Dataset Information

The Full Blood Count Blood Test for Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Critical Appraisal.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:A full blood count (FBC) blood test includes 20 components. We systematically reviewed studies that assessed the association of the FBC and diagnosis of colorectal cancer to identify components as risk factors. We reviewed FBC-based prediction models for colorectal cancer risk. METHODS:MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched until 3 September 2019. We meta-analysed the mean difference in FBC components between those with and without a diagnosis and critically appraised the development and validation of FBC-based prediction models. RESULTS:We included 53 eligible articles. Three of four meta-analysed components showed an association with diagnosis. In the remaining 16 with insufficient data for meta-analysis, three were associated with colorectal cancer. Thirteen FBC-based models were developed. Model performance was commonly assessed using the c-statistic (range 0.72-0.91) and calibration plots. Some models appeared to work well for early detection but good performance may be driven by early events. CONCLUSION:Red blood cells, haemoglobin, mean corpuscular volume, red blood cell distribution width, white blood cell count, and platelets are associated with diagnosis and could be used for referral. Existing FBC-based prediction models might not perform as well as expected and need further critical testing.

SUBMITTER: Virdee PS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7564785 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Full Blood Count Blood Test for Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Critical Appraisal.

Virdee Pradeep S PS Marian Ioana R IR Mansouri Anita A Elhussein Leena L Kirtley Shona S Holt Tim T Birks Jacqueline J

Cancers 20200819 9

<h4>Introduction</h4>A full blood count (FBC) blood test includes 20 components. We systematically reviewed studies that assessed the association of the FBC and diagnosis of colorectal cancer to identify components as risk factors. We reviewed FBC-based prediction models for colorectal cancer risk.<h4>Methods</h4>MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched until 3 September 2019. We meta-analysed the mean difference in FBC components between those with and without a diagnosis and c ...[more]

PMID: 32825191

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOsteoarthritis is the most common degenerative joint disease. It is associated with significant socioeconomic burden and poor quality of life, mainly due to knee osteoarthritis (KOA), and related total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Since early detection method and disease-modifying drug is lacking, the key of KOA treatment is shifting to disease prevention and progression slowing. The prognostic prediction models are called for to guide clinical decision-making. The aim of our review is to identify and characterize reported multivariable prognostic models for KOA about three clinical concerns: (1) the risk of developing KOA in the general population, (2) the risk of receiving TKA in KOA patients, and (3) the outcome of TKA in KOA patients who plan to receive TKA.MethodsThe electronic datasets (PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, SportDiscus, and CINAHL) and gray literature sources (OpenGrey, British Library Inside, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, and BIOSIS preview) will be searched from their inception onwards. Title and abstract screening and full-text review will be accomplished by two independent reviewers. The multivariable prognostic models that concern on (1) the risk of developing KOA in the general population, (2) the risk of receiving TKA in KOA patients, and (3) the outcome of TKA in KOA patients who plan to receive TKA will be included. Data extraction instrument and critical appraisal instrument will be developed before formal assessment and will be modified during a training phase in advance. Study reporting transparency, methodological quality, and risk of bias will be assessed according to the TRIPOD statement, CHARMS checklist, and PROBAST tool, respectively. Prognostic prediction models will be summarized qualitatively. Quantitative metrics on the predictive performance of these models will be synthesized with meta-analyses if appropriate.DiscussionOur systematic review will collate evidence from prognostic prediction models that can be used through the whole process of KOA. The review may identify models which are capable of allowing personalized preventative and therapeutic interventions to be precisely targeted at those individuals who are at the highest risk. To accomplish the prediction models to cross the translational gaps between an exploratory research method and a valued addition to precision medicine workflows, research recommendations relating to model development, validation, or impact assessment will be made.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020203543.

Project description:IntroductionOver the last years, the number of systematic reviews published is steadily increasing due to the global interest in this type of evidence synthesis. However, little is known about the characteristics of this research published in Portuguese medical journals. This study aims to evaluate the publication trends and overall quality of these systematic reviews.Material and methodsThis was a methodological study. We aimed the most visible Portuguese medical journals indexed in MEDLINE. Systematic reviews were identified through an electronic search (through PUBMED). We included systematic reviews published up to August 2020. Systematic reviews selection and data extraction were done independently by three authors. The overall quality critical appraisal using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) was independently assessed by three authors. Disagreements were solved by consensus.ResultsSixty-six systematic reviews published in 5 Portuguese medical journals were included. Most (n = 53; 80.3%) were systematic reviews without meta-analysis. Up to 2010 there was a steady increase in the number of systematic reviews published, followed by a period of great variability of publication, ranging from 1 to 10 in a given year. According to the systematic reviews' typology, most have been predominantly conducted to assess the effectiveness/efficacy of health interventions (n = 27; 40.9%). General and Internal Medicine (n = 20; 30.3%) was the most addressed field. Most systematic reviews (n = 46; 69.7%) were rated as being of "critically low-quality".ConclusionsThere were consistent flaws in the methodological quality report of the systematic reviews included, particularly in establishing a prior protocol and not assessing the potential impact of the risk of bias on the results. Through the years, the number of systematic reviews published increased, yet their quality is suboptimal. There is a need to improve the reporting of systematic reviews in Portuguese medical journals, which can be achieved by better adherence to quality checklists/tools.

Project description:Accumulating evidence suggests individuals with psychotic disorder show abnormalities in metabolic and inflammatory processes. Recently, several studies have employed blood-based predictors in models predicting transition to psychotic disorder in risk-enriched populations. A systematic review of the performance and methodology of prognostic models using blood-based biomarkers in the prediction of psychotic disorder from risk-enriched populations is warranted. Databases (PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO) were searched for eligible texts from 1998 to 15/05/2023, which detailed model development or validation studies. The checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) was used to guide data extraction from eligible texts and the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability of the studies. A narrative synthesis of the included studies was performed. Seventeen eligible studies were identified: 16 eligible model development studies and one eligible model validation study. A wide range of biomarkers were assessed, including nucleic acids, proteins, metabolites, and lipids. The range of C-index (area under the curve) estimates reported for the models was 0.67-1.00. No studies assessed model calibration. According to PROBAST criteria, all studies were at high risk of bias in the analysis domain. While a wide range of potentially predictive biomarkers were identified in the included studies, most studies did not account for overfitting in model performance estimates, no studies assessed calibration, and all models were at high risk of bias according to PROBAST criteria. External validation of the models is needed to provide more accurate estimates of their performance. Future studies which follow the latest available methodological and reporting guidelines and adopt strategies to accommodate required sample sizes for model development or validation will clarify the value of including blood-based biomarkers in models predicting psychosis.

Project description:To compare the performance of a new blood test for colorectal cancer (CRC) to an established fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in a study population with the full range of neoplastic and non-neoplastic pathologies encountered in the colon and rectum.Volunteers were asked to complete a FIT prior to colonoscopy. Blood was collected after bowel preparation but prior to colonoscopy, and plasma was assayed for the presence of methylated BCAT1 and IKZF1 DNA using a multiplex real-time PCR assay. Sensitivity and specificity estimates for the blood test were calculated from true- and false-positive rates for neoplasia and compared with FIT at a range of fecal hemoglobin (Hb) concentration positivity thresholds.In total, 1,381 volunteers (median age 64 years; 49% male) completed both tests prior to colonoscopy. Estimated sensitivity of the BCAT1/IKZF1 blood test for CRC was 62% (41/66; 95% confidence interval 49-74%) with a specificity of 92% (1207/1315; 90-93%). FIT returned the same specificity at a cutoff of 60??g Hb/g, at which its corresponding sensitivity for cancer was 64% (42/66; 51-75%). In the range of commonly used FIT cutoffs, respective cancer sensitivity and specificity estimates with FIT were: 59% (46-71%) and 93% (92-95%) at 80??g Hb/g, and 79% (67-88%) and 81% (78-83%) at 10??g Hb/g. Although estimated sensitivities were not significantly different between the two tests for any stage of cancer, FIT showed a significantly higher sensitivity for advanced adenoma at the lower cutoffs. Specificity of FIT, but not of the BCAT1/IKZF1 blood test, deteriorated substantially in people with overt blood in the feces. When combining FIT (cutoff 10??g Hb/g) with the BCAT1/IKZF1 blood test, sensitivity for cancer was 89% (79-96%) at 74% (72-77%) specificity.A test based on detection of methylated BCAT1/IKZF1 DNA in blood has comparable sensitivity but better specificity for CRC than FIT at the commonly used positivity threshold of 10??g Hb/g. Further evaluation of the new test relative to FIT in the population screening context is now required to fully understand the potential advantages and disadvantages of these biomarkers in screening.

Dataset Information

The Full Blood Count Blood Test for Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Critical Appraisal.

Publications

The Full Blood Count Blood Test for Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Critical Appraisal.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets