M M Widlak1,2, M Neal3, E Daulton4, C L Thomas5, C Tomkins5, B Singh6, C Harmston7, A Wicaksono4, C Evans7, S Smith5,8, R S Savage3, J A Covington4, R P Arasaradnam1,2,9. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK. 2. Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. 3. Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. 4. School of Engineering, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. 5. Department of Biochemistry, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK. 6. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK. 7. Department of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK. 8. Midlands and North West Bowel Cancer Screening Hub, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK. 9. Applied Biological and Experimental Sciences, University of Coventry, Coventry, UK.
Abstract
AIM: Faecal markers, such as the faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin (FIT) and faecal calprotectin (FCP), have been increasingly used to exclude colorectal cancer (CRC) and colonic inflammation. However, in those with lower gastrointestinal symptoms there are considerable numbers who have cancer but have a negative FIT test (i.e. false negative), which has impeded its use in clinical practice. We undertook a study of diagnostic accuracy CRC using FIT, FCP and urinary volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in patients with lower gastrointestinal symptoms. METHOD: One thousand and sixteen symptomatic patients with suspected CRC referred by family physicians were recruited prospectively in accordance with national referring protocol. A total of 562 patients who completed colonic investigations, in addition to providing stool for FIT and FCP as well as urine samples for urinary VOC measurements, were included in the final outcome measures. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity for CRC using FIT was 0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.93] and 0.93 (CI 0.91-0.95), respectively. For urinary VOCs, the sensitivity and specificity for CRC was 0.63 (CI 0.46-0.79) and 0.63 (CI 0.59-0.67), respectively. However, for those who were FIT-negative CRC (i.e. false negatives), the addition of urinary VOCs resulted in a sensitivity of 0.97 (CI 0.90-1.0) and specificity of 0.72 (CI 0.68-0.76). CONCLUSIONS: When applied to the FIT-negative group, urinary VOCs improve CRC detection (sensitivity rises from 0.80 to 0.97), thus showing promise as a second-stage test to complement FIT in the detection of CRC.
AIM: Faecal markers, such as the faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin (FIT) and faecal calprotectin (FCP), have been increasingly used to exclude colorectal cancer (CRC) and colonic inflammation. However, in those with lower gastrointestinal symptoms there are considerable numbers who have cancer but have a negative FIT test (i.e. false negative), which has impeded its use in clinical practice. We undertook a study of diagnostic accuracy CRC using FIT, FCP and urinary volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in patients with lower gastrointestinal symptoms. METHOD: One thousand and sixteen symptomatic patients with suspected CRC referred by family physicians were recruited prospectively in accordance with national referring protocol. A total of 562 patients who completed colonic investigations, in addition to providing stool for FIT and FCP as well as urine samples for urinary VOC measurements, were included in the final outcome measures. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity for CRC using FIT was 0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.93] and 0.93 (CI 0.91-0.95), respectively. For urinary VOCs, the sensitivity and specificity for CRC was 0.63 (CI 0.46-0.79) and 0.63 (CI 0.59-0.67), respectively. However, for those who were FIT-negative CRC (i.e. false negatives), the addition of urinary VOCs resulted in a sensitivity of 0.97 (CI 0.90-1.0) and specificity of 0.72 (CI 0.68-0.76). CONCLUSIONS: When applied to the FIT-negative group, urinary VOCs improve CRC detection (sensitivity rises from 0.80 to 0.97), thus showing promise as a second-stage test to complement FIT in the detection of CRC.
Authors: Lu Deng; Kathleen Ismond; Zhengjun Liu; Jeremy Constable; Haili Wang; Olusegun I Alatise; Martin R Weiser; T P Kingham; David Chang Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Kevin J Monahan; Michael M Davies; Muti Abulafi; Ayan Banerjea; Brian D Nicholson; Ramesh Arasaradnam; Neil Barker; Sally Benton; Richard Booth; David Burling; Rachel Victoria Carten; Nigel D'Souza; James Edward East; Jos Kleijnen; Michael Machesney; Maria Pettman; Jenny Pipe; Lance Saker; Linda Sharp; James Stephenson; Robert Jc Steele Journal: Gut Date: 2022-07-12 Impact factor: 31.793
Authors: Craig Mowat; Jayne Digby; Judith A Strachan; Rebecca K McCann; Francis A Carey; Callum G Fraser; Robert Jc Steele Journal: Ann Clin Biochem Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 2.057
Authors: Kelly E van Keulen; Maud E Jansen; Ruud W M Schrauwen; Jeroen J Kolkman; Peter D Siersema Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2019-12-20 Impact factor: 8.171