Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading cancer-related causes of death in the world. Since the 70s, many countries have adopted different CRC screening programs, which has resulted in a decrease in mortality. However, current screening test options still present downsides. The commercialized stool-based tests present high false-positive rates and low sensitivity, which negatively affects the detection of early stage carcinogenesis. The gold standard colonoscopy has low uptake due to its invasiveness and the perception of discomfort and embarrassment that the procedure may bring. In this review, we collected and described the latest data about alternative CRC screening techniques that can overcome these disadvantages. Web of Science and PubMed were employed as search engines for studies reporting on CRC screening tests and future perspectives. The searches generated 555 articles, of which 93 titles were selected. Finally, a total of 50 studies, describing 14 different CRC alternative tests, were included. Among the investigated techniques, the main feature that could have an impact on CRC screening perception and uptake was the ease of sample collection. Urine, exhaled breath, and blood-based tests promise to achieve good diagnostic performance (sensitivity of 63–100%, 90–95%, and 47–97%, respectively) while minimizing stress and discomfort for the patient.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading cancer-related causes of death in the world. Since the 70s, many countries have adopted different CRC screening programs which has resulted in a decrease in mortality. However, current screening test options still present downsides. The commercialized stool-based tests present high false-positive rates and low sensitivity, which negatively affects the detection of early stage carcinogenesis. The gold standard colonoscopy has low uptake due to its invasiveness and the perception of discomfort and embarrassment that the procedure may bring.In this review, we collected and described the latest data about alternative CRC screening techniques that can overcome these disadvantages. Web of Science and PubMed were employed as search engines for studies reporting on CRC screening tests and future perspectives. The searches generated 555 articles, of which 93 titles were selected. Finally, a total of 50 studies, describing 14 different CRC alternative tests, were included. Among the investigated techniques the main feature that could have an impact on CRC screening perception and uptake was the ease of sample collection. Urine, exhaled breath and blood-based tests promise to achieve good diagnostic performance (sensitivity of 63-100%, 90-95%, 47-97%, respectively) while minimizing stress and discomfort for the patient.

DNA methylation biomarkers have emerged as promising tools for cancer detection. Common methylation patterns across tumor types allow multi‐cancer detection. Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) has gained considerable attention for methylation detection. However, multi‐cancer detection using multiple targets in ddPCR has never been performed before. Therefore, we developed a multiplex ddPCR assay for multi‐cancer detection. Based on previous data analyses using The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), we selected differentially methylated targets for eight frequent tumor types (lung, breast, colorectal, prostate, pancreatic, head and neck, liver, and esophageal cancer). Three targets were validated using ddPCR in 103 tumor and 109 normal adjacent fresh frozen samples. Two distinct ddPCR assays were successfully developed. Output data from both assays is combined to obtain a read‐out from the three targets together. Our overall ddPCR assay has a cross‐validated area under the curve (cvAUC) of 0.948. Performance between distinct cancer types varies, with sensitivities ranging from 53.8% to 100% and specificities ranging from 80% to 100%. Compared to previously published single‐target parameters, we show that combining targets can drastically increase sensitivity and specificity, while lowering DNA input. In conclusion, we are the first to report a multi‐cancer methylation ddPCR assay, which allows for highly accurate tumor predictions.

Background: Despite the worldwide progress in cancer diagnostics, more sensitive diagnostic biomarkers are needed. The methylome has been extensively investigated in the last decades, but a low-cost, bisulfite-free detection method for multiplex analysis is still lacking. Methods: We developed a methylation detection technique called IMPRESS, which combines methylation-sensitive restriction enzymes and single-molecule Molecular Inversion Probes. We used this technique for the development of a multi-cancer detection assay for eight of the most lethal cancer types worldwide. We selected 1791 CpG sites that can distinguish tumor from normal tissue based on DNA methylation. These sites were analysed with IMPRESS in 35 blood, 111 tumor and 114 normal samples. Finally, a classifier model was built. Results: We present the successful development of IMPRESS and validated it with ddPCR. The final classifier model discriminating tumor from normal samples was built with 358 CpG target sites and reached a sensitivity of 0.95 and a specificity of 0.91. Moreover, we provide data that highlight IMPRESS’s potential for liquid biopsies. Conclusions: We successfully created an innovative DNA methylation detection technique. By combining this method with a new multi-cancer biomarker panel, we developed a sensitive and specific multi-cancer assay, with potential use in liquid biopsies.