Comparative evaluation of a new bedside faecal occult blood test in a prospective multicentre study

Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot Project in Tehran-Iran, a Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in Iran, where there is no organised CRC-screening programme. This study aimed to evaluate feasibility of CRC screening using a qualitative fecal immunochemical test (FIT) among Iranian average-risk adults.

METHODS

In this feasibility study, 7039 individuals aged 50-75 years were invited by community health workers (CHWs) in southern Tehran and its suburban districts between April 2018 and November 2019. The CHWs performed a qualitative FIT with cut-off level 50 ng Hb/mL buffer and referred those with positive-FIT for colonoscopy to the endoscopy center of Shariati hospital in Tehran. Outcomes included acceptance rate, FIT positivity rate, colonoscopy compliance, detection rates and positive predictive values (PPVs) with 95% confidence interval for CRC and advanced adenomas (AAs).

RESULTS

Acceptance rate at initial invitation was 71.7%. From 4974 average-risk adults (1600 males and 3374 females) who were offered FIT, 96.8% (n=4813) provided valid samples, of whom 471 (9.8%) tested positive. Among FIT-positive participants, 150 (31.8%) underwent colonoscopy; CRC was detected in 2.0% (n=3) and adenomas in 27.3% (n=41). Detection rate of CRC and AAs per 1000-FIT-screened participants was 0.6 (0.1-1.8) [males: 0.7 (0.01-3.6), females: 0.6 (0.07-2.0)] and 4.2 (2.5-6.4) [males: 5.9 (2.6-11.0), females: 3.4 (1.7-6.0)], respectively. PPVs were 2.0% (0.4-5.7) for CRC and 13.3% (8.3-19.8) for AAs. There was no association between gender and the studied outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our results partially support the feasibility of scaling up organized CRC-screening through the existing healthcare system in Iran; it remains to be discussed carefully to ensure the capacity of healthcare system for adequate colonoscopy services.

Guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests versus faecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk individuals

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, many countries have adopted colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes, often based on faecal occult blood tests (FOBTs). CRC screening aims to detect advanced neoplasia (AN), which is defined as CRC or advanced adenomas. FOBTs fall into two categories based on detection technique and the detected blood component: qualitative guaiac-based FOBTs (gFOBTs) and faecal immunochemical tests (FITs), which can be qualitative and quantitative. Screening with gFOBTs reduces CRC-related mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic test accuracy of gFOBT and FIT screening for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia in average-risk individuals.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Google Scholar. We searched the reference lists and PubMed-related articles of included studies to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective and retrospective studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for gFOBTs, FITs, or both, with colonoscopy as reference standard. We excluded case-control studies. We included studies in which all participants underwent both index test and reference standard ("reference standard: all"), and studies in which only participants with a positive index test underwent the reference standard while participants with a negative test were followed for at least one year for development of interval carcinomas ("reference standard: positive"). The target population consisted of asymptomatic, average-risk individuals undergoing CRC screening. The target conditions were CRC and advanced neoplasia (advanced adenomas and CRC combined).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. In case of disagreement, a third review author made the final decision. We used the Rutter and Gatsonis hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model to explore differences between tests and identify potential sources of heterogeneity, and the bivariate hierarchical model to estimate sensitivity and specificity at common thresholds: 10 µg haemoglobin (Hb)/g faeces and 20 µg Hb/g faeces. We performed indirect comparisons of the accuracy of the two tests and direct comparisons when both index tests were evaluated in the same population.

