Detectability of colorectal neoplasia with fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT)

The purpose of this study was to analyze the detectability of colorectal neoplasia with fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT). Data for a total of 492 patients who had undergone both PET/CT and colonoscopy were analyzed. After the findings of PET/CT and colonoscopy were determined independently, the results were compared in each of the six colonic sites examined in all patients. The efficacy of PET/CT was determined using colonoscopic examination as the gold standard. In all, 270 colorectal lesions 5 mm or more in size, including 70 pathologically confirmed malignant lesions, were found in 172 patients by colonoscopy. The sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT for detecting any of the colorectal lesions were 36 and 98%, respectively. For detecting lesions 11 mm or larger, the sensitivity was increased to 85%, with the specificity remaining consistent (97%). Moreover, the sensitivity for tumors 21 mm or larger was 96% (48/50). Tumors with malignant or high-grade pathology were likely to be positive with PET/CT. A size of 10 mm or smaller [odds ratio (OR) 44.14, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 11.44-221.67] and flat morphology (OR 7.78, 95% CI 1.79-36.25) were significant factors that were associated with false-negative cases on PET/CT. The sensitivity of PET/CT for detecting colorectal lesions is acceptable, showing size- and pathology-dependence, suggesting, for the most part, that clinically relevant lesions are detectable with PET/CT. However, when considering PET/CT for screening purposes caution must be exercised because there are cases of false-negative results

Cost-utility analysis of genetic screening in families of patients with germline MUTYH mutations

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>MUTYH associated polyposis (MAP) is an autosomal recessive inherited disorder. Carriers of bi-allelic <it>MUTYH </it>germline mutations have a risk of approximately 60% to develop colorectal carcinoma (CRC). In the general population about 1.5% is a heterozygous <it>MUTYH </it>mutation carrier. Children of MAP patients have an increased risk of inheriting two <it>MUTYH </it>mutations compared to the general population, implicating an increased risk for developing CRC.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using data from the literature and Dutch MAP patients (n = 40), we constructed a Markov model to perform a societal cost-utility analysis of genetic screening in MAP families. Genetic screening was done by testing the spouse first and, in case of a heterozygous spouse, also testing of the children.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The cost of genetic screening of families of MAP patients, when compared to no genetic screening, was estimated at €25,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The presence of Fecal Occult Blood testing (FOBT) population screening only slightly increased this cost-utility ratio to €25,500 per QALY. For a MUTYH heterozygote index-patient, the ratio was €51,500 per QALY. The results of our analysis were sensitive to several of the parameters in the model, including the cost assumed for molecular genetic testing.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The costs per QALY of genetic screening in families of MAP patients are acceptable according to international standards. Therefore, genetic testing of spouses and/or children should be discussed with and offered to counselees.</p

Double sampling of a faecal immunochemical test is not superior to single sampling for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a colonoscopy controlled prospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A single sampled faecal immunochemical test (FIT) has moderate sensitivity for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas. Repeated FIT sampling could improve test sensitivity. The aim of the present study is to determine whether any of three different strategies of double FIT sampling has a better combination of sensitivity and specificity than single FIT sampling.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Test performance of single FIT sampling in subjects scheduled for colonoscopy was compared to double FIT sampling intra-individually. Test positivity of double FIT sampling was evaluated in three different ways: 1) "one of two FITs+" when at least one out of two measurements exceeded the cut-off value, 2) "two of two FITs+" when both measurements exceeded the cut-off value, 3) "mean of two FITs+" when the geometric mean of two FITs exceeded the cut-off value. Receiver operator curves were calculated and sensitivity of single and the three strategies of double FIT sampling were compared at a fixed level of specificity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In 124 of 1096 subjects, screen relevant neoplasia (SRN) were found (i.e. early stage CRC or advanced adenomas). At any cut-off, "two of two FITs+" resulted in the lowest and "one of two FITs+" in the highest sensitivity for SRN (range 35-44% and 42%-54% respectively). ROC's of double FIT sampling were similar to single FIT sampling. At specificities of 85/90/95%, sensitivity of any double FIT sampling strategy did not differ significantly from single FIT (p-values 0.07-1).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>At any cut off, "one of two FITs+" is the most sensitive double FIT sampling strategy. However, at a given specificity level, sensitivity of any double FIT sampling strategy for SRN is comparable to single FIT sampling at a different cut-off value. None of the double FIT strategies has a superior combination of sensitivity and specificity over single FIT.</p

Prognostic DNA methylation markers for sporadic colorectal cancer: a systematic review

Background Biomarkers that can predict the prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and that can stratify high-risk early stage patients from low-risk early stage patients are urgently needed for better management of CRC. During the last decades, a large variety of prognostic DNA methylation markers has been published in the literature. However, to date, none of these markers are used in clinical practice. Methods To obtain an overview of the number of published prognostic methylation markers for CRC, the number of markers that was validated independently, and the current level of evidence (LoE), we conducted a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. In addition, we scored studies based on the REMARK guidelines that were established in order to attain more transparency and complete reporting of prognostic biomarker studies. Eighty-three studies reporting on 123 methylation markers fulfilled the study entry criteria and were scored according to REMARK. Results Sixty-three studies investigated single methylation markers, whereas 20 studies reported combinations of methylation markers. We observed substantial variation regarding the reporting of sample sizes and patient characteristics, statistical analyses, and methodology. The median (range) REMARK score for the studies was 10.7 points (4.5 to 17.5) out of a maximum of 20 possible points. The median REMARK score was lower in studies, which reported a p value below 0.05 versus those, which did not (p = 0.005). A borderline statistically significant association was observed between the reported p value of the survival analysis and the size of the study population (p = 0.051). Only 23 out of 123 markers (17%) were investigated in two or more study series. For 12 markers, and two multimarker panels, consistent results were reported in two or more study series. For four markers, the current LoE is level II, for all other markers, the LoE is lower. Conclusion This systematic review reflects that adequate reporting according to REMARK and validation of prognostic methylation markers is absent in the majority of CRC methylation marker studies. However, this systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of published prognostic methylation markers for CRC and highlights the most promising markers that have been published in the last two decades