms remains controversial. To compensate for the lack of large-scale unbiased population studies, a meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic value of sDNA testing for multiple markers of colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced adenoma. METHODS: The PubMed, Science Direct, Biosis Review, Cochrane Library and Embase databases were systematically searched in January 2012 without time restriction. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model using sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic OR (DOR), summary ROC curves, area under the curve (AUC), and 95% CIs as effect measures. Heterogeneity was measured using the χ(2) test and Q statistic; subgroup analysis was also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies comprising 5876 individuals were eligible. There was no heterogeneity for CRC, but adenoma and advanced adenoma harboured considerable heterogeneity influenced by risk classification and various detection markers. Stratification analysis according to risk classification showed that multiple markers had a high DOR for the high-risk subgroups of both CRC (sensitivity 0.759 [95% CI 0.711 to 0.804]; specificity 0.883 [95% CI 0.846 to 0.913]; AUC 0.906) and advanced adenoma (sensitivity 0.683 [95% CI 0.584 to 0.771]; specificity 0.918 [95% CI 0.866 to 0.954]; AUC 0.946) but not for the average-risk subgroups of either. In the methylation subgroup, sDNA testing had significantly higher DOR for CRC (sensitivity 0.753 [95% CI 0.685 to 0.812]; specificity 0.913 [95% CI 0.860 to 0.950]; AUC 0.918) and advanced adenoma (sensitivity 0.623 [95% CI 0.527 to 0.712]; specificity 0.926 [95% CI 0.882 to 0.958]; AUC 0.910) compared with the mutation subgroup. There was no significant heterogeneity among studies for subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: sDNA testing for multiple markers had strong diagnostic significance for CRC and advanced adenoma in high-risk subjects. Methylation makers had more diagnostic value than mutation markers.
Authors: Eugene Chang; Dong Il Park; Young Jin Kim; Bo Kyoung Kim; Jung Ho Park; Hong Joo Kim; Yong Kyun Cho; Chong Il Sohn; Woo Kyu Jeon; Byung Ik Kim; Hung Dai Kim; Dong Hoon Kim; Young Ho Kim Journal: Hepatogastroenterology Date: 2010 Jul-Aug
Authors: Brenda K Edwards; Elizabeth Ward; Betsy A Kohler; Christie Eheman; Ann G Zauber; Robert N Anderson; Ahmedin Jemal; Maria J Schymura; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Laura C Seeff; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; S Luuk Goede; Lynn A G Ries Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Kimberly S Andrews; Durado Brooks; John Bond; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; David Johnson; C Daniel Johnson; Theodore R Levin; Perry J Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Robert A Smith; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-02-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Yoo Hum Baek; Eugene Chang; Young Jin Kim; Bo Kyoung Kim; Jin Hee Sohn; Dong Il Park Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Douglas K Rex; David A Johnson; Joseph C Anderson; Phillip S Schoenfeld; Carol A Burke; John M Inadomi Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Andrea Iannone; Giuseppe Losurdo; Maria Pricci; Bruna Girardi; Antonio Massaro; Mariabeatrice Principi; Michele Barone; Enzo Ierardi; Alfredo Di Leo Journal: J Gastrointest Cancer Date: 2016-06
Authors: M Alexander; J B Burch; S E Steck; C-F Chen; T G Hurley; P Cavicchia; N Shivappa; J Guess; H Zhang; S D Youngstedt; K E Creek; S Lloyd; K Jones; J R Hébert Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2016-10-22 Impact factor: 2.571