MAIN RESULTS

We ran the initial search on 25 June 2019, which yielded 63 studies for inclusion. We ran a top-up search on 14 September 2021, which yielded one potentially eligible study, currently awaiting classification. We included a total of 33 "reference standard: all" published articles involving 104,640 participants. Six studies evaluated only gFOBTs, 23 studies evaluated only FITs, and four studies included both gFOBTs and FITs. The cut-off for positivity of FITs varied between 2.4 μg and 50 µg Hb/g faeces. For each Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 domain, we assessed risk of bias as high in less than 20% of studies. The summary curve showed that FITs had a higher discriminative ability than gFOBTs for AN (P < 0.001) and CRC (P = 0.004). For the detection of AN, the summary sensitivity of gFOBTs was 15% (95% confidence interval (CI) 12% to 20%), which was significantly lower than FITs at both 10 μg and 20 μg Hb/g cut-offs with summary sensitivities of 33% (95% CI 27% to 40%; P < 0.001) and 26% (95% CI 21% to 31%, P = 0.002), respectively. Results were simulated in a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 screening participants with 1% CRC prevalence and 10% AN prevalence. Out of 1000 participants with AN, gFOBTs missed 850, while FITs missed 670 (10 μg Hb/g cut-off) and 740 (20 μg Hb/g cut-off). No significant differences in summary specificity for AN detection were found between gFOBTs (94%; 95% CI 92% to 96%), and FITs at 10 μg Hb/g cut-off (93%; 95% CI 90% to 95%) and at 20 μg Hb/g cut-off (97%; 95% CI 95% to 98%). So, among 9000 participants without AN, 540 were offered (unnecessary) colonoscopy with gFOBTs compared to 630 (10 μg Hb/g) and 270 (20 μg Hb/g) with FITs. Similarly, for the detection of CRC, the summary sensitivity of gFOBTs, 39% (95% CI 25% to 55%), was significantly lower than FITs at 10 μg and 20 μg Hb/g cut-offs: 76% (95% CI 57% to 88%: P = 0.001) and 65% (95% CI 46% to 80%; P = 0.035), respectively. So, out of 100 participants with CRC, gFOBTs missed 61, and FITs missed 24 (10 μg Hb/g) and 35 (20 μg Hb/g). No significant differences in summary specificity for CRC were found between gFOBTs (94%; 95% CI 91% to 96%), and FITs at the 10 μg Hb/g cut-off (94%; 95% CI 87% to 97%) and 20 μg Hb/g cut-off (96%; 95% CI 91% to 98%). So, out of 9900 participants without CRC, 594 were offered (unnecessary) colonoscopy with gFOBTs versus 594 (10 μg Hb/g) and 396 (20 μg Hb/g) with FITs. In five studies that compared FITs and gFOBTs in the same population, FITs showed a higher discriminative ability for AN than gFOBTs (P = 0.003). We included a total of 30 "reference standard: positive" studies involving 3,664,934 participants. Of these, eight were gFOBT-only studies, 18 were FIT-only studies, and four studies combined both gFOBTs and FITs. The cut-off for positivity of FITs varied between 5 µg to 250 µg Hb/g faeces. For each QUADAS-2 domain, we assessed risk of bias as high in less than 20% of studies. The summary curve showed that FITs had a higher discriminative ability for detecting CRC than gFOBTs (P < 0.001). The summary sensitivity for CRC of gFOBTs, 59% (95% CI 55% to 64%), was significantly lower than FITs at the 10 μg Hb/g cut-off, 89% (95% CI 80% to 95%; P < 0.001) and the 20 μg Hb/g cut-off, 89% (95% CI 85% to 92%; P < 0.001). So, in the hypothetical cohort with 100 participants with CRC, gFOBTs missed 41, while FITs missed 11 (10 μg Hb/g) and 11 (20 μg Hb/g). The summary specificity of gFOBTs was 98% (95% CI 98% to 99%), which was higher than FITs at both 10 μg and 20 μg Hb/g cut-offs: 94% (95% CI 92% to 95%; P < 0.001) and 95% (95% CI 94% to 96%; P < 0.001), respectively. So, out of 9900 participants without CRC, 198 were offered (unnecessary) colonoscopy with gFOBTs compared to 594 (10 μg Hb/g) and 495 (20 μg Hb/g) with FITs. At a specificity of 90% and 95%, FITs had a higher sensitivity than gFOBTs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

FITs are superior to gFOBTs in detecting AN and CRC in average-risk individuals. Specificity of both tests was similar in "reference standard: all" studies, whereas specificity was significantly higher for gFOBTs than FITs in "reference standard: positive" studies. However, at pre-specified specificities, the sensitivity of FITs was significantly higher than gFOBTs.

