Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26401070›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2015

Stool DNA methylation assays in colorectal cancer screening.

Tanya Kadiyska, Alexander Nossikoff

Abstract readEditorialReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Diagnostic Performance of IntestinalChinese medical journal · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Hypermethylation ofAdvanced biomedical research · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Significant association ofOncology letters · 2019
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Tanya KadiyskaTanya Kadiyska, Genetic Medico-Diagnostic Laboratory Genica, Sofia 1463, Bulgaria.
Alexander NossikoffTanya Kadiyska, Genetic Medico-Diagnostic Laboratory Genica, Sofia 1463, Bulgaria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is fourth most common cancer in men and third in women worldwide. Developing a diagnostic panel of sensitive and specific biomarkers for the early detection of CRC is recognised as to be crucial for early initial diagnosis, which in turn leads to better long term survival. Most of the research on novel potential CRC biomarkers in the last 2 decades has been focussed on stool DNA analysis. In this paper, we describe the recent advances in non-invasive CRC screening and more specifically in molecular assays for aberrantly methylated BMP3 and NDRG4 promoter regions. In several research papers these markers showed superior rates for sensitivity and specificity in comparison to previously described assays. These tests detected the majority of adenomas ≥ 1 cm in size and the detection rates progressively increased with larger adenomas. The methylation status of the BMP3 and NDRG4 promoters demonstrated effective detection of neoplasms at all sites throughout the colon and was not affected by common clinical variables. Recently, a multitarget stool DNA test consisting of molecular assays for aberrantly methylated BMP3 and NDRG4 promoter regions, mutant KRAS and immunochemical assay for human haemoglobin has been made commercially available and is currently reimbursed in the United States. Although this is the most sensitive non-invasive CRC screening test, there is the need for further research in several areas - establishment of the best timeframe for repeated DNA stool testing; validation of the results in populations outside of North America; usefulness for surveillance and prognosis of patients; cost-effectiveness of DNA stool testing in real-life populations.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesBiomarkers, TumorBone Morphogenetic Protein 3Colorectal NeoplasmsDNA, NeoplasmEarly Detection of CancerFecesHealth Care CostsHumansMuscle ProteinsNerve Tissue ProteinsPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisPromoter Regions, GeneticBiomarkers, TumorBMP3 protein, humanBone Morphogenetic Protein 3DNA, NeoplasmMuscle ProteinsNDRG4 protein, humanNerve Tissue ProteinsBMP3, NDRG4Colorectal cancerPromoter hypermethylationScreening programs

Identifiers

PMID26401070
PMCPMC4572786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.