Fecal microbial DNA markers serve for screening colorectal neoplasm in asymptomatic subjects

Background and Aim We have previously shown that fecal microbial markers might be useful for non‐invasive diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) and adenoma. Here, we assessed the application of microbial DNA markers, as compared with and in combination with fecal immunochemical test (FIT), in detecti...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of gastroenterology and hepatology Vol. 36; no. 4; pp. 1035 - 1043
Main Authors Liang, Jessie Qiaoyi, Wong, Sunny H, Szeto, Chun Ho, Chu, Eagle SH, Lau, Harry C, Chen, Yingxuan, Fang, Jingyuan, Yu, Jun, Sung, Joseph JY
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Australia Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.04.2021
John Wiley and Sons Inc
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Background and Aim We have previously shown that fecal microbial markers might be useful for non‐invasive diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) and adenoma. Here, we assessed the application of microbial DNA markers, as compared with and in combination with fecal immunochemical test (FIT), in detecting CRC and adenoma in symptomatic patients and asymptomatic subjects. Methods We recruited 676 subjects [210 CRC, 115 advanced adenoma (AA), 86 non‐advanced adenoma, and 265 non‐neoplastic controls], including 241 symptomatic and 435 asymptomatic subjects. Fecal abundances of Fusobacterium nucleatum, a Lachnoclostridium sp. m3, Bacteroides clarus, and Clostridium hathewayi were quantified by quantitative PCR. Combining score of the four microbial markers (4Bac) and diagnostic prediction were determined using our previously established scoring model and cutoff values and FIT with a cutoff of 100 ng Hb/mL. Results 4Bac detected similar percentages of CRC [85.3% (95%CI: 79.2–90.2%) vs 84.9% (68.1–94.9%)] and AA [35.7% (12.8–64.9%) vs 38.6% (29.1–48.8%)], while FIT detected more CRC [72.1% (63.7–79.4%) vs 66.7% (48.2–82.0%)] and AA [28.6% (8.4–58.1%) vs 16.8% (10.1–25.6%)], in symptomatic vs asymptomatic subjects, respectively. Focusing on the asymptomatic cohort, 4Bac was more sensitive for diagnosing CRC and AA than FIT (P < 0.001), with lower specificity [83.3% (77.6–88.0%) vs 98.6% (96.0–99.7%)]. FIT failed to detect any non‐advanced adenoma [0% (0.0–4.2%)] compared with 4Bac [41.9% (31.3–53.0%), P < 0.0001]. Combining 4Bac with FIT improved sensitivities for CRC [90.9% (75.7–98.1%)] and AA [48.5% (38.4–58.7%)] detection. Conclusion Quantitation of fecal microbial DNA markers may serve as a new test, stand alone, or in combination with FIT for screening colorectal neoplasm in asymptomatic subjects.
Bibliography:Study conception and design (J. J. Y. S.); Development of methodology (J. Q. L.); Acquisition of data (J. Q. L., S. W., C. H. S., E. S. H. C., H. L., Y. C., J. F., J. Y.); Analysis and interpretation of data (J. Q. L., J. J. Y. S.); Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript (J. Q. L., J. J. Y. S.); Study supervision (J. J. Y. S.).
Declaration of conflict of interest
This study was supported by National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFC1312100, 2018YFC1312102 and 2017YFE0190700) and HRMF research fellowship scheme (02160037).
All authors disclose no potential conflicts (financial, professional, or personal) that are relevant to the manuscript.
Financial support
Author contributions
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
Declaration of conflict of interest: All authors disclose no potential conflicts (financial, professional, or personal) that are relevant to the manuscript.
Financial support: This study was supported by National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFC1312100, 2018YFC1312102 and 2017YFE0190700) and HRMF research fellowship scheme (02160037).
Author contributions: Study conception and design (J. J. Y. S.); Development of methodology (J. Q. L.); Acquisition of data (J. Q. L., S. W., C. H. S., E. S. H. C., H. L., Y. C., J. F., J. Y.); Analysis and interpretation of data (J. Q. L., J. J. Y. S.); Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript (J. Q. L., J. J. Y. S.); Study supervision (J. J. Y. S.).
ISSN:0815-9319
1440-1746
1440-1746
DOI:10.1111/jgh.15171