Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32398859›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2020

Biomarker measurement in non-invasively sampled colorectal mucus as a novel approach to colorectal cancer detection: screening and triage implications.

Alexandre Loktionov, Anet Soubieres, Tatiana Bandaletova, Nader Francis, Joanna Allison, Julian Sturt, Jai Mathur, Andrew Poullis

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Colon mucus in colorectal neoplasia and beyond.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022
    Review
  8. Review
  9. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Alexandre LoktionovDiagNodus Ltd, Babraham Research Campus, Cambridge, UK. alex.loktionov@diagnodus.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7836-3838
Anet SoubieresDepartment of Gastroenterology, St George's Hospital, London, UK.
Tatiana BandaletovaDiagNodus Ltd, Babraham Research Campus, Cambridge, UK.
Nader FrancisDepartment of Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital, Yeovil, UK.
Joanna AllisonDepartment of Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital, Yeovil, UK.
Julian SturtDepartment of Surgery, Southend University Hospital, Southend-on-Sea, UK.
Jai MathurDepartment of Gastroenterology, St George's Hospital, London, UK.
Andrew PoullisDepartment of Gastroenterology, St George's Hospital, London, UK.
DiagNodus (United Kingdom) · GBSt George's Hospital · GBYeovil District Hospital · GBCharing Cross Hospital · GBSouthend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Innovate UK 132672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFaecal tests are widely applied for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and considered for triaging symptomatic patients with suspected CRC. However, faecal tests can be inconvenient, complex and expensive. Colorectal mucus (CM) sampled using our new patient-friendly non-invasive technique is rich in CRC biomarkers. This study aimed to evaluate diagnostic accuracy of CRC detection by measuring protein biomarkers in CM.

methodsColorectal mucus samples were provided by 35 healthy controls, 62 CRC-free symptomatic patients and 40 CRC patients. Biomarkers were quantified by ELISA. Diagnostic performances of haemoglobin, C-reactive protein, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1, M2-pyruvate kinase, matrix metalloproteinase-9, peptidyl arginine deiminase-4, epidermal growth factor receptor, calprotectin and eosinophil-derived neurotoxin were assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

resultsColorectal mucus haemoglobin was superior compared to other biomarkers. For haemoglobin, the areas under the curve for discriminating between CRC and healthy groups ('screening') and between CRC and symptomatic patients ('triage') were 0.921 and 0.854 respectively. The sensitivity of 80.0% and specificities of 94.3% and 85.5% for the two settings respectively were obtained.

conclusionsHaemoglobin quantification in CM reliably detects CRC. This patient-friendly approach presents an attractive alternative to faecal immunochemical test; however, the two methods need to be directly compared in larger studies.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBiomarkers, TumorColonColorectal NeoplasmsEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFecesFemaleGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHumansMaleMiddle AgedMucusNeoplasm ProteinsYoung AdultBiomarkers, TumorNeoplasm Proteins

Identifiers

PMID32398859
PMCPMC7374197
OpenAlexW3025895114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.