Dataset Information

Plasma Septin9 versus fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening: a prospective multicenter study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Screening improves outcomes related to colorectal cancer (CRC); however, suboptimal participation for available screening tests limits the full benefits of screening. Non-invasive screening using a blood based assay may potentially help reach the unscreened population.

Objective

To compare the performance of a new Septin9 DNA methylation based blood test with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for CRC screening.

Design

In this trial, fecal and blood samples were obtained from enrolled patients. To compare test sensitivity for CRC, patients with screening identified colorectal cancer (n = 102) were enrolled and provided samples prior to surgery. To compare test specificity patients were enrolled prospectively (n = 199) and provided samples prior to bowel preparation for screening colonoscopy.

Measurements

Plasma and fecal samples were analyzed using the Epi proColon and OC Fit-Check tests respectively.

Results

For all samples, sensitivity for CRC detection was 73.3% (95% CI 63.9-80.9%) and 68.0% (95% CI 58.2-76.5%) for Septin9 and FIT, respectively. Specificity of the Epi proColon test was 81.5% (95% CI 75.5-86.3%) compared with 97.4% (95% CI 94.1-98.9%) for FIT. For paired samples, the sensitivity of the Epi proColon test (72.2% -95% CI 62.5-80.1%) was shown to be statistically non-inferior to FIT (68.0%-95% CI 58.2-76.5%). When test results for Epi proColon and FIT were combined, CRC detection was 88.7% at a specificity of 78.8%.

Conclusions

At a sensitivity of 72%, the Epi proColon test is non- inferior to FIT for CRC detection, although at a lower specificity. With negative predictive values of 99.8%, both methods are identical in confirming the absence of CRC.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01580540.

SUBMITTER: Johnson DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4046970 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Plasma Septin9 versus fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening: a prospective multicenter study.

Johnson David A DA Barclay Robert L RL Mergener Klaus K Weiss Gunter G König Thomas T Beck Jürgen J Potter Nicholas T NT

PloS one 20140605 6

<h4>Background</h4>Screening improves outcomes related to colorectal cancer (CRC); however, suboptimal participation for available screening tests limits the full benefits of screening. Non-invasive screening using a blood based assay may potentially help reach the unscreened population.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the performance of a new Septin9 DNA methylation based blood test with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for CRC screening.<h4>Design</h4>In this trial, fecal and blood samples were o ...[more]

PMID: 24901436

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany screening programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) use the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) to triage individuals for colonoscopy. Although these programs reduce CRC incidence and CRC-related mortality, the detection of advanced precursor lesions (advanced adenomas and advanced serrated polyps) by FIT could be improved. As an alternative for FIT, the antibody-based multitargetFIT (mtFIT) has been proposed. The mtFIT measures three protein markers: hemoglobin, calprotectin, and serpin family F member 2. In a retrospective diagnostic accuracy study in a large colonoscopy-controlled series (n = 1284), mtFIT showed increased sensitivity for advanced neoplasia (AN), at equal specificity, compared to FIT (42.9% versus 37.3%; p = 0.025). This increase was mainly due to a higher sensitivity of mtFIT for advanced adenomas (37.8% versus 28.1% for FIT; p = 0.006). The present mtFIT study aims to prospectively validate these findings in the context of the Dutch national CRC screening program.MethodThe mtFIT study is a cross-sectional intervention study with a paired design. Eligible subjects for the Dutch FIT-based national CRC screening program are invited to perform mtFIT in addition to FIT. Samples are collected at home, from the same bowel movement, and are shipped to a central laboratory by postal mail. If either one or both tests are positive, participants are referred for colonoscopy. Detailed colonoscopy and pathology data are centrally stored in a national screening database (ScreenIT; Topicus, Deventer, the Netherlands) that is managed by the screening organization, and will be retrieved for this study. We aim to determine the relative sensitivity for AN, comprising of CRC, advanced adenomas and advanced serrated polyps, of mtFIT compared to FIT at an equal positivity rate. Additionally, we will use the Adenoma and Serrated Pathway to Colorectal CAncer model to predict lifetime health effects and costs for programmatic mtFIT- versus FIT-based screening. The target sample size is 13,131 participants.DiscussionThe outcome of this study will inform on the comparative clinical utility of mtFIT versus FIT in the Dutch national CRC screening program and is an important step forward in the development of a new non-invasive stool test for CRC screening.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov ; NCT05314309, registered April 6th 2022, first inclusions March 25th 2022 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT05314309&cntry=&state=&city=&dist =.

Project description:BackgroundColonoscopy screening is underused by first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with non-syndromic colorectal cancer (CRC) with screening completion rates below 50%. Studies conducted in FDR referred for screening suggest that fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) was not inferior to colonoscopy in terms of diagnostic yield and tumor staging, but screening uptake of FIT has not yet been tested in this population. In this study, we investigated whether the uptake of FIT screening is superior to the uptake of colonoscopy screening in the familial-risk population, with an equivalent effect on CRC detection.Methods and findingsThis open-label, parallel-group, randomized trial was conducted in 12 Spanish centers between February 2016 and December 2021. Eligible individuals included asymptomatic FDR of index cases <60 years, siblings or ≥2 FDR with CRC. The primary outcome was to compare screening uptake between colonoscopy and FIT. The secondary outcome was to determine the efficacy of each strategy to detect advanced colorectal neoplasia (adenoma or serrated polyps ≥10 mm, polyps with tubulovillous architecture, high-grade dysplasia, and/or CRC). Screening-naïve FDR were randomized (1:1) to one-time colonoscopy versus annual FIT during 3 consecutive years followed by a work-up colonoscopy in the case of a positive test. Randomization was performed before signing the informed consent using computer-generated allocation algorithm based on stratified block randomization. Multivariable regression analysis was performed by intention-to-screen. On December 31, 2019, when 81% of the estimated sample size was reached, the trial was terminated prematurely after an interim analysis for futility. Study outcomes were further analyzed through 2-year follow-up. The main limitation of this study was the impossibility of collecting information on eligible individuals who declined to participate. A total of 1,790 FDR of 460 index cases were evaluated for inclusion, of whom 870 were assigned to undergo one-time colonoscopy (n = 431) or FIT (n = 439). Of them, 383 (44.0%) attended the appointment and signed the informed consent: 147/431 (34.1%) FDR received colonoscopy-based screening and 158/439 (35.9%) underwent FIT-based screening (odds ratio [OR] 1.08; 95% confidence intervals [CI] [0.82, 1.44], p = 0.564). The detection rate of advanced colorectal neoplasia was significantly higher in the colonoscopy group than in the FIT group (OR 3.64, 95% CI [1.55, 8.53], p = 0.003). Study outcomes did not change throughout follow-up.ConclusionsIn this study, compared to colonoscopy, FIT screening did not improve screening uptake by individuals at high risk of CRC, resulting in less detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia. Further studies are needed to assess how screening uptake could be improved in this high-risk group, including by inclusion in population-based screening programs.Trial registrationThis trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02567045).

Dataset Information

Plasma Septin9 versus fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening: a prospective multicenter study.

Background

Objective

Design

Measurements

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Plasma Septin9 versus fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening: a prospective multicenter study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets