Jason D Eckmann1, Derek W Ebner2, John B Kisiel3. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55902, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55902, USA. kisiel.john@mayo.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Multi-target stool DNA (MT-sDNA) was approved in 2014 for use in screening average-risk patients for colorectal cancer (CRC). Here, we highlight recent literature from post-market studies to provide an update on clinical use and utility not possible from pre-approval studies. RECENT FINDINGS: MT-sDNA has been included in major society guidelines as an option for colorectal cancer screening, and has seen exponentially increasing use in clinical practice. MT-sDNA appears to be attracting new patients to CRC screening, and patient adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy after a positive MT-sDNA test is high. Approximately two-thirds of these patients are found to have colorectal neoplasia (CRN), 80% of whom have at least one right-sided lesion; 1 in 3 will have advanced CRN. High yield of CRN is due not only to post-screening increase in probability but also likely improved endoscopist attention. In those with a negative high-quality colonoscopy after positive MT-sDNA test ("false positive MT-sDNA"), further interventions do not appear to be necessary. MT-sDNA is a promising tool to improve rates and quality of CRC screening. Further investigation should examine MT-sDNA performance in populations at increased risk for CRC, and as an interval test after colonoscopy to detect potentially missed lesions.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Multi-target stool DNA (MT-sDNA) was approved in 2014 for use in screening average-risk patients for colorectal cancer (CRC). Here, we highlight recent literature from post-market studies to provide an update on clinical use and utility not possible from pre-approval studies. RECENT FINDINGS: MT-sDNA has been included in major society guidelines as an option for colorectal cancer screening, and has seen exponentially increasing use in clinical practice. MT-sDNA appears to be attracting new patients to CRC screening, and patient adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy after a positive MT-sDNA test is high. Approximately two-thirds of these patients are found to have colorectal neoplasia (CRN), 80% of whom have at least one right-sided lesion; 1 in 3 will have advanced CRN. High yield of CRN is due not only to post-screening increase in probability but also likely improved endoscopist attention. In those with a negative high-quality colonoscopy after positive MT-sDNA test ("false positive MT-sDNA"), further interventions do not appear to be necessary. MT-sDNA is a promising tool to improve rates and quality of CRC screening. Further investigation should examine MT-sDNA performance in populations at increased risk for CRC, and as an interval test after colonoscopy to detect potentially missed lesions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colonoscopy/trends; Colorectal neoplasms/diagnosis; Colorectal neoplasms/prevention and control; DNA, neoplasm/analysis; Early detection of cancer/methods; Pre-cancerous conditions/diagnosis; Proximal colorectal neoplasia
Authors: Andrew M D Wolf; Elizabeth T H Fontham; Timothy R Church; Christopher R Flowers; Carmen E Guerra; Samuel J LaMonte; Ruth Etzioni; Matthew T McKenna; Kevin C Oeffinger; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Louise C Walter; Kimberly S Andrews; Otis W Brawley; Durado Brooks; Stacey A Fedewa; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Rebecca L Siegel; Richard C Wender; Robert A Smith Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; David C Grossman; Susan J Curry; Karina W Davidson; John W Epling; Francisco A R García; Matthew W Gillman; Diane M Harper; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Ann E Kurth; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Douglas K Owens; William R Phillips; Maureen G Phipps; Michael P Pignone; Albert L Siu Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Douglas K Rex; C Richard Boland; Jason A Dominitz; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Tonya Kaltenbach; Theodore R Levin; David Lieberman; Douglas J Robertson Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 10.864
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: Harminder Singh; Zoann Nugent; Alain A Demers; Erich V Kliewer; Salaheddin M Mahmud; Charles N Bernstein Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2010-06-20 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Robert L Barclay; Joseph J Vicari; Andrea S Doughty; John F Johanson; Roger L Greenlaw Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-12-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Graham P Lidgard; Michael J Domanico; Janelle J Bruinsma; James Light; Zubin D Gagrat; Rebecca L Oldham-Haltom; Keith D Fourrier; Hatim Allawi; Tracy C Yab; William R Taylor; Julie A Simonson; Mary Devens; Russell I Heigh; David A Ahlquist; Barry M Berger Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2013-04-29 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Kathleen A Cronin; Andrew J Lake; Susan Scott; Recinda L Sherman; Anne-Michelle Noone; Nadia Howlader; S Jane Henley; Robert N Anderson; Albert U Firth; Jiemin Ma; Betsy A Kohler; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Erica K Barnell; Yiming Kang; Andrew R Barnell; Kimberly R Kruse; Jared Fiske; Zachary R Pittz; Adnan R Khan; Thomas A Huebner; Faith L Holmes; Malachi Griffith; Obi L Griffith; Aadel A Chaudhuri; Elizabeth M Wurtzler Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 4.488