Point-of-care testing in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancers: Current technology and future directions

Point-of-care (POC) tests enable rapid results and are well established in medical practice. Recent advances in analytical techniques have led to a new generation of POC devices that will alter gastrointestinal diagnostic pathways. This review aims to identify current and new technologies for the POC diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancer. A structured search of the Embase and Medline databases was performed. Papers reporting diagnostic tests for gastrointestinal cancer available as a POC device or containing a description of feasibility for POC application were included. Studies recovered were heterogeneous and therefore results are presented as a narrative review. Six diagnostic methods were identified (fecal occult blood, fecal proteins, volatile organic compounds, pyruvate kinase isoenzyme type M2, tumour markers and DNA analysis). Fecal occult blood testing has a reported sensitivity of 66%-85% and specificity greater than 95%. The others are at a range of development and clinical application. POC devices have a proven role in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancer. Barriers to their implementation exist and the transition from experimental to clinical medicine is currently slow. New technologies demonstrate potential to provide accurate POC tests and an ability to diagnose gastrointestinal cancer at an early stage with improved clinical outcome and survival.

Comparison of fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer screening in an Alaska Native population with high prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection, 2008-2012

Introduction

Alaska Native colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality rates are the highest of any ethnic/racial group in the United States. CRC screening using guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests (gFOBT) are not recommended for Alaska Native people because of false-positive results associated with a high prevalence of Helicobacter pylori-associated hemorrhagic gastritis. This study evaluated whether the newer immunochemical FOBT (iFOBT) resulted in a lower false-positive rate and higher specificity for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia than gFOBT in a population with elevated prevalence of H. pylori infection.

Methods

We used a population-based sample of 304 asymptomatic Alaska Native adults aged 40 years or older undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy (April 2008–January 2012).

Results

Specificity differed significantly (P < .001) between gFOBT (76%; 95% CI, 71%–81%) and iFOBT (92%; 95% CI, 89%–96%). Among H. pylori-positive participants (54%), specificity of iFOBT was even higher (93% vs 69%). Overall, sensitivity did not differ significantly (P = .73) between gFOBT (29%) and iFOBT (36%). Positive predictive value was 11% for gFOBT and 32% for iFOBT.

Conclusion

The iFOBT had a significantly higher specificity than gFOBT, especially in participants with current H. pylori infection. The iFOBT represents a potential strategy for expanding CRC screening among Alaska Native and other populations with elevated prevalence of H. pylori, especially where access to screening endoscopy is limited.

Screening and Primary prevention of Colorectal Cancer: a Review of sex-specific and site-specific differences

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second commonest cancer in England. Incidence rates for colorectal adenomas and advanced colorectal neoplasia are higher in men than in women of all age groups. The male-to-female ratio for CRC incidence rates differs for different parts of the large bowel.

Objective

To summarize the current evidence on colorectal screening and prevention, focussing on potential differences in benefits between sexes and colorectal sites.

Methods

(i), We reviewed the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the impact of different screening approaches on CRC incidence and mortality, overall, for each sex separately, and for subsites of the large bowel. (ii) We reviewed studies comparing detection parameters for faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT) with guaiac FOBt (gFOBt). (iii) The role of aspirin in CRC prevention in the general population was reviewed using evidence from RCTs, with specific emphasis on the differences observed between sexes and lesion site.

Results

(i) Our intention-to-treat random-effects meta-analysis showed that once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening performed on average-risk individuals aged 55 + decreased CRC incidence by 18% and mortality by 28%, but sex-specific results were lacking. (ii) Modern quantitative FIT were superior to qualitative gFOBt in average-risk population screening in their ability to discriminate between individuals with and without colorectal neoplasia. Some recent FIT studies suggest varying operating characteristics in men and women. (iii) Evidence of an effect of aspirin on the incidence of CRC (in particular, proximal disease) in both sexes aged 40 and over at average-risk of CRC is emerging.

Conclusions

We encourage researchers of CRC screening and prevention to publish their results by sex where possible. Pilot studies should be undertaken before implementation of quantitative FIT in a national screening programme to establish the appropriate threshold. Finally, individual risk assessment for CRC and non-CRC events, will be necessary to make an informed decision on whether a patient should receive aspirin chemoprevention.

