Point Sensitivity of the Multi-target Stool DNA Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Individuals Ages 45-49 Years
Domanico, M.; Statz, S.; Weiser, E.; Berger, B. M.; Limburg, P. J.
Show abstract
BackgroundMost colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests have not been rigorously studied in younger age groups. AimsTo estimate sensitivity of the multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test in patients ages 45-49 years. MethodsWe identified archived stool samples (Exact Sciences; Madison, WI) from individuals ages 45-49 years who had completed an index colonoscopy and had confirmed diagnoses of CRC or advanced precancerous lesions (APL; defined as high-grade dysplasia, >25% villous morphology, or [≥]1 cm in size [conventional adenoma or serrated lesion]). Data annotation referent to potential CRC risk factors, other than age, was limited. Stool samples were collected at least 7 days after the index colonoscopy, prior to lesion excision or treatment. Stool samples were processed and analyzed per established laboratory protocols for the mt-sDNA assay. Mt-sDNA test sensitivity for CRC, APL, and CRC+APL was estimated from the available sample set. Samples were collected from 2010-2013 (NCT01260168) and 2014-2017 (NCT02503631), with sample testing and analysis in 2019. ResultsStool samples were analyzed from 19 eligible subjects, 13 with CRC and 6 with APL. Estimated mt-sDNA test sensitivity for CRC, APL, and CRC+APL were 92%, 83%, and 89%, respectively. ConclusionsIn this small pilot study using existing archived stool samples from subjects ages 45-49 years, mt-sDNA test sensitivity was similar to previously reported estimates for individuals ages [≥]50 years. These results support the application of mt-sDNA screening to 76 average-risk patients beginning at age 45 years. Larger studies are needed to confirm and extend these findings.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Strong reduction of distal colorectal cancer incidence and mortality but no reduction of proximal colon cancer after screening colonoscopy: prospective cohort study 91%
- Non-endoscopic screening for Barrett’s esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in at risk Veterans 90%
- Incidence, prevalence, and survival of colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom from 2000-2021: a population-based cohort study 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluating the clinical performance of a novel dual-target stool DNA test for colorectal cancer detection 92%
- Bridge Capture Permits Cost-Efficient, Rapid and Sensitive Molecular Precision Diagnostics 90%
- Germline and Tumor Whole Genome Sequencing as a Diagnostic Tool to Resolve Suspected Lynch Syndrome 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- Colorectal cancer in patients with single versus double positive faecal immunochemical test results: A retrospective cohort study 93%
- Ability of known colorectal cancer susceptibility SNPs to predict colorectal cancer risk: A cohort study within the UK Biobank 90%
- Dietary cystine restriction increases the proliferative capacity of the small intestine of mice 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Diagnostic performance of the faecal immunochemical test for patients with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer in primary care: a service evaluation in the South West of England 92%
- Quantitative faecal immunochemical test for patients with high risk bowel symptoms: a prospective cohort study 92%
- Molecular pathways in post-colonoscopy versus detected colorectal cancers: results from a nested case-control study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Machine learning enables detection of early-stage colorectal cancer by whole-genome sequencing of plasma cell-free DNA 93%
- Enrichment of colibactin-associated mutational signatures in unexplained colorectal polyposis patients 93%
- Validation of hypermethylated DNA regions found in colorectal cancers as potential aging-independent biomarkers of precancerous colorectal lesions 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.