Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26765125›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational gastroenterology2016

A Blood Test for Methylated BCAT1 and IKZF1 vs. a Fecal Immunochemical Test for Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia.

Erin L Symonds, Susanne K Pedersen, Rohan T Baker, David H Murray, Snigdha Gaur, Stephen R Cole, Geetha Gopalsamy, Dileep Mangira, Lawrence C LaPointe, Graeme P Young

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Assessment of methylated BCAT1 and IKZF1 circulating tumor DNA as a prognostic biomarker in esophagogastric adenocarcinomas.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Erin L SymondsFlinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University of South Australia, South Australia, Australia.
Susanne K PedersenClinical Genomics, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Rohan T BakerClinical Genomics, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
David H MurrayClinical Genomics, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Snigdha GaurClinical Genomics, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Stephen R ColeFlinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University of South Australia, South Australia, Australia.
Geetha GopalsamyFlinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University of South Australia, South Australia, Australia.
Dileep MangiraFlinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University of South Australia, South Australia, Australia.
Lawrence C LaPointeClinical Genomics, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Graeme P YoungFlinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University of South Australia, South Australia, Australia.
Flinders University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the performance of a new blood test for colorectal cancer (CRC) to an established fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in a study population with the full range of neoplastic and non-neoplastic pathologies encountered in the colon and rectum.

methodsVolunteers were asked to complete a FIT prior to colonoscopy. Blood was collected after bowel preparation but prior to colonoscopy, and plasma was assayed for the presence of methylated BCAT1 and IKZF1 DNA using a multiplex real-time PCR assay. Sensitivity and specificity estimates for the blood test were calculated from true- and false-positive rates for neoplasia and compared with FIT at a range of fecal hemoglobin (Hb) concentration positivity thresholds.

resultsIn total, 1,381 volunteers (median age 64 years; 49% male) completed both tests prior to colonoscopy. Estimated sensitivity of the BCAT1/IKZF1 blood test for CRC was 62% (41/66; 95% confidence interval 49-74%) with a specificity of 92% (1207/1315; 90-93%). FIT returned the same specificity at a cutoff of 60 μg Hb/g, at which its corresponding sensitivity for cancer was 64% (42/66; 51-75%). In the range of commonly used FIT cutoffs, respective cancer sensitivity and specificity estimates with FIT were: 59% (46-71%) and 93% (92-95%) at 80 μg Hb/g, and 79% (67-88%) and 81% (78-83%) at 10 μg Hb/g. Although estimated sensitivities were not significantly different between the two tests for any stage of cancer, FIT showed a significantly higher sensitivity for advanced adenoma at the lower cutoffs. Specificity of FIT, but not of the BCAT1/IKZF1 blood test, deteriorated substantially in people with overt blood in the feces. When combining FIT (cutoff 10 μg Hb/g) with the BCAT1/IKZF1 blood test, sensitivity for cancer was 89% (79-96%) at 74% (72-77%) specificity.

conclusionsA test based on detection of methylated BCAT1/IKZF1 DNA in blood has comparable sensitivity but better specificity for CRC than FIT at the commonly used positivity threshold of 10 μg Hb/g. Further evaluation of the new test relative to FIT in the population screening context is now required to fully understand the potential advantages and disadvantages of these biomarkers in screening.

Identifiers

PMID26765125
PMCPMC4737873
OpenAlexW2411275938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.