Shiho Takashima1, Jun Kato2, Sakiko Hiraoka1, Asuka Nakarai1, Daisuke Takei1, Toshihiro Inokuchi1, Yuusaku Sugihara1, Masahiro Takahara1, Keita Harada3, Hiroyuki Okada3, Takehiro Tanaka4, Kazuhide Yamamoto1. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan. 2. Second Department of Internal Medicine, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan. 3. Department of Endoscopy, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan. 4. Department of Pathology and Oncology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We previously showed that a quantitative fecal immunochemical test (FIT) can predict mucosal healing (MH) in ulcerative colitis (UC). Fecal calprotectin (Fcal) has also been reported as an important biomarker of UC activity. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive ability of these two fecal markers for MH in UC. METHODS: FIT and Fcal were examined in stool samples from consecutive UC patients who underwent colonoscopy. Mucosal status was assessed via the Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES). RESULTS: In total, 105 colonoscopies in 92 UC patients were evaluated in conjunction with the FIT and Fcal results. Both FIT and Fcal results were significantly correlated with MES (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient: 0.61 and 0.58, respectively). The sensitivity and specificity of the FIT values (<100 ng/ml) for predicting MH (MES 0 alone) were 0.95 and 0.62, respectively, whereas those of Fcal (<250 μg/g) were 0.82 and 0.62, respectively. The sensitivities became similar when MH was defined as MES 0 or 1 (0.86 vs. 0.86). Although the predictability of MH evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was similar for the two fecal markers (FIT 0.83 vs. Fcal 0.82 for MES 0 alone), the FIT results were relatively robust regardless of the cutoff value selected. CONCLUSIONS: Both FIT and Fcal can efficiently predict MH in UC, but FIT appears to be more sensitive than Fcal for predicting MES 0 alone.
OBJECTIVES: We previously showed that a quantitative fecal immunochemical test (FIT) can predict mucosal healing (MH) in ulcerative colitis (UC). Fecal calprotectin (Fcal) has also been reported as an important biomarker of UC activity. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive ability of these two fecal markers for MH in UC. METHODS: FIT and Fcal were examined in stool samples from consecutive UC patients who underwent colonoscopy. Mucosal status was assessed via the Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES). RESULTS: In total, 105 colonoscopies in 92 UC patients were evaluated in conjunction with the FIT and Fcal results. Both FIT and Fcal results were significantly correlated with MES (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient: 0.61 and 0.58, respectively). The sensitivity and specificity of the FIT values (<100 ng/ml) for predicting MH (MES 0 alone) were 0.95 and 0.62, respectively, whereas those of Fcal (<250 μg/g) were 0.82 and 0.62, respectively. The sensitivities became similar when MH was defined as MES 0 or 1 (0.86 vs. 0.86). Although the predictability of MH evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was similar for the two fecal markers (FIT 0.83 vs. Fcal 0.82 for MES 0 alone), the FIT results were relatively robust regardless of the cutoff value selected. CONCLUSIONS: Both FIT and Fcal can efficiently predict MH in UC, but FIT appears to be more sensitive than Fcal for predicting MES 0 alone.
Authors: Sietze T van Turenhout; Frank A Oort; Jochim S Terhaar sive Droste; Veerle M H Coupé; Rene W van der Hulst; Ruud J Loffeld; Pieter Scholten; Annekatrien C T M Depla; Anneke A Bouman; Gerrit A Meijer; Chris J J Mulder; Leo G M van Rossum Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Alain M Schoepfer; Christoph Beglinger; Alex Straumann; Ekaterina Safroneeva; Yvonne Romero; David Armstrong; Carsten Schmidt; Michael Trummler; Valérie Pittet; Stephan R Vavricka Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Wing Yan Mak; Anthony Buisson; Michael J Andersen; Donald Lei; Joel Pekow; Russell D Cohen; Stacy A Kahn; Bruno Pereira; David T Rubin Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Lívia Moreira Genaro; Luís Eduardo Miani Gomes; Ana Paula Menezes de Freitas Franceschini; Hugo Dugolin Ceccato; Rafael Nascimento de Jesus; Amanda Pereira Lima; Cristiane Kibune Nagasako; João José Fagundes; Maria de Lourdes Setsuko Ayrizono; Raquel Franco Leal Journal: Am J Transl Res Date: 2021-12-15 Impact factor: 4.060
Authors: Mark S Johnstone; Gillian Miller; Grace Pang; Paul Burton; Georgios Kourounis; Jack Winter; Emilia Crighton; David Mansouri; Paul Witherspoon; Karen Smith; Stephen T McSorley Journal: Ann Clin Biochem Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 2.587