1
|
Hijos-Mallada G, Velamazán R, Marti R, Chueca E, Arechavaleta S, Lué A, Gomollón F, Lanas A, Sostres C. A Patient Self-Made Point-of-Care Fecal Test Improves Diagnostic Accuracy Compared with Fecal Calprotectin Alone in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients. Diagnostics (Basel) 2021; 11:2323. [PMID: 34943560 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11122323] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2021] [Revised: 12/04/2021] [Accepted: 12/07/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Monitoring inflammatory bowel disease patients may be challenging. Fecal calprotectin is one of the most performed tests. Other fecal biomarkers are less used in clinical practice. Rapid fecal tests that could be performed by patients may be a useful strategy to closely monitor disease activity. Methods: We performed a prospective observational study including consecutive inflammatory bowel disease patients referred for colonoscopy in a single center. Certest FOB + Transferrin + Calprotectin + Lactoferrin® (Certest Biotec S.L, Zaragoza, Spain), a one-step point-of-care test which simultaneously detects these four biomarkers was performed. Endoscopic inflammatory activity was defined using the Mayo score (≥1) in ulcerative colitis, SES-CD (>3) and Rutgeerts scores (≥1) for Crohn’s disease. Results: Out of a total of 106 patients (56.5% female, mean age 51 years), 54 (50.9%) were diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and 52 (49.1%) with Crohn’s disease. Endoscopic activity was detected in 42 patients (39.0%). Fecal calprotectin provided the best sensitivity (97.6%), with limited specificity (34.4%). Compared to calprotectin, the other 3 fecal biomarkers showed better specificity (87.5–92.1%) and lower sensitivity (45.2–59.5%). Patients with a negative result in all biomarkers (19/106—17.9%) had 100% (CI 95% 97.4–100) negative predictive value, while patients with the 4 biomarkers positive (13/106—12.3%) had 100% (CI 95% 96.1–100) positive predictive value of endoscopic inflammatory activity. AUROC of this 4 biomarker point-of-care test was 0.845 (95% CI 0.771–0.920), significantly higher than the AUROCs of any of the 4 biomarkers. Conclusions: This test may be a useful strategy to monitor inflammatory activity in clinical practice by excluding or prioritizing patients in need of a colonoscopy.
Collapse
|
2
|
Hijos-Mallada G, Lué A, Velamazan R, Saura N, Abril C, Lorenzo M, Navarro M, Chueca E, Arechavaleta S, Gomollón F, Lanas Á, Sostres C. The Addition of Other Fecal Biomarkers Does Not Improve the Diagnostic Accuracy of Immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Test Alone in a Colorrectal Cancer Screening Cohort. Front Med (Lausanne) 2021; 8:665786. [PMID: 34150803 PMCID: PMC8212973 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.665786] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2021] [Accepted: 05/11/2021] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: Screening with fecal occult blood test reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality, and is currently implemented in most countries. However, around 40% of screening colonoscopies are normal. Thus, strategies to avoid these colonoscopies are highly necessary. Adding other fecal biomarkers, such as fecal calprotectin (FC), lactoferrin, and transferrin may be useful, but evidence is scarce. Aims: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of fecal occult blood immunochemical test (FIT), FC, and a one-step combo card test for the simultaneous semi-qualitative detection of human hemoglobin (hHb), transferrin (hTf), calprotectin (hCp) and lactoferrin (hLf) in a CRC screening program population. Methods: Single-center, prospective observational study, enrolling patients included in a CRC screening program, referred for a colonoscopy due to a positive FIT test. Participants collected a stool sample prior to bowel preparation, and FIT, FC and the combo semi-qualitative tests were performed on the sample. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and area under receiver operator curve (AUC) for diagnosis of advanced neoplasia, advanced adenoma and CRC were estimated for each biomarker and their combinations. The primary endpoint of the study was to assess whether these biomarkers could improve the diagnostic accuracy of FIT alone. Results: 336 consecutive patients (64% males) were recruited. Advanced neoplasia was found in 129/336 (38.4%) patients, and of these, 22/336 (6.5%) were diagnosed of CRC. 153/336 (45.5%) colonoscopies were completely normal. The AUC for the diagnosis of advanced neoplasia were 0.725 (95%CI 0.665–0.784) for FIT, 0.477 (95%CI 0.413–0.541) for FC and 0.732 (95%CI 0.674–0.791) for the combination of both (FIT + FC) quantitative tests. The AUCs for the combo test were 0.70 (95%CI 0.641–0.760) for hHb, 0.625 (95%CI 0.562–0.698) for hTf, 0.532 (95%CI 0.469–0.595) for hCp, 0.531 (95%CI 0.466–0.595 ) for hLf and 0.681 (95%CI 0.620–0.741) for the combination of the four biomarkers. Conclusion: In average-risk population, FIT appears to be the best fecal marker for the diagnosis of CRC and advanced adenoma. None of the other biomarkers explored or their combinations provided a better diagnostic accuracy. Only hTF showed an acceptable diagnostic accuracy. FC and hLF were not useful in this setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gonzalo Hijos-Mallada
- Digestive Diseases Service, University Clinic Hospital, Zaragoza, Spain.,Aragón Health Research Institute (IIS Aragón), Zaragoza, Spain
| | - Alberto Lué
- Digestive Diseases Service, University Clinic Hospital, Zaragoza, Spain.,Aragón Health Research Institute (IIS Aragón), Zaragoza, Spain
| | - Raul Velamazan
- Digestive Diseases Service, University Clinic Hospital, Zaragoza, Spain.,Aragón Health Research Institute (IIS Aragón), Zaragoza, Spain
| | - Nuria Saura
- Digestive Diseases Service, University Clinic Hospital, Zaragoza, Spain.,Aragón Health Research Institute (IIS Aragón), Zaragoza, Spain
| | | | | | - Mercedes Navarro
- Digestive Diseases Service, University Clinic Hospital, Zaragoza, Spain.,Aragón Health Research Institute (IIS Aragón), Zaragoza, Spain
| | - Eduardo Chueca
- Aragón Health Research Institute (IIS Aragón), Zaragoza, Spain.,CIBER Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd), Zaragoza, Spain
| | - Samantha Arechavaleta
- Aragón Health Research Institute (IIS Aragón), Zaragoza, Spain.,CIBER Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd), Zaragoza, Spain
| | - Fernando Gomollón
- Digestive Diseases Service, University Clinic Hospital, Zaragoza, Spain.,Aragón Health Research Institute (IIS Aragón), Zaragoza, Spain.,University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.,CIBER Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd), Zaragoza, Spain
| | - Ángel Lanas
- Digestive Diseases Service, University Clinic Hospital, Zaragoza, Spain.,Aragón Health Research Institute (IIS Aragón), Zaragoza, Spain.,University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.,CIBER Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd), Zaragoza, Spain
| | - Carlos Sostres
- Digestive Diseases Service, University Clinic Hospital, Zaragoza, Spain.,Aragón Health Research Institute (IIS Aragón), Zaragoza, Spain.,University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.,CIBER Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd), Zaragoza, Spain
| |
Collapse
|