BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) testing is now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for average-risk colorectal cancer screening. Trials leading to its approval used blinded colonoscopy as the reference standard. In the postapproval screen setting, the clinical performance and impact of MT-sDNA testing on unblinded colonoscopy has not been described. We measured the impact that knowledge of a positive MT-sDNA test result has on colonoscopy yield and quality. METHODS: The unblinded group comprised all patients with positive MT-sDNA results on screening from September 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015 at a single tertiary center. Off-label test patients were excluded. The blinded group included all MT-sDNA-positive participants in a preapproval screening study from the same center. Detailed colonoscopy findings and withdrawal times were recorded. RESULTS: There were 172 MT-sDNA-positive patients in the unblinded group and 72 in the blinded group. More total adenomatous/sessile serrated polyps (70% vs 53%, P = .013) and advanced neoplasms (28% vs 21%, P = .27) were detected in unblinded than in blinded groups. Median numbers of polyps detected were 2 (IQR, 1-4) and 1 (IQR, 0-2) in unblinded and blinded groups, respectively (P = .0007). Among polyps detected, flat or slightly raised lesions in the right side of the colon were proportionately more frequent with unblinded (40%) than with blinded examinations (9%) (P = .0017). Median withdrawal time was 19 minutes (IQR, 13-29) in the unblinded group compared with 13 minutes (IQR, 10-20) in the blinded group (P = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of a positive MT-sDNA result appears to have a beneficial impact on the diagnostic yield and quality of subsequent colonoscopy.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) testing is now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for average-risk colorectal cancer screening. Trials leading to its approval used blinded colonoscopy as the reference standard. In the postapproval screen setting, the clinical performance and impact of MT-sDNA testing on unblinded colonoscopy has not been described. We measured the impact that knowledge of a positive MT-sDNA test result has on colonoscopy yield and quality. METHODS: The unblinded group comprised all patients with positive MT-sDNA results on screening from September 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015 at a single tertiary center. Off-label test patients were excluded. The blinded group included all MT-sDNA-positive participants in a preapproval screening study from the same center. Detailed colonoscopy findings and withdrawal times were recorded. RESULTS: There were 172 MT-sDNA-positive patients in the unblinded group and 72 in the blinded group. More total adenomatous/sessile serrated polyps (70% vs 53%, P = .013) and advanced neoplasms (28% vs 21%, P = .27) were detected in unblinded than in blinded groups. Median numbers of polyps detected were 2 (IQR, 1-4) and 1 (IQR, 0-2) in unblinded and blinded groups, respectively (P = .0007). Among polyps detected, flat or slightly raised lesions in the right side of the colon were proportionately more frequent with unblinded (40%) than with blinded examinations (9%) (P = .0017). Median withdrawal time was 19 minutes (IQR, 13-29) in the unblinded group compared with 13 minutes (IQR, 10-20) in the blinded group (P = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of a positive MT-sDNA result appears to have a beneficial impact on the diagnostic yield and quality of subsequent colonoscopy.
Authors: Gregory S Cooper; Sanford D Markowitz; Zhengyi Chen; Missy Tuck; Joseph E Willis; Barry M Berger; Dean E Brenner; Li Li Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Peter M Graffy; Benjamin Weigman; Nimrod Deiss-Yehiely; Cesare Hassan; Jennifer M Weiss Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-08-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Diana G Redwood; Ian D Blake; Ellen M Provost; John B Kisiel; Frank D Sacco; David A Ahlquist Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2019 Jan-Dec
Authors: Veroushka Ballester; William R Taylor; Seth W Slettedahl; Douglas W Mahoney; Tracy C Yab; Frank A Sinicrope; Clement R Boland; Graham P Lidgard; Marcia R Cruz-Correa; Thomas C Smyrk; Lisa A Boardman; David A Ahlquist; John B Kisiel Journal: Epigenomics Date: 2020-12-22 Impact factor: 4.778
Authors: Deborah A Fisher; Leila Saoud; Kristen Hassmiller Lich; A Mark Fendrick; A Burak Ozbay; Bijan J Borah; Michael Matney; Marcus Parton; Paul J Limburg Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-12-13 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Jason D Eckmann; Derek W Ebner; Jamie Bering; Allon Kahn; Eduardo Rodriguez; Mary E Devens; Kari L Lowrie; Karen Doering; Sara Then; Kelli N Burger; Douglas W Mahoney; David O Prichard; Michael B Wallace; Suryakanth R Gurudu; Lila J Finney; Paul Limburg; Barry Berger; David A Ahlquist; John B Kisiel Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 12.045