Multitarget Stool DNA Screening in Clinical Practice: High Positive Predictive Value for Colorectal Neoplasia Regardless of Exposure to Previous Colonoscopy
OBJECTIVES: Multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) testing has grown as a noninvasive screening modality for colorectal cancer (CRC), but real-world clinical data are limited in the post-FDA approval setting. The effect of previous colonoscopy on MT-sDNA performance is not known. We aimed to evaluate findings of colorectal neoplasia (CRN) at diagnostic colonoscopy in patients with positive MT-sDNA testing, stratified by patient exposure to previous colonoscopy. METHODS: We identified consecutive patients completing MT-sDNA testing over a 39-month period and reviewed the records of those with positive tests for neoplastic findings at diagnostic colonoscopy. MT-sDNA test positivity rate, adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy, and the positive predictive value (PPV) of MT-sDNA for any CRN and neoplastic subtypes were calculated. RESULTS: Of 16,469 MT-sDNA tests completed, testing returned positive in 2,326 (14.1%) patients. After exclusion of patients at increased risk for CRC, 1,801 patients remained, 1,558 (87%) of whom underwent diagnostic colonoscopy; 918 of 1,558 (59%) of these patients had undergone previous colonoscopy, whereas 640 (41%) had not. Any CRN was found in 1,046 of 1,558 patients (PPV = 67%). More neoplastic lesions were found in patients without previous colonoscopy (73%); however, the rates remained high among those who had undergone previous colonoscopy (63%, P < 0.0001). The large majority (79%) of patients had right-sided neoplasia. DISCUSSION: MT-sDNA has a high PPV for any CRN regardless of exposure to previous colonoscopy. Right-sided CRN was found at colonoscopy in most patients with positive MT-sDNA testing, representing a potential advantage over other currently available screening modalities for CRC.
273 Multi-Target DNA Aberrations in Sporadic Colorectal Cancer Tissues Do Not Differ Between Younger and Older Patients
INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is broadly endorsed for individuals 50–75 years of age. Given recent increases in CRC incidence and mortality for patients <50 years old, the American Cancer Society now recommends initiation of average-risk CRC screening at age 45 (Wolf AMD CