Use of stool DNA for colorectal cancer screening: a meta-analysis and systematic review
Department
Internal Medicine
Additional Department
Medicine
Document Type
Article
Publication Title
European Journal of Cancer Prevention
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is the third most common malignancy in the USA and accounts for more than 1 million deaths worldwide with screening shown to reduce CRC mortality. This meta-analysis analyzed the use of stool DNA for screening average risk, asymptomatic subjects for colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions and compared sDNA to FOBT tests (gFOBT and FIT). Eight studies were included from four different countries with a total of 39 665 subjects. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for sDNA for detecting CRC was 83.3% (95% CI: 60.8-94.2) and 92.4% (95% CI: 90.1-94.1), respectively, compared with FOBT, which had a lower sensitivity at 70.2% (95% CI: 45.5-86.9) but higher specificity 95.7% (95% CI: 95.1-96.2). Further analysis showed improved sensitivity of sDNA to 92.6% when only the studies employing sDNA tests that incorporate hemoglobin immunochemical test were used. Both sDNA and FOBT tests had low sensitivity for detecting advanced precancerous lesions. sDNA tests are sensitive and specific for the detection of CRC but show low sensitivity compared with colonoscopy for the detection of advanced precancerous lesions.
First Page
309
Last Page
315
DOI
10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000937
Volume
34
Issue
4
Publication Date
7-1-2025
Medical Subject Headings
Humans; Colorectal Neoplasms (diagnosis, genetics); Early Detection of Cancer (methods); Feces (chemistry); Occult Blood; Sensitivity and Specificity; Precancerous Conditions (diagnosis, genetics); Biomarkers, Tumor (genetics, analysis); Mass Screening (methods)
PubMed ID
39560460
Recommended Citation
Mostafa, M., Eltaher, B., Egiza, H., Gouli, S., Mahmoud, A., Kharel, H., Singh, H., & Niu, C. (2025). Use of stool DNA for colorectal cancer screening: a meta-analysis and systematic review. European Journal of Cancer Prevention, 34 (4), 309-315. https://doi.org/10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000937