Superior diagnostic performance of faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin in a head-to-head comparison with guaiac based faecal occult blood test among 2235 participants of screening colonoscopy

There is increasing evidence that faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for haemoglobin offer a number of advantages over traditional guaiac based faecal occult blood tests (gFOBTs). However, evidence on diagnostic performance from direct comparisons with colonoscopy findings in all participants in the average risk population is still sparse. We aimed for a head-to-head comparison of three quantitative FITs with a gFOBT among participants of the German screening colonoscopy programme. Pre-colonoscopy stool samples and colonoscopy reports were obtained from 2235 participants of screening colonoscopy in 2005-2009. To enhance comparability of diagnostic performance of the various tests, we assessed sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios of FITs after adjusting the FIT cut-off haemoglobin (Hb) concentrations in such a way that FIT positivity rates equalled the positivity rate of the gFOBT. Colorectal cancer, advanced adenomas and other adenomas were found in 15 (0.7%), 207 (9.3%) and 398 (17.8%) participants. The gFOBT was positive in 111 (5.0%) participants, with sensitivities (specificities) for detecting colorectal cancer, any advanced neoplasm or any neoplasm of 33.3% (95.2%), 8.6% (95.4%) and 5.5% (95.2%). At the same positivity rate, all three FITs outperformed the gFOBT in all indicators. In particular, all sensitivities of FITs were approximately two to three times higher at increased levels of specificity. All differences were statistically significant, except for some of the performance indicators for colorectal cancer. In conclusion, FITs can detect much larger proportions of colorectal neoplasms even if their cut-offs are set to levels that ensure equally low positivity rates as gFOBT.

Effect of verification bias on the sensitivity of fecal occult blood testing: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

There is controversy regarding the sensitivity of fecal occult blood tests (FOBT) for detecting colorectal cancer. Many of the published studies failed to correct for verification bias which may have increased the sensitivity.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of published studies evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of chemical-based FOBT for colorectal cancer was performed. Studies were included if both cancer and control subjects underwent confirmatory testing. We also included studies that attempted to correct for verification bias by either performing colonoscopy on all subjects regardless of the FOBT result or by using longitudinal follow-up. We then compared the sensitivity, specificity, and other diagnostic characteristics of the studies that attempted to correct for verification (n=10) vs. those that did not correct for this bias (n=19).

RESULTS

The pooled sensitivity of guaiac-based FOBT for colorectal cancer of studies without verification bias was significantly lower than those studies with this bias [0.36 (95% CI 0.25-0.47) vs. 0.70 (95% CI 0.60-0.80), p=0.001]. The pooled specificity of the studies without verification bias was higher [0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.97) vs. 0.88 (95% CI 0.84-0.91), p<0.005]. There was no significant difference in the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves. More sensitive chemical-based FOBT methods (e.g., Hemoccult® SENSA®) had a higher sensitivity but a lower specificity than standard guaiac methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity of guaiac-based FOBT for colorectal cancer has been overestimated as a result of verification bias. This test may not be sensitive enough to serve as an effective screening option for colorectal cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening - an overview

There are several modalities available for a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program. When determining which CRC screening program to implement, the costs of such programs should be considered in comparison to the health benefits they are expected to provide. Cost-effectiveness analysis provides a tool to do this. In this paper we review the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening. Published studies universally indicate that when compared with no CRC screening, all screening modalities provide additional years of life at a cost that is deemed acceptable by most industrialized nations. Many recent studies even find CRC screening to be cost-saving. However, when the alternative CRC screening strategies are compared against each other in an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, no single optimal strategy emerges across the studies. There is consensus that the new technologies of stool DNA testing, computed tomographic colonography and capsule endoscopy are not yet cost-effective compared with the established CRC screening tests.

Diagnostic accuracy of immunochemical versus guaiac faecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Immunochemical tests show important advantages over chemical-based faecal occult blood tests (FOBT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but comparison studies are limited. This study was performed to compare the accuracy of a sensitive immunochemical test with the guaiac test for detecting significant neoplasia (advanced adenomas and CRC) in an average-risk population.

