Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Digestive Diseases and Sciences 6/2018

07.03.2018 | Original Article

Evaluation of Patients with an Apparent False Positive Stool DNA Test: The Role of Repeat Stool DNA Testing

verfasst von: Gregory S. Cooper, Sanford D. Markowitz, Zhengyi Chen, Missy Tuck, Joseph E. Willis, Barry M. Berger, Dean E. Brenner, Li Li

Erschienen in: Digestive Diseases and Sciences | Ausgabe 6/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

There is uncertainty as to the appropriate follow-up of patients who test positive on multimarker stool DNA (sDNA) testing and have a colonoscopy without neoplasia.

Aims

To determine the prevalence of missed colonic or occult upper gastrointestinal neoplasia in patients with an apparent false positive sDNA.

Methods

We prospectively identified 30 patients who tested positive with a commercially available sDNA followed by colonoscopy without neoplastic lesions. Patients were invited to undergo repeat sDNA at 11–29 months after the initial test followed by repeat colonoscopy and upper endoscopy. We determined the presence of neoplastic lesions on repeat evaluation stratified by results of repeat sDNA.

Results

Twelve patients were restudied. Seven patients had a negative second sDNA test and a normal second colonoscopy and upper endoscopy. In contrast, 5 of 12 subjects had a persistently positive second sDNA test, and 3 had positive findings, including a 3-cm sessile transverse colon adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, a 2-cm right colon sessile serrated adenoma with dysplasia, and a nonadvanced colon adenoma (p = 0.045). These corresponded to a positive predictive value of 0.60 (95% CI 0.17–1.00) and a negative predictive value of 1.00 (95% CI 1.00–1.00) for the second sDNA test. In addition, the medical records of all 30 subjects with apparent false positive testing were reviewed and no documented cases of malignant tumors were recorded.

Conclusions

Repeat positive sDNA testing may identify a subset of patients with missed or occult colorectal neoplasia after negative colonoscopy for an initially positive sDNA. High-quality colonoscopy with careful attention to the right colon in patients with positive sDNA is critically important and may avoid false negative colonoscopy.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat US Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA.. 2016;315:2564–2575.CrossRef US Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA.. 2016;315:2564–2575.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Imperiale TF, Ransohoff DF, Itzkowitz SH, et al. Multi-target stool DNA testing for colorectal cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1287–1297.CrossRefPubMed Imperiale TF, Ransohoff DF, Itzkowitz SH, et al. Multi-target stool DNA testing for colorectal cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1287–1297.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Heresbach D, Barrioz T, Lapalus MG, et al. Miss rate for colorectal neoplastic polyps: a prospective multicenter study of back-to-back video colonoscopies. Endoscopy. 2008;40:284–290.CrossRefPubMed Heresbach D, Barrioz T, Lapalus MG, et al. Miss rate for colorectal neoplastic polyps: a prospective multicenter study of back-to-back video colonoscopies. Endoscopy. 2008;40:284–290.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Singh S, Singh PP, Murad MH, Singh H, Samadder NJ. Prevalence, risk factors and outcomes of interval colorectal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:1375–1389.CrossRefPubMed Singh S, Singh PP, Murad MH, Singh H, Samadder NJ. Prevalence, risk factors and outcomes of interval colorectal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:1375–1389.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Kisiel JB, Yab TC, Taylor WR, et al. Stool DNA testing for the detection of pancreatic cancer: assessment of methylation marker candidates. Cancer. 2012;118:2623–2631.CrossRefPubMed Kisiel JB, Yab TC, Taylor WR, et al. Stool DNA testing for the detection of pancreatic cancer: assessment of methylation marker candidates. Cancer. 2012;118:2623–2631.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Cotter TG, Burger KN, Devens ME, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients having false positive multi-target stool DNA tests after negative screening colonoscopy. The LONG-HAUL cohort study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2017;26:614–621.CrossRef Cotter TG, Burger KN, Devens ME, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients having false positive multi-target stool DNA tests after negative screening colonoscopy. The LONG-HAUL cohort study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2017;26:614–621.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat FDA Summary of Safety and Effectiveness, PMA P130017b August 2014, page 9. www.fda.cov. Accessed 16.02.2018. FDA Summary of Safety and Effectiveness, PMA P130017b August 2014, page 9. www.​fda.​cov. Accessed 16.02.2018.
8.
Zurück zum Zitat von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:573–577.CrossRef von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:573–577.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol.. 2015;110:72–90.CrossRefPubMed Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol.. 2015;110:72–90.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Hetzel JT, Huang CS, Coukos JA, et al. Variation in the detection of serrated polyps in an average risk colorectal cancer screening cohort. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:2656–2664.CrossRefPubMed Hetzel JT, Huang CS, Coukos JA, et al. Variation in the detection of serrated polyps in an average risk colorectal cancer screening cohort. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:2656–2664.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Kahi CJ, Hewett DG, Norton DL, et al. Prevalence and variable detection of proximal colon serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9:42–46.CrossRefPubMed Kahi CJ, Hewett DG, Norton DL, et al. Prevalence and variable detection of proximal colon serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9:42–46.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson DH, Kisiel JB, Burger KW, et al. Multitarget stool DNA test: clinical performance and impact on yield and quality of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85:657–665.CrossRefPubMed Johnson DH, Kisiel JB, Burger KW, et al. Multitarget stool DNA test: clinical performance and impact on yield and quality of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85:657–665.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Manfredi MA, Abu Dayyeh BK, Bhat YM, et al. Electronic chromoendoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:249–261.CrossRefPubMed Manfredi MA, Abu Dayyeh BK, Bhat YM, et al. Electronic chromoendoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:249–261.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:307–323.CrossRefPubMed Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:307–323.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Evaluation of Patients with an Apparent False Positive Stool DNA Test: The Role of Repeat Stool DNA Testing
verfasst von
Gregory S. Cooper
Sanford D. Markowitz
Zhengyi Chen
Missy Tuck
Joseph E. Willis
Barry M. Berger
Dean E. Brenner
Li Li
Publikationsdatum
07.03.2018
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Digestive Diseases and Sciences / Ausgabe 6/2018
Print ISSN: 0163-2116
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2568
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-018-5001-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2018

Digestive Diseases and Sciences 6/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Echinokokkose medikamentös behandeln oder operieren?

06.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Therapie von Echinokokkosen sollte immer in spezialisierten Zentren erfolgen. Eine symptomlose Echinokokkose kann – egal ob von Hunde- oder Fuchsbandwurm ausgelöst – konservativ erfolgen. Wenn eine Op. nötig ist, kann es sinnvoll sein, vorher Zysten zu leeren und zu desinfizieren. 

Umsetzung der POMGAT-Leitlinie läuft

03.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Seit November 2023 gibt es evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen zum perioperativen Management bei gastrointestinalen Tumoren (POMGAT) auf S3-Niveau. Vieles wird schon entsprechend der Empfehlungen durchgeführt. Wo es im Alltag noch hapert, zeigt eine Umfrage in einem Klinikverbund.

Proximale Humerusfraktur: Auch 100-Jährige operieren?

01.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Mit dem demographischen Wandel versorgt auch die Chirurgie immer mehr betagte Menschen. Von Entwicklungen wie Fast-Track können auch ältere Menschen profitieren und bei proximaler Humerusfraktur können selbst manche 100-Jährige noch sicher operiert werden.

Die „Zehn Gebote“ des Endokarditis-Managements

30.04.2024 Endokarditis Leitlinie kompakt

Worauf kommt es beim Management von Personen mit infektiöser Endokarditis an? Eine Kardiologin und ein Kardiologe fassen die zehn wichtigsten Punkte der neuen ESC-Leitlinie zusammen.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.