Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34782392›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2022

Comparison of Fecal Sample Collection Methods for Microbial Analysis Embedded within Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs.

Semi Zouiouich, Mahendra Mariadassou, Olivier Rué, Emily Vogtmann, Inge Huybrechts, Gianluca Severi, Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault, Carlo Senore, Alessio Naccarati, Giulio Mengozzi and 5 more

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Differences in the Fecal Metabolome of Autoimmune Pancreatitis Patients.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Stability of the Fecal and Oral Microbiome over 2 Years at -80°C for Multiple Collection Methods.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Semi ZouiouichNutrition and Metabolism Section, International Agency for Research on Cancer-WHO, Lyon, France. semi.zouiouich@nih.gov.ORCID 0000-0003-0263-3285
Mahendra MariadassouINRAE, MaIAGE, Université Paris-Saclay, Jouy-en-Josas, France.
Olivier RuéINRAE, MaIAGE, Université Paris-Saclay, Jouy-en-Josas, France.
Emily VogtmannMetabolic Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, NCI, Rockville, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0003-1355-5593
Inge HuybrechtsNutrition and Metabolism Section, International Agency for Research on Cancer-WHO, Lyon, France.ORCID 0000-0003-3838-855X
Gianluca SeveriUniversité Paris-Saclay, Université Paris-Sud, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Centre de Recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM), Villejuif, France.ORCID 0000-0001-7157-419X
Marie-Christine Boutron-RuaultUniversité Paris-Saclay, Université Paris-Sud, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Centre de Recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM), Villejuif, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5956-5693
Carlo SenoreEpidemiology and Screening Unit-CPO, University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1023-7477
Alessio NaccaratiItalian Institute for Genomic Medicine (IIGM), c/o IRCCS Candiolo, Candiolo, Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5774-0905
Giulio MengozziClinical biochemistry Unit, University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0431-8369
Zisis KozlakidisLaboratory Services and Biobank, International Agency for Research on Cancer-WHO, Lyon, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3836-7209
Mazda JenabNutrition and Metabolism Section, International Agency for Research on Cancer-WHO, Lyon, France.
Rashmi SinhaMetabolic Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, NCI, Rockville, Maryland.
Marc J Gunter *Nutrition and Metabolism Section, International Agency for Research on Cancer-WHO, Lyon, France.ORCID 0000-0001-5472-6761
Marion Leclerc *Université Paris Saclay, INRAe, AgroParisTech, Micalis Institute, Jouy-en-Josas, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8684-2847

Funding

Lower Gastrointestinal Cancer StudiesZIACP010198 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI SINHA, RASHMI · 2009 to 2025
$6.6M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA CP010198World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer screening programs with fecal sample collection may provide a platform for population-based gut microbiome disease research. We investigated sample collection and storage method impact on the accuracy and stability of the V3-V4 region of the 16S rRNA genes and bacterial quantity across seven different collection methods [i.e., no solution, two specimen collection cards, and four types of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) used in four countries] among 19 healthy volunteers.

methodsIntraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated for the relative abundance of the top three phyla, the most abundant genera, alpha diversity metrics, and the first principal coordinates of the beta diversity matrices to estimate the stability of microbial profiles after storage for 7 days at room temperature, 4°C or 30°C, and after screening for the presence of occult blood in the stool. In addition, accuracy was estimated for samples frozen immediately compared to samples with no solution (i.e., the putative gold standard).

resultsWhen compared with the putative gold standard, we observed significant variation for all collection methods. However, interindividual variability was much higher than the variability introduced by the collection method. Stability ICCs were high (≥0.75) for FIT tubes that underwent colorectal cancer screening procedures. The relative abundance of Actinobacteria (0.65) was an exception and was lower for different FIT tubes stored at 30°C (range, 0.41-0.90) and room temperature (range, 0.06-0.94).

conclusionsPaper-based collection cards and different types of FIT are acceptable tools for microbiome measurements. IMPACT: Our findings inform on the utility of commonly used fecal sample collection methods for developing microbiome-focused cohorts nested within screening programs.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsMicrobiotaEarly Detection of CancerFecesHumansRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSpecimen HandlingRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID34782392
PMCPMC10416615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.