METHODS

A random sample of 2288 asymptomatic subjects 50-79 years of age was prospectively included. Participants received three cards of the guaiac test, one sample of a latex-agglutination test (haemoglobin cut-off 50 ng/ml), and an invitation to undergo colonoscopy. Test sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were calculated in 1756 compliers.

RESULTS

Immunochemical and guaiac tests were positive in 143 (8.1%) and 62 (3.5%) subjects, respectively. Complete colonoscopy, performed in 402 participants (158 FOBT+ and 244 FOBT-), detected 14 (0.8%) patients with CRC and 49 (2.8%) with advanced adenomas. The immunochemical and guaiac tests for significant colorectal neoplasia showed sensitivities of 61% versus 23.8%, specificities of 95.1% versus 97.7%, PPVs of 43.4% versus 39.0%, and NPVs of 97.5% versus 95.4%, respectively. Proximal significant neoplasms were more frequently detected with the immunochemical test (85% vs. 15%) The relative risk for detecting significant neoplasia was superior in patients with a positive immunochemical test (RR 16.93; CI 7.94-36.10) than with a positive guaiac test (RR 3.34; CI 2.17-5.15).

CONCLUSION

A sensitive immunochemical test is markedly superior to the guaiac test for detecting significant colorectal neoplasia, and should be considered the first-choice FOBT for CRC screening in the average-risk population.

Comparison of immunochemical and guaiac-based fecal occult blood test in screening and surveillance for advanced colorectal neoplasms: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate whether immunochemical fecal occult blood tests (iFOBT) could improve clinical performance and test accuracy in screening and surveillance for advanced colorectal neoplasms.

METHODS

Eligible articles were identified by searches of electronic databases. All randomized trials and diagnostic cohort trials directly comparing iFOBT with guaiac-based FOBT (gFOBT) were included. A statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 4.2.8. A sensitivity, specificity and summary receiver operating characteristic curve was performed using Meta Disc.

RESULTS

We identified five randomized trials and 11 diagnostic cohort trials. In the randomized trials, the detection rates of advanced colorectal neoplasms with iFOBT or gFOBT were 2.23 percent and 1.24 percent, respectively. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was 1.50 (95% CI 0.94-2.39). In cohort trials, the advanced neoplasm detection rates of iFOBT or gFOBT were 1.44 percent and 0.50 percent (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.24-3.19) in the average-risk screened population, and were 8.8 percent and 7.1 percent (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.01-1.60) in diagnosed patients scheduled for colonoscopy. The sensitivity of iFOBT (0.67, 95% CI 0.61-0.73) was superior to that of gFOBT (0.54, 95% CI 0.48-0.60), as well as the specificities (0.85, 95% CI 0.83-0.87 vs 0.80, 95% CI 0.78-0.82) and positive predictive values (0.41 vs 0.29) in cohort trials of diagnosed patients.

CONCLUSION

Our review suggests that iFOBT could perform better in increasing the detection rate of advanced colorectal neoplasm than gFOBT and possesses higher sensitivity and specificity in the surveillance of advanced colorectal neoplasm for patients.

Comparison of an established simple office-based immunological FOBT with fecal tumor pyruvate kinase type M2 (M2-PK) for colorectal cancer screening: prospective multicenter study

OBJECTIVES

The immunological fecal occult blood test (IFOBT) has established itself as a more precise marker for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening than traditional guaiac-based FOBT. The simpler, cheaper, and more convenient newer office-based IFOBTs have been validated for diagnosing CRC. Dimeric isoenzyme of pyruvate kinase, M2-PK, expressed by tumor cells, has as well been proposed as a screening tool for CRC. This is the first study comparing fecal M2-PK as a screening biomarker for CRC against previously evaluated office-based IFOBT and colonoscopy.

METHODS

Six hundred forty consecutive subjects (symptomatic, as well as for CRC screening) referred for colonoscopy for various indications across five centers in Germany provided the stool samples for performing M2-PK and an immunochemical FOB strip test. The IFOBT used was a rapid immunochromatographic assay for detection of fecal hemoglobin. For M2-PK, a commercially available sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was used. The M2-PK test needs 6 h, while the office-based test can be read in just 10 min and is five times cheaper.

