PURPOSE: We report an update of current methods for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening based on fecal sample analysis. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Direct electronic databases. RESULTS: Blood in the stools is the first and most used strategy. Fecal occult blood test (FOBT) and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are the main methods. Both are economic, easy to perform with high specificity, and low sensitivity. Based on CRC multi-step process with genetic and epigenetic alterations in large bowel cell DNA, single mutations or panels of alterations have been detected. These tests have the advantage of a marked improvement of the sensitivity when compared to fecal blood. However, high costs, poor availability, and correct choice of marker panel represent the major limits. A specific sDNA panel including aberrantly methylated BMP3 and NDRG4 promoter regions, mutant k-ras and β-actin (a reference gene for human DNA quantity), and an immunochemical assay for human hemoglobin has been recently approved by Food and Drug Administration. Novel promising biomarkers for CRC screening are represented by microRNAs (miRNAs), a group of 18-25 nucleotide non-coding RNA molecules that regulate gene expression. Reports on these fecal biomarkers are case-control studies, and each of them evaluates single miRNAs or multi-target panels. On the other hand, some fecal proteins have been studied as possible CRC screening markers, even though they demonstrated poor results. Finally, alterations of estrogen receptor-beta (i.e., dramatic reduction in the early stage of CRC) have been demonstrated in tissue samples. CONCLUSIONS: Specific investigations are warranted in order to add further noninvasive markers to the panel of CRC screening tools.
PURPOSE: We report an update of current methods for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening based on fecal sample analysis. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Direct electronic databases. RESULTS: Blood in the stools is the first and most used strategy. Fecal occult blood test (FOBT) and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are the main methods. Both are economic, easy to perform with high specificity, and low sensitivity. Based on CRC multi-step process with genetic and epigenetic alterations in large bowel cell DNA, single mutations or panels of alterations have been detected. These tests have the advantage of a marked improvement of the sensitivity when compared to fecal blood. However, high costs, poor availability, and correct choice of marker panel represent the major limits. A specific sDNA panel including aberrantly methylated BMP3 and NDRG4 promoter regions, mutant k-ras and β-actin (a reference gene for human DNA quantity), and an immunochemical assay for human hemoglobin has been recently approved by Food and Drug Administration. Novel promising biomarkers for CRC screening are represented by microRNAs (miRNAs), a group of 18-25 nucleotide non-coding RNA molecules that regulate gene expression. Reports on these fecal biomarkers are case-control studies, and each of them evaluates single miRNAs or multi-target panels. On the other hand, some fecal proteins have been studied as possible CRC screening markers, even though they demonstrated poor results. Finally, alterations of estrogen receptor-beta (i.e., dramatic reduction in the early stage of CRC) have been demonstrated in tissue samples. CONCLUSIONS: Specific investigations are warranted in order to add further noninvasive markers to the panel of CRC screening tools.
Authors: C Ratto; G Flamini; L Sofo; P Nucera; M Ippoliti; G Curigliano; G Ferretti; A Sgambato; M Merico; G B Doglietto; A Cittadini; F Crucitti Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 1996-11 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Zohar Levi; Paul Rozen; Rachel Hazazi; Alex Vilkin; Amal Waked; Eran Maoz; Shlomo Birkenfeld; Moshe Leshno; Yaron Niv Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-02-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: J D Hardcastle; J O Chamberlain; M H Robinson; S M Moss; S S Amar; T W Balfour; P D James; C M Mangham Journal: Lancet Date: 1996-11-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David A Ahlquist; Daniel J Sargent; Charles L Loprinzi; Theodore R Levin; Douglas K Rex; Dennis J Ahnen; Kandice Knigge; M Peter Lance; Lawrence J Burgart; Stanley R Hamilton; James E Allison; Michael J Lawson; Mary E Devens; Jonathan J Harrington; Shauna L Hillman Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-10-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Chung Wah Wu; Siew Chien Ng; Yujuan Dong; Linwei Tian; Simon Siu Man Ng; Wing Wa Leung; Wai Tak Law; Tung On Yau; Francis Ka Leung Chan; Joseph Jao Yiu Sung; Jun Yu Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Thomas F Imperiale; David F Ransohoff; Steven H Itzkowitz; Theodore R Levin; Philip Lavin; Graham P Lidgard; David A Ahlquist; Barry M Berger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245