Minghao Sun1, Jie Liu2, Hao Hu1, Peng Guo1, Zhili Shan1, Hengying Yang1, Junyi Wang2, Wen Xiao3, Xiaojun Zhou4. 1. Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, 215006, Jiangsu, China. 2. 1Gene Bio-tech Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, 310026, Zhejiang, China. 3. 1Gene Bio-tech Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, 310026, Zhejiang, China. xiaowen2013cpu@163.com. 4. Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, 215006, Jiangsu, China. chowxj@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The mortality of colorectal cancer ranked fifth in China according to cancer statistics in 2015. Cancer screening had been repeatedly proved to play a vital role in decreasing the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer, but the existing screening methods could not meet the requirements. So it is of urgent need to develop a non-invasive, convenient and accurate screening method. METHODS: In this study, stool samples were collected from 102 colorectal cancer, 20 colorectal adenoma, 6 hyperplastic polyps patients and 105 normal controls, and stool DNA was extracted for detection of methylation (BMP3, NDRG4, SDC2 and SFRP2) and KRAS mutations. Meanwhile, hemoglobin in stool samples was detected by immunoassays. Then, the logistic regression model used for classification was built with these biomarkers, and a ROC curve was drawn to evaluate the performance of each biomarker and the panel of them. Meanwhile, conventional serum biomarkers were detected for the comparison of positive rate in colorectal cancer between serum biomarkers and stool DNA biomarkers. RESULTS: As a result, a classification model built with methylation of SDC2 and SFRP2, KRAS mutations and hemoglobin showed a sensitivity of 91.4% for colorectal cancer and 60% for adenoma with the specificity of 86.1%. Compared with it, most of the conventional serum biomarkers showed a sensitivity of less than 20% for colorectal cancer which was significantly lower than stool DNA biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: A novel panel comprised of stool DNA biomarkers was of much higher sensitivity and specificity in early screening of colorectal neoplasms than conventional serum biomarkers.
PURPOSE: The mortality of colorectal cancer ranked fifth in China according to cancer statistics in 2015. Cancer screening had been repeatedly proved to play a vital role in decreasing the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer, but the existing screening methods could not meet the requirements. So it is of urgent need to develop a non-invasive, convenient and accurate screening method. METHODS: In this study, stool samples were collected from 102 colorectal cancer, 20 colorectal adenoma, 6 hyperplastic polypspatients and 105 normal controls, and stool DNA was extracted for detection of methylation (BMP3, NDRG4, SDC2 and SFRP2) and KRAS mutations. Meanwhile, hemoglobin in stool samples was detected by immunoassays. Then, the logistic regression model used for classification was built with these biomarkers, and a ROC curve was drawn to evaluate the performance of each biomarker and the panel of them. Meanwhile, conventional serum biomarkers were detected for the comparison of positive rate in colorectal cancer between serum biomarkers and stool DNA biomarkers. RESULTS: As a result, a classification model built with methylation of SDC2 and SFRP2, KRAS mutations and hemoglobin showed a sensitivity of 91.4% for colorectal cancer and 60% for adenoma with the specificity of 86.1%. Compared with it, most of the conventional serum biomarkers showed a sensitivity of less than 20% for colorectal cancer which was significantly lower than stool DNA biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: A novel panel comprised of stool DNA biomarkers was of much higher sensitivity and specificity in early screening of colorectal neoplasms than conventional serum biomarkers.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colorectal neoplasms; DNA methylation; Early screening; Non-invasive; Stool based
Authors: David A Ahlquist; Hongzhi Zou; Michael Domanico; Douglas W Mahoney; Tracy C Yab; William R Taylor; Malinda L Butz; Stephen N Thibodeau; Linda Rabeneck; Lawrence F Paszat; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Niels Chr Bjerregaard; Søren Laurberg; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Barry M Berger; Graham P Lidgard Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2011-11-04 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Theo deVos; Reimo Tetzner; Fabian Model; Gunter Weiss; Matthias Schuster; Jürgen Distler; Kathryn V Steiger; Robert Grützmann; Christian Pilarsky; Jens K Habermann; Phillip R Fleshner; Benton M Oubre; Robert Day; Andrew Z Sledziewski; Catherine Lofton-Day Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2009-04-30 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Wendy S Atkin; Rob Edwards; Ines Kralj-Hans; Kate Wooldrage; Andrew R Hart; John M A Northover; D Max Parkin; Jane Wardle; Stephen W Duffy; Jack Cuzick Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-04-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: C A Eads; K D Danenberg; K Kawakami; L B Saltz; C Blake; D Shibata; P V Danenberg; P W Laird Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2000-04-15 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Timothy Robert Church; Michael Wandell; Catherine Lofton-Day; Steven J Mongin; Matthias Burger; Shannon R Payne; Esmeralda Castaños-Vélez; Brent A Blumenstein; Thomas Rösch; Neal Osborn; Dale Snover; Robert W Day; David F Ransohoff Journal: Gut Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 23.059