RESULTS

Office-based IFOBT had sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR) of 64.5, 96.3, 72.0, 94.9, 17.5, and 0.4 for diagnosing colorectal neoplasia (CRN), while the above performance characteristics for M2-PK at a cutoff value of 4 U/mL were 72.4, 73.8, 29.0, 94.8, 2.8, and 0.8 respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This office-based IFOBT was found to have significantly higher specificity, PPV, and positive LR as compared with M2-PK. IFOBT proved to be a convenient, noncumbersome, quick, and cheap tool in patients with above-average risk for detection of CRN.

Nicht-invasive Diagnostik kolorektaler Tumore – Hat der Guaiac-Test ausgedient? / Non-invasive detection of colorectal cancer – do we still need the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test?

Aufgrund der leichten Handhabung und des Nachweises einer Mortalitätssenkung gilt der Nachweis von okkultem Blut (FOBT) im Stuhl derzeit als das am weitesten verbreitete Screeningverfahren für das kolorektale Karzinom. Als nachteilig erweisen sich allerdings eine unzureichende Sensitivität, insbesondere beim Nachweis früher Stadien und eine nach wie vor geringe Akzeptanz in der Bevölkerung. Vorläufige Daten zum Nachweis von Calprotectin oder der Tumor-M2-PK im Stuhl ließen bessere Screeningeigenschaften erwarten. Aber auch hier schränkt die geringe Sensitivität für frühe Vorstufen und unzureichende Spezifität mit zu erwartenden hohen Folgekosten die Tauglichkeit der Tests deutlich ein. Die kürzlich entwickelten immunologischen FOBTs (I-FOBT) erweisen sich als spezifischer und sensitiver. Sie beruhen auf dem Nachweis von humanem Hämoglobin mittels spezifischer Antikörper und sind somit unabhängig von diätetischen oder medikamentösen Faktoren, was zu einer deutlich besseren Akzeptanz führt. Sie gelten derzeit als kosteneffektivste Verfahren unter den nichtinvasiven Screeningmaßnahmen. Der Nachweis von Tumor-DNA im Stuhl eröffnet eine neue Ära zum frühzeitigen Nachweis kolorektaler Karzinome. Erste kleinere Studien weisen auf eine sehr gute Sensitivität dieser Verfahren hin. Sie lagen für kolorektale Karzinome zwischen 62–91% und für Adenome zwischen 26–73% bei mit 93–100% sehr guter Spezifität. Als nachteilig im Vergleich zu den derzeit verfügbaren Screeningtests erweisen sich allerdings die vergleichsweise hohen Kosten.

Prospective multicenter evaluation of fecal tumor pyruvate kinase type M2 (M2-PK) as a screening biomarker for colorectal neoplasia

Proliferating cells, particularly the tumor cells, express a dimeric isoenzyme of pyruvate kinase, termed M2-PK. It's a direct target of several oncoproteins; the determination of fecal tumor pyruvate kinase type M2 (M2-PK) might be another promising tool for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. In this study, we have evaluated fecal M2-PK as a screening biomarker for colorectal neoplasia. It was compared against fecal occult blood (FOB) and colonoscopy. Three hundred and seventeen consecutive subjects from 4 different centers were included. Stool specimens were collected before purgation, processed appropriately and were tested for FOB and quantitatively analyzed for M2-PK. Colonoscopies were performed by experienced endoscopists who were unaware of fecal assay results. At cutoff value of 4 U/ml, fecal M2-PK assay had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 81.1, 86.7, 71.1 and 61.9% respectively for diagnosing CRC whereas FOBT showed a sensitivity of 36.5%, specificity of 92.2%, PPV of 72.9% and NPV of 71.5% for CRC. Such low specificity of fecal M2-PK will lead to unacceptably high number of false positives if it is used for mass CRC screening, leading to unindicated colonoscopies with its associated inconveniences, risks and costs. CRC screening test must have high specificity; a high sensitivity is not as vital. To conclude, M2-PK was found to be a poor screening biomarker for CR neoplasia in a subject population at above average risk based on its prospective comparison with colonoscopy. These marginal performance characteristics do not permit its use as a screening tool for CR neoplasia in present clinical settings.