| Literature DB >> 29565457 |
Taxiarchis Konstantinos Nikolouzakis1, Loukia Vassilopoulou2, Persefoni Fragkiadaki2, Theodoros Mariolis Sapsakos3, Georgios Z Papadakis4, Demetrios A Spandidos5, Aristides M Tsatsakis2, John Tsiaoussis6.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most common cancers. In fact, it is placed in the third place among the most diagnosed cancer in men, after lung and prostate cancer, and in the second one for the most diagnosed cancer in women, following breast cancer. Moreover, its high mortality rates classifies it among the leading causes of cancer‑related death worldwide. Thus, in order to help clinicians to optimize their practice, it is crucial to introduce more effective tools that will improve not only early diagnosis, but also prediction of the most likely progression of the disease and response to chemotherapy. In that way, they will be able to decrease both morbidity and mortality of their patients. In accordance with that, colon cancer research has described numerous biomarkers for diagnostic, prognostic and predictive purposes that either alone or as part of a panel would help improve patient's clinical management. This review aims to describe the most accepted biomarkers among those proposed for use in CRC divided based on the clinical specimen that is examined (tissue, faeces or blood) along with their restrictions. Lastly, new insight in CRC monitoring will be discussed presenting promising emerging biomarkers (telomerase activity, telomere length and micronuclei frequency).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29565457 PMCID: PMC5983921 DOI: 10.3892/or.2018.6330
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncol Rep ISSN: 1021-335X Impact factor: 4.136
Figure 1.Steps of CRC progression and a summarized rendering of the pathogenetic model. CRC, colorectal cancer; APC, adenomatous polyposis coli.
Figure 2.A graphic overview of the current and potential biomarkers used in CRC. CRC, colorectal cancer; CDX2, caudal type homeobox 2; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CIN, chromosomal instability; MSI, microsatellite instability; CIMP, CpG island methylation phenotype; APC, adenomatous polyposis coli; ctDNA, circulating tumor DNA; miRNA, microRNA; SATB2, special AT-rich sequence binding protein 2; CK, cytokeratin; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; IMP3, insulin-like growth factor-II mRNA-binding protein 3; TNIK, Traf2- and Nck-interacting kinase; BRAF, B-rapidly accelerated fibro-sarcoma (proto-oncogene); MSI, microsatellite instability; CA 19-9, cancer antigen 19-9; CTCs, circulating tumor cells; PI3K, phosphoinositide 3-kinase; MN, micronuclei.
Figure 3.Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway. When Wnt is present, it binds to FzR and LRP5 receptor. Dsh enables the phosphorylation of GSK-3β and CK1, resulting in the binding of axin. Following to accumulation of β-catenin and translocation to the nucleus, it binds to various factors in order to modulate the transcription of target-genes. These processes lead to antiapoptotic results and promote cellular proliferation. FzR, frizzled receptor; LRP5, low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5; GCSK3-β, glycogen-synthase kinase 3β; CK1, casein kinase 1; ZNRF3, zinc and ring finger 3; APC, adenomatosis polyposis coli; Pygo, pygopus; Bcl9, B-cell CLL/lymphoma 9; Ep300, E1A binding protein p300; Tcf, T-cell factor; Lef, lymphoid enhancer-binding factor 1.
A summarization of bibliographical references to FOBT sensitivity and specificity.
| Author/(Refs.) | Faecal occult blood testing |
|---|---|
| Kronborg | Reduction in CRC mortality with gFOBT biannually [relative risk reductions of 13% (UK trial) and 16% (Danish trial)] |
| No significant reduction in overall mortality | |
| gFOBT: Low sensitivity for CRC detection (UK trial, 45%; Danish trial, 54%) | |
| True-positive rate: 50% (UK and Danish trials) | |
| False-positive rate: 5–10% (UK and Danish trials) | |
| True-negative rate: 90–95% (UK and Danish trials) | |
| False-negative rate 50% (UK and Danish trials) | |
| Medical Advisory Secretariat ( | iFOBT sensitivity superior to those of gFOBT for CRC detection: Two studies showed sensitivity for gFOBT, 13 and 25%, respectively; pooled iFOBT sensitivity, 81% iFOBT and gFOBT: Lower sensitivities for adenoma detection than for CRC detection: Rehydrated gFOBT, 22%; pooled iFOBT, 28% |
| Lin | FIT sensitivity, 73.8% (95% CI, 62.3 to 83.3) for quantitative (n=9,989) test categories; 78.6% (95% CI, 61.0 to 90.5) for qualitative (n=18,296) test categories |
| Koo | Positive predictive value of FIT > positive predictive value gFOBT for advanced adenoma (1.73 vs. 0.35%) and all neoplasias (3.74 vs. 0.76%) FIT detects twice more CRCs and advanced adenomas |
| Gonzalez-Pons and Cruz-Correa ( | gFOBT: ↓ ability to define bleeding between upper/lower GI tract |
| Kuipers | gFOBT: ↓ ability to distinguish human haeme |
| Valori | gFOBT: Νot sensitive in small bleedings |
| gFOBT ↓ sensitivity in detecting cancerous/preneoplastic lesions | |
| gFOBT: Specificity affected by diet/drugs | |
| Lieberman | gFOBT: 18% sensitivity in detecting advanced adenomas |
| Whitlock | FITs sensitivity for advanced adenomas: ~20–67% (↑ than FOBT) |
| Dancourt | FIT detects more CRC and advanced neoplasia than gFBOT (similar positive predictive value) |
| Imperiale | |
| Rozen | Comparative performance of gFOBT and FIT depends on the number of samples and threshold chosen for the quantitative FIT |
| Hoffman | Screening adherence with FIT was higher than with gFOBT (61.4 vs. 50.5%) |
| Brenner and Tao ( | Sensitivity of FITs for detecting CRC/any advanced neoplasm/any neoplasm: 2–3 times higher than gFBOT |
| Increased levels of FITs specificity vs. gFOBT | |
| Fitzpatrick-Lewis | iFOBT vs. gFOBT on mortality outcomes: iFOBT has higher sensitivity and comparable specificity (insufficient evidence from RCTs) |
| Murphy | Total financial burden: Lower for FIT at any threshold (expressed in µg Hb/g faeces) than for gFOBT, and this difference increases as the FIT threshold is decreased (Cohort-based Markov state transition model) |
| Lee | FIT sensitivity, 79%; FIT specificity, 94% |
| Morikawa | gFOBT detect notably more lesions in the left (compared to the right colon) |
FOBT, faecal occult blood test; CRC, colorectal cancer; gFOBT, guaiac faecal occult blood test; FIT, faecal immunochemical test; RCT, randomized controlled trials.
Figure 4.The connection between chronic inflammation and development of CRC. CRC, colorectal cancer; GFs, growth factors; Il-1β, interleukin 1β; NF-κΒ, nuclear factor κB; HIF-1α, hypoxia inducible factor-1α; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor.
Figure 5.Intracellular signals for CRC manifestation via EGFR. CRC, colorectal cancer; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; BRAF, B-rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma (proto-oncogene); MAPK, mitogen-activated protein kinase; PI3K, phosphoinositide 3-kinase; S6K1, ribosomal protein S6 kinase β-1; PKB, protein kinase B; mTOR, mechanistic target of rapamycin.