Dataset Information

Comparison and combination of blood-based inflammatory markers with faecal occult blood tests for non-invasive colorectal cancer screening.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Faecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) are widely used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Blood-based inflammatory markers have been suggested as alternative or supplementary non-invasive CRC screening tests. METHODS: Among 179 CRC patients, 193 people with advanced adenoma and 225 people free of neoplasm, C-reactive protein (CRP), serum CD26 (sCD26), complement C3a anaphylatoxin and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases 1 (TIMP-1) levels in blood were measured by ELISA tests, and an immunochemical FOBT (iFOBT) and a guaiac-based FOBT were performed. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed and the areas under the curves (AUCs) were compared. RESULTS: The blood levels of CRP, sCD26 and TIMP-1 showed statistically significant differences between CRC patients and neoplasm-free participants, and levels of TIMP-1 were furthermore significantly elevated in advanced adenoma patients. For the four inflammatory markers, AUCs ranged from 0.52 to 0.62 for CRC detection and from 0.50 to 0.58 for advanced adenomas detection, compared with AUCs of 0.90 and 0.68 for the iFOBT. At 97% specificity, blood markers showed much lower sensitivities than FOBTs. Combining inflammatory markers with the iFOBT increased the AUC for advanced adenomas. CONCLUSION: These blood-based markers do not seem to be an alternative to FOBT-based CRC screening. The potential use of these and other blood-based tests in combination with iFOBT might deserve further attention.

SUBMITTER: Tao S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3326680 | biostudies-other | 2012 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate overdiagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) for screening with sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood testing (FOBT).DesignSimulation study using data from randomised trials.SettingPrimary screening, UK, Norway PARTICIPANTS: 152 850 individuals from the Nottingham trial and 98 678 individuals from the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention (NORCCAP) trial.InterventionCRC screening.Outcome measureWe estimated overdiagnosis using long-term data from two randomised trials: the Nottingham trial comparing FOBT screening every other year to no-screening, and the NORCCAP trial comparing once-only sigmoidoscopy screening to no-screening. To estimate the natural growth of adenomas to CRC, we used the following microsimulation models: (i) the Microsimulation Screening Analysis; (ii) the CRC Simulated Population model for Incidence and Natural history; (iii) the Simulation Model of Colorectal Cancer; (iv) a model derived by the German Cancer Research Center. We defined overdiagnosed cancers as the difference between the observed number of CRCs in the no-screening arm and the expected number of cancers in screening arm (sum of observed and prevented by adenoma removal). The amount of overdiagnosis is defined as the number of overdiagnosed cancers over the number of cancers observed in the no-screening arm.ResultsOverdiagnosis estimates were highly dependent on model assumptions. For FOBT screening with 2354 cancers observed in control arm, four out of five models predicted overdiagnosis, range 2.0% (2400 cancers expected in screening) to 7.6% (2533 cancers expected in screening). For sigmoidoscopy screening with 452 cancers observed in control arm, all models predicted overdiagnosis, range 25.2% (566 cancers expected in screening) to 128.1% (1031 cancers expected in screening).ConclusionsThe amount of overdiagnosis estimated based on the microsimulation models varied substantially. Microsimulation models may not give reliable estimates of the preventive effect of adenoma removal, and should be used with caution to inform guidelines.

Dataset Information

Comparison and combination of blood-based inflammatory markers with faecal occult blood tests for non-invasive colorectal cancer screening.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets