There is a wide choice of fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) for colorectal cancer screening. Goal: To highlight the issues applicable when choosing a FOBT, in particular which FOBT is best suited to the range of screening scenarios. Four scenarios characterize the constraints and expectations of screening programs: (1) limited colonoscopy resource with a need to constrain test positivity rate; (2) a priority for maximum colorectal neoplasia detection with little need to constrain colonoscopy workload; (3) an “adequate” endoscopy resource that allows balancing the benefits of detection with the burden of service provision; and (4) a need to maximize participation in screening. Guaiac-based FOBTs (gFOBTs) have significant deficiencies, and fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for hemoglobin have emerged as better tests. gFOBTs are not sensitive to small bleeds, specificity can be affected by diet or drugs, participant acceptance can be low, laboratory quality control opportunities are limited, and they have a fixed hemoglobin concentration cutoff determining positivity. FITs are analytically more specific, capable of quantitation and hence provide flexibility to adjust cutoff concentration for positivity and the balance between sensitivity and specificity. FITs are clinically more sensitive for cancers and advanced adenomas, and because they are easier to use, acceptance rates are high. Conclusions: FOBT must be chosen carefully to meet the needs of the applicable screening scenario. Quantitative FIT can be adjusted to suit Scenarios 1, 2 and 3, and for each, they are the test of choice. FITs are superior to gFOBT for Scenario 4 and gFOBT is only suitable for Scenario 1.

Specific genes, such as BCAT1 and IKZF1, are methylated with high frequency in colorectal cancer (CRC) tissue compared to normal colon tissue specimens. Such DNA may leak into blood and be present as cell-free circulating DNA. We have evaluated the accuracy of a novel blood test for these two markers across the spectrum of benign and neoplastic conditions encountered in the colon and rectum. Circulating DNA was extracted from plasma obtained from volunteers scheduled for colonoscopy for any reason, or for colonic surgery, at Australian and Dutch hospitals. The extracted DNA was bisulphite converted and analysed by methylation specific real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR). A specimen was deemed positive if one or more qPCR replicates were positive for either methylated BCAT1 or IKZF1 DNA. Sensitivity and specificity for CRC were estimated as the primary outcome measures. Plasma samples were collected from 2105 enrolled volunteers (mean age 62 years, 54 % male), including 26 additional samples taken after surgical removal of cancers. The two-marker blood test was run successfully on 2127 samples. The test identified 85 of 129 CRC cases (sensitivity of 66 %, 95 % CI: 57–74). For CRC stages I-IV, respective positivity rates were 38 % (95 % CI: 21–58), 69 % (95 % CI: 53–82), 73 % (95 % CI: 56–85) and 94 % (95 % CI: 70–100). A positive trend was observed between positivity rate and degree of invasiveness. The colonic location of cancer did not influence assay positivity rates. Gender, age, smoking and family history were not significant predictors of marker positivity. Twelve methylation-positive cancer cases with paired pre- and post-surgery plasma showed reduction in methylation signal after surgery, with complete disappearance of signal in 10 subjects. Sensitivity for advanced adenoma (n = 338) was 6 % (95 % CI: 4–9). Specificity was 94 % (95 % CI: 92–95) in all 838 non-neoplastic pathology cases and 95 % (95 % CI: 92–97) in those with no colonic pathology detected (n = 450). The sensitivity for cancer of this two-marker blood test justifies prospective evaluation in a true screening population relative to a proven screening test. Given the high rate of marker disappearance after cancer resection, this blood test might also be useful to monitor tumour recurrence. ACTRN12611000318987 .

Objective Inhibition of food intake and glucose homeostasis are both promoted when nutrients stimulate enteroendocrine cells (EEC) to release gut hormones. Several specific nutrient receptors may be located on EEC that respond to dietary sugars, amino acids and fatty acids. Bypass surgery for obesity and type II diabetes works by shunting nutrients to the distal gut, where it increases activation of nutrient receptors and mediator release, but cellular mechanisms of activation are largely unknown. We determined which nutrient receptors are expressed in which gut regions and in which cells in mouse and human, how they are associated with different types of EEC, how they are activated leading to hormone and 5-HT release. Design and results mRNA expression of 17 nutrient receptors and EEC mediators was assessed by quantitative PCR and found throughout mouse and human gut epithelium. Many species similarities emerged, in particular the dense expression of several receptors in the distal gut. Immunolabelling showed specific colocalisation of receptors with EEC mediators PYY and GLP-1 (L-cells) or 5-HT (enterochromaffin cells). We exposed isolated proximal colonic mucosa to specific nutrients, which recruited signalling pathways within specific EEC extracellular receptor-regulated kinase (p-ERK) and calmodulin kinase II (pCAMKII), as shown by subsequent immunolabelling, and activated release of these mediators. Aromatic amino acids activated both pathways in mouse, but in humans they induced only pCAMKII, which was colocalised mainly with 5-HT expression. Activation was pertussis toxin-sensitive. Fatty acid (C12) potently activated p-ERK in human in all EEC types and evoked potent release of all three mediators. Conclusions Specific nutrient receptors associate with distinct activation pathways within EEC. These may provide discrete, complementary pharmacological targets for intervention in obesity and type II diabetes.

Recurrence will develop in 30–50% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases despite apparent clearance following treatment. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is the only guideline‐recommended blood test for monitoring cases for recurrence, but its sensitivity and specificity are suboptimal. This observational study compared a novel 2‐gene (methylated BCAT1 and IKZF1 DNA) blood test with CEA for detection of recurrent CRC. We conducted a paired comparison of the BCAT1/IKZF1 test with CEA (cut‐off 5 ng/mL) in blood from patients in remission after treatment for primary CRC and undergoing surveillance. Blood collected in the 12 months prior to or 3 months after complete investigational assessment of recurrence status were assayed and the results compared by McNemar's test. Of 397 patients enrolled, 220 underwent satisfactory assessment for recurrence and 122 had blood testing performed within the prescribed period. In 28 cases with recurrent CRC, CEA was positive in 9 (32%; 95% CI 16–52%) compared to 19 (68%; 95% CI 48–84%) positive for methylated BCAT1/IKZF1 (P = 0.002). All samples that were CEA positive were also BCAT1/IKZF1 positive. In 94 patients without clinically detectable recurrence, CEA was positive in 6 (6%, 95% CI 2–13%) and BCAT1/IKZF1 in 12 (13%, 95% CI 7–21%), P = 0.210. The odds ratio of a positive CEA test for recurrence was 6.9 (95% CI 2–22) compared to 14.4 (5–39) for BCAT1/IKZF1. The BCAT1/IKZF1 test was more sensitive for recurrence than CEA and the odds of recurrence given a positive test was twice that of CEA. The BCAT1/IKZF1 test should be further considered for monitoring cases for recurrence.

To complete a FIT prior to colonoscopy. Blood was collected after bowel preparation but prior to colonoscopy, and plasma was assayed for the presence of methylatedBCAT1andIKZF1DNA using a multiplex real-time PCR assay. Sensitivity and specificity estimates for the blood test were calculated from true- and false-positive rates for neoplasia and compared with FIT at a range of fecal hemoglobin (Hb) concentration positivity thresholds. RESULTS: In total, 1,381 volunteers (median age 64 years; 49% male) completed both tests prior to colonoscopy. Estimated sensitivity of theBCAT1/IKZF1blood test for CRC was 62% (41/66; 95% confidence interval 49–74%) with a specificity of 92% (1207/1315; 90–93%). FIT returned the same specificity at a cutoff of 60 μg Hb/g, at which its corresponding sensitivity for cancer was 64% (42/66; 51–75%). In the range of commonly used FIT cutoffs, respective cancer sensitivity and specificity estimates with FIT were: 59% (46–71%) and 93% (92–95%) at 80 μg Hb/g, and 79% (67–88%) and 81% (78–83%) at 10 μg Hb/g. Although estimated sensitivities were not significantly different between the two tests for any stage of cancer, FIT showed a significantly higher sensitivity for advanced adenoma at the lower cutoffs. Specificity of FIT, but not of theBCAT1/IKZF1blood test, deteriorated substantially in people with overt blood in the feces. When combining FIT (cutoff 10 μg Hb/g) with theBCAT1/IKZF1blood test, sensitivity for cancer was 89% (79–96%) at 74% (72–77%) specificity. CONCLUSIONS: A test based on detection of methylatedBCAT1/IKZF1DNA in blood has comparable sensitivity but better specificity for CRC than FIT at the commonly used positivity threshold of 10 μg Hb/g. Further evaluation of the new test relative to FIT in the population screening context is now required to fully understand the potential advantages and disadvantages of these biomarkers in screening....