Literature DB >> 27884518

Multitarget stool DNA test: clinical performance and impact on yield and quality of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening.

David H Johnson1, John B Kisiel1, Kelli N Burger2, Douglas W Mahoney2, Mary E Devens1, David A Ahlquist1, Seth Sweetser1.   

Abstract

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.
Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27884518     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.11.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  13 in total

1.  Evaluation of Patients with an Apparent False Positive Stool DNA Test: The Role of Repeat Stool DNA Testing.

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

2.  Stool-Based Tests Vs Screening Colonoscopy for the Detection of Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  David A Ahlquist
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2019-08

Review 3.  Multi-Target Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Emerging Learning on Real-world Performance.

Authors:  Jason D Eckmann; Derek W Ebner; John B Kisiel
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-01-21

4.  Diagnostic Performance of Multitarget Stool DNA and CT Colonography for Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening.

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

5.  Alaska Native Patient and Provider Perspectives on the Multitarget Stool DNA Test Compared With Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

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

Review 6.  Stool-Based Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Performance Benchmarks Lead to High Expected Efficacy.

Authors:  Derek W Ebner; John B Kisiel
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2020-06-03

7.  Novel methylated DNA markers accurately discriminate Lynch syndrome associated colorectal neoplasia.

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

8.  Impact of screening and follow-up colonoscopy adenoma sensitivity on colorectal cancer screening outcomes in the CRC-AIM microsimulation model.

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

Review 9.  DNA methylation detection methods used in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Yu-Xia Zhan; Guang-Hua Luo
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2019-10-06       Impact factor: 1.337

10.  Multitarget Stool DNA Screening in Clinical Practice: High Positive Predictive Value for Colorectal Neoplasia Regardless of Exposure to Previous Colonoscopy.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.