ArticleScientific reports2025
Beyond colonoscopy, faecal DNA mutation screening provides a potential and viable path to early colorectal cancer detection.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality worldwide, with early detection critical for improving clinical outcomes. In Denmark's CRC screening program, nearly 60% of patients undergoing colonoscopy do not have polyps requiring treatment, highlighting the need for more sensitive and less invasive screening methods to improve early detection and reduce unnecessary procedures. In this study, we assessed the potential of two faecal DNA-based methods for detecting CRC-related mutations. Extracted DNA was analysed using next-generation sequencing (NGS) and digital PCR (dPCR). NGS targeted a gene panel covering the most frequently mutated sites in CRC, while dPCR focused on six specific CRC-associated mutations. A common limitation across both methods was the low abundance of human DNA in faecal samples, which reduced the reliability of variant detection. Nevertheless, both NGS and dPCR showed promise, particularly when DNA input was sufficient. Significant associations were observed between mutation counts and clinical diagnosis, with key CRC mutations reliably detected. The findings suggest that, with further implementation, these methods could serve as a less invasive and more cost-effective alternative to colonoscopy, especially for high-risk individuals. However, the sensitivity of both methods was limited in samples with low DNA yield, likely due to inhibitory effects during sample preservation or extraction. While faecal samples may be better suited for gut microbiome profiling, our findings underscore the potential of human DNA-based faecal screening in CRC and highlight the need for optimized extraction protocols to improve diagnostic accuracy, minimize unnecessary procedures, and provide personalized care for high-risk populations.
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.