ArticleThe American journal of gastroenterology2019
Multitarget Stool DNA Test Performance in an Average-Risk Colorectal Cancer Screening Population.
Article in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
61 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic value of genetic and epigenetic biomarker panels for colorectal cancer detection: a systematic review.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Pooled it
- AGA Clinical Practice Update on Risk Stratification for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Post-Polypectomy Surveillance: Expert Review.Gastroenterology · 2023Guideline
- Systematic review: non-endoscopic surveillance for colorectal neoplasia in individuals with Lynch syndrome.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Return of Mailed Multitarget Stool DNA Test Kits and Subsequent Colorectal Cancer Incidence in the United States: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
- Yield of Synchronous Adenomas and Serrated Polyps in Patients With Positive Stool Tests (mt-sDNA or FIT): Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- Composite proteomic and metabolomic plasma biomarkers for detection of colorectal, lung and ovarian cancers.Molecular cancer · 2026Article
- Anatomical location of colorectal neoplasia in patients with positive stool test (multitarget stool deoxyribonucleic acid or fecal immunochemical test) results: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2026Article
- Stool-based SDC2/SFRP2/TFPI2 methylation assay for colorectal neoplasia screening: a multicenter, case-control study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Real-World Adherence and Follow-Up Colonoscopy After Multitarget Stool DNA Screening in a Regional Healthcare System.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2026Article
- Adherence to multi-target stool DNA colorectal cancer screening and clinical follow-up in the Hartford HealthCare system.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Cracking the Code of Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Overview With a Focus on Current and Emerging Screening Methods.Cureus · 2025Review
- Association Between Smoking Status and Prevalence of Advanced Outcomes in Patients With and Without Positive Stool Test Prior to Colonoscopy: Data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
- Anatomical Distribution of Polyps Is Different for Men and Women With Positive Stool Tests.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Article
- Heterogeneous expression of long noncoding RNA RP11-109D20.2: Insights into regulatory gene expression roles in colon cancer.Iranian journal of basic medical sciences · 2025Article
- Stool-based methylated syndecan-2 testing has a high positive predictive value in an average/increased-risk population: a multicenter retrospective study.Gastroenterology report · 2025Article
- Early Detection, Precision Treatment, Recurrence Monitoring: Liquid Biopsy Transforms Colorectal Cancer Therapy.Current cancer drug targets · 2025Review
- Article
- Serum DNA methylome of the colorectal cancer serrated pathway enables non-invasive detection.Molecular oncology · 2024Article
- Association of Endoscopist Colonoscopy Quality Measures With Follow-Up Colonoscopy Outcomes After Positive Stool Tests (Multitarget Stool DNA or Fecal Immunochemical Test): Retrospective Cross-Sectional Analysis of Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe set out to evaluate the performance of a multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) in an average-risk colonoscopy-controlled colorectal cancer (CRC) screening population. MT-sDNA stool test results were evaluated against fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results for the detection of different lesions, including molecularly defined high-risk adenomas and several other tumor characteristics.
methodsWhole stool samples (n = 1,047) were prospectively collected and subjected to an MT-sDNA test, which tests for KRAS mutations, NDRG4 and BMP3 promoter methylation, and hemoglobin. Results for detecting CRC (n = 7), advanced precancerous lesions (advanced adenoma [AA] and advanced serrated polyps; n = 119), and non-AAs (n = 191) were compared with those of FIT alone (thresholds of 50, 75, and 100 hemoglobin/mL). AAs with high risk of progression were defined by the presence of specific DNA copy number events as measured by low-pass whole genome sequencing.
resultsThe MT-sDNA test was more sensitive than FIT alone in detecting advanced precancerous lesions (46% (55/119) vs 27% (32/119), respectively, P < 0.001). Specificities among individuals with nonadvanced or negative findings (controls) were 89% (791/888) and 93% (828/888) for MT-sDNA and FIT testing, respectively. A positive MT-sDNA test was associated with multiple lesions (P = 0.005), larger lesions (P = 0.03), and lesions with tubulovillous architecture (P = 0.04). The sensitivity of the MT-sDNA test or FIT in detecting individuals with high-risk AAs (n = 19) from individuals with low-risk AAs (n = 52) was not significantly different. DISCUSSION: In an average-risk screening population, the MT-sDNA test has an increased sensitivity for detecting advanced precancerous lesions compared with FIT alone. AAs with a high risk of progression were not detected with significantly higher sensitivity by MT-sDNA or FIT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.