| Literature DB >> 35963995 |
Hongli Xu1, Huixin Chen2, Junjie Hu3, Zhiguo Xiong3, Dongqing Li4, Shun Wang5, Jing Yu6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stool DNA (sDNA) tests and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are used for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC). Here we performed a novel evaluation using sDNA and FIT to assess their performance in CRC screening and monitoring in Hubei, China.Entities:
Keywords: Cancer screening; Colorectal cancer; Fecal immunochemical test; Novel evaluation; Stool DNA tests
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35963995 PMCID: PMC9375944 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-022-02470-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Gastroenterol ISSN: 1471-230X Impact factor: 2.847
Fig. 1The program of sDNA tests and FIT detection and evaluation
The clinical characteristics of the 359 subjects who were screened
| Group | N | CEA | KRAS(+) | BMP3(+) | NDRG4(+) | FOB(+) | Complex value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 211 | 4.52 ± 1.06 | 14.69% | 8.53% | 22.27% | 9.48% | 221.7 ± 22.34 |
| Male | 148 | 4.53 ± 1.67 | 18.24% | 11.49% | 18.24% | 15.54% | 302.9 ± 33.27 |
| 0.996 | 0.385 | 0.371 | 0.427 | 0.10 | 0.168 | ||
| ≥ 60y | 114 | 6.31 ± 2.30 | 21.05% | 14.91% | 34.21% | 16.67% | 341.4 ± 40.02 |
| < 60y | 245 | 3.69 ± 0.84 | 13.88% | 7.35% | 19.18% | 8.57% | 207.5 ± 19.46 |
| 0.188 | 0.092 | 0.034 | 0.003 | 0.03 | 0.004 | ||
| CRC | 49 | 10.22 ± 4.53 | 46.94% | 53.06% | 81.63% | 73.47% | 1011 ± 50.38 |
| AA | 27 | 2.47 ± 0.23 | 22.22% | 0 | 11.11% | 7.41% | 163.2 ± 37.94 |
| NA | 65 | 2.73 ± 0.20 | 15.38% | 10.77% | 18.46% | 21.54% | 162.3 ± 21.94 |
| Other cancer | 28 | 15.12 ± 8.6 | 14.29% | 0 | 14.29% | 3.57% | 125.4 ± 23.92 |
| Healthy Controls | 190 | 2.38 ± 0.11 | 8.42% | 1.58% | 14.74% | 1.58% | 115.3 ± 8.8 |
| < 0.001*, 0.76$, 0.105&, < 0.001# | < 0.001*, 0.038$, 0.152&, 0.30# | < 0.001*, 0.999$, 0.033&, 0.999# | < 0.001*, 0.774$, 0.553&, 0.999# | < 0.001*, 0.118$, 0.001&, 0.425# | < 0.001*, 0.041$, 0.018&, 0.683# | ||
*The comparison of CRC patients versus healthy controls
$The comparison of AA patients versus healthy controls
&The comparison of the NA patients versus healthy controls
#The comparison of the other cancer patients versus healthy controls
Fig. 2The evaluation value of CRC patients and screening of subjects. The evaluation value of CRC patients was significantly higher than those of AA, NA, healthy controls, and other cancer patients. The evaluation value of AA and NA patients were significantly higher than those in healthy controls. No significant differences were seen between AA and NA patients, other cancer patients, and healthy controls
Fig. 3The ROC curves for the novel evaluation with sDNA tests and FIT were analyzed to assess CRC and early CRC, and the ROC curve for CEA to assess CRC. The AUC values for the novel evaluation with sDNA tests and FIT were 0.986 (0.975–0.996) for CRC and 0.945 (0.916–0.974) for early CRC. The AUC value for CEA was 0.611 (0.521–0.702)
Fig. 4The ROC curves for the novel evaluation with sDNA tests and FIT were analyzed to assess NA and AA. The AUC values for the novel evaluation with sDNA tests and FIT were 0.543 (0.434–0.651) for AA and 0.547 (0.474–0.621) for NA
The clinical characteristics of 49 patients with CRC
| Group | N | CEA | KRAS(+) | BMP3(+) | NDRG4(+) | FOB(+) | Complex value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 25 | 14.07 ± 8.03 | 48% | 64% | 80% | 72% | 1014 ± 70.4 |
| Male | 24 | 5.49 ± 2.11 | 45.83% | 41.67% | 83.33% | 75% | 1000 ± 76.19 |
| 0.351 | 0.999 | 0.156 | 0.999 | 0.999 | 0.992 | ||
| ≥ 60y | 24 | 12.9 ± 7.14 | 50%12 | 54.17% | 83.33% | 80% | 1047 ± 68.52 |
| < 60y | 25 | 6.63 ± 4.69 | 44% | 52% | 80% | 64% | 960 ± 75.57 |
| 0.001 | 0.999 | 0.999 | 0.999 | 0.345 | 0.675 | ||
| Stage | |||||||
| Stage I–II | 22 | 2.94 ± 0.95 | 45.45% | 59.09% | 86.36% | 86.36% | 974 ± 68.91 |
| Stage III–IV | 27 | 16.15 ± 8.06 | 59.09% | 48.15% | 95.45% | 62.96% | 1001 ± 83.41 |
| 0.003 | 0.547 | 0.568 | 0.488 | 0.104 | 0.803 | ||
| Pathology | |||||||
| Poor | 12 | 11.97 ± 8.04 | 41.67% | 58.33% | 83.33% | 66.67% | 1054 ± 79.58 |
| Moderate | 25 | 17.18 ± 11.79 | 44% | 44% | 80% | 88% | 977.4 ± 69.91 |
| Well | 12 | 2.95 ± 3.82 | 58.33% | 66.67% | 83.33% | 50% | 1111 ± 107.8 |
| 0.741*, 0.10&, 0.40# | 0.999*, 0.684&, 0.495# | 0.495*, 0.999&, 0.295# | 0.999*, 0.999&, 0.999#, | 0.183*, 0.68&, 0.04# | 0.508*, 0.676&, 0.294# | ||
*The comparison of the poorly affected patients versus the moderately affected patients
&The comparison of the poorly affected patients versus the well affected patients
#The comparison of the moderately affected patients versus the well affected patient
Fig. 5Correlation between the initial levels of evaluation value and stage, and the initial levels of evaluation value and pathology. A No significant differences were seen between stage I–II and III–IV. B No significant differences were seen among patients with well, moderate, and poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma. C Dynamic changes in evaluation value following surgery. The evaluation value with sDNA tests and FIT of 20 CRC patients decreased dramatically a month after resection