Faecal pyruvate kinase isoenzyme type M2 for colorectal cancer screening:A meta-analysis

AIM:To present a critical discussion of the efficacy of the faecal pyruvate kinase isoenzyme type M2(faecal M2-PK) test for colorectal cancer(CRC) screening based on the currently available studies.METHODS:A literature search in PubMed and Embase was conducted using the following search terms:fecal...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inWorld journal of gastroenterology : WJG Vol. 18; no. 30; pp. 4004 - 4011
Main Author Tonus, Carolin
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited 14.08.2012
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:AIM:To present a critical discussion of the efficacy of the faecal pyruvate kinase isoenzyme type M2(faecal M2-PK) test for colorectal cancer(CRC) screening based on the currently available studies.METHODS:A literature search in PubMed and Embase was conducted using the following search terms:fecal Tumor M2-PK,faecal Tumour M2-PK,fecal M2-PK,faecal M2-PK,fecal pyruvate kinase,faecal pyruvate kinase,pyruvate kinase stool and M2-PK stool.RESULTS:Stool samples from 704 patients with CRC and from 11 412 healthy subjects have been investigated for faecal M2-PK concentrations in seventeen independent studies.The mean faecal M2-PK sensitivity was 80.3%;the specificity was 95.2%.Four studies compared faecal M2-PK head-to-head with guaiacbased faecal occult blood test(gFOBT).Faecal M2PK demonstrated a sensitivity of 81.1%,whereas the gFOBT detected only 36.9% of the CRCs.Eight independent studies investigated the sensitivity of faecal M2-PK for adenoma(n = 554),with the following sensitivities:adenoma 〈 1 cm in diameter:25%;adenoma 〉 1 cm:44%;adenoma of unspecified diameter:51%.In a direct comparison with gFOBT of adenoma 〉 1 cm in diameter,47% tested positive with the faecal M2-PK test,whereas the gFOBT detected only 27%.CONCLUSION:We recommend faecal M2-PK as a routine test for CRC screening.Faecal M2-PK closes a gap in clinical practice because it detects bleeding and nonbleeding tumors and adenoma with high sensitivity and specificity.
Bibliography:AIM:To present a critical discussion of the efficacy of the faecal pyruvate kinase isoenzyme type M2(faecal M2-PK) test for colorectal cancer(CRC) screening based on the currently available studies.METHODS:A literature search in PubMed and Embase was conducted using the following search terms:fecal Tumor M2-PK,faecal Tumour M2-PK,fecal M2-PK,faecal M2-PK,fecal pyruvate kinase,faecal pyruvate kinase,pyruvate kinase stool and M2-PK stool.RESULTS:Stool samples from 704 patients with CRC and from 11 412 healthy subjects have been investigated for faecal M2-PK concentrations in seventeen independent studies.The mean faecal M2-PK sensitivity was 80.3%;the specificity was 95.2%.Four studies compared faecal M2-PK head-to-head with guaiacbased faecal occult blood test(gFOBT).Faecal M2PK demonstrated a sensitivity of 81.1%,whereas the gFOBT detected only 36.9% of the CRCs.Eight independent studies investigated the sensitivity of faecal M2-PK for adenoma(n = 554),with the following sensitivities:adenoma 〈 1 cm in diameter:25%;adenoma 〉 1 cm:44%;adenoma of unspecified diameter:51%.In a direct comparison with gFOBT of adenoma 〉 1 cm in diameter,47% tested positive with the faecal M2-PK test,whereas the gFOBT detected only 27%.CONCLUSION:We recommend faecal M2-PK as a routine test for CRC screening.Faecal M2-PK closes a gap in clinical practice because it detects bleeding and nonbleeding tumors and adenoma with high sensitivity and specificity.
14-1219/R
Faecal pyruvate kinase isoenzyme type M2 Colorectal cancer screening Colorectal cancer Stool Faecal occult blood Adenoma Polyps
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
Telephone: +49-40-1818873667 Fax: +49-40-1818873112
Correspondence to: Dr. Carolin Tonus, Professor, Asklepios Hospital North, General and Visceral Surgery, Tangstedter Landstrasse 400, 22417 Hamburg, Germany. mail@carolintonus.de
Author contributions: Tonus C and Neupert G conducted the literature review and wrote the article; Sellinger M and Koss K reviewed the text and made significant revisions to drafts of this manuscript.
ISSN:1007-9327
2219-2840
2219-2840
DOI:10.3748/wjg.v18.i30.4004