Kevin M Rank1, Aasma Shaukat2. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. shaukat@umn.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The goal of this review is to summarize stool-based testing for colorectal cancer (CRC). The key questions answered in this review were the advantages and limitations of each available stool-based test for CRC and to examine their comparative efficacy. RECENT FINDINGS: Guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) is no longer a relevant test for CRC screening. fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) tests, especially quantitative assays, are clearly a reliable stool-based test. Multitarget DNA (mtsDNA) stool testing may represent a viable option as well, although cost and test characteristics are yet fully defined. FIT and mtsDNA represent the options for stool-based CRC screening. In larger screening centers, quantitative FIT assays represent an attractive option for stool-based testing. Qualitative FIT has applicability in smaller centers. Although a large validation trial showed promising results for mtsDNA, further head-to-head trials with FIT will help define the ultimate role of mtsDNA. Ultimately, however, the best test for CRC screening is the one performed stool-based CRC screening as an initial or alternative option can increase participation in CRC screening.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The goal of this review is to summarize stool-based testing for colorectal cancer (CRC). The key questions answered in this review were the advantages and limitations of each available stool-based test for CRC and to examine their comparative efficacy. RECENT FINDINGS: Guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) is no longer a relevant test for CRC screening. fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) tests, especially quantitative assays, are clearly a reliable stool-based test. Multitarget DNA (mtsDNA) stool testing may represent a viable option as well, although cost and test characteristics are yet fully defined. FIT and mtsDNA represent the options for stool-based CRC screening. In larger screening centers, quantitative FIT assays represent an attractive option for stool-based testing. Qualitative FIT has applicability in smaller centers. Although a large validation trial showed promising results for mtsDNA, further head-to-head trials with FIT will help define the ultimate role of mtsDNA. Ultimately, however, the best test for CRC screening is the one performed stool-based CRC screening as an initial or alternative option can increase participation in CRC screening.
Authors: Joshua J Fenton; Joann G Elmore; Diana S M Buist; Robert J Reid; Daniel J Tancredi; Laura-Mae Baldwin Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2010 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: John M Inadomi; Sandeep Vijan; Nancy K Janz; Angela Fagerlin; Jennifer P Thomas; Yunghui V Lin; Roxana Muñoz; Chim Lau; Ma Somsouk; Najwa El-Nachef; Rodney A Hayward Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-04-09
Authors: Douglas J Robertson; Jeffrey K Lee; C Richard Boland; Jason A Dominitz; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Tonya Kaltenbach; David Lieberman; Theodore R Levin; Douglas K Rex Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Manuel Zorzi; Ugo Fedeli; Elena Schievano; Emanuela Bovo; Stefano Guzzinati; Susanna Baracco; Chiara Fedato; Mario Saugo; Angelo Paolo Dei Tos Journal: Gut Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 23.059
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
Authors: G Gallo; J Martellucci; A Sturiale; G Clerico; G Milito; F Marino; G Cocorullo; P Giordano; M Mistrangelo; M Trompetto Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2020-01-28 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: María González-González; José María Sayagués; Luis Muñoz-Bellvís; Carlos Eduardo Pedreira; Marcello L R de Campos; Jacinto García; José Antonio Alcázar; Patrick F Braz; Breno L Galves; Luis Miguel González; Oscar Bengoechea; María Del Mar Abad; Juan Jesús Cruz; Lorena Bellido; Emilio Fonseca; Paula Díez; Pablo Juanes-Velasco; Alicia Landeira-Viñuela; Quentin Lecrevisse; Enrique Montalvillo; Rafael Góngora; Oscar Blanco; José Manuel Sánchez-Santos; Joshua LaBaer; Alberto Orfao; Manuel Fuentes Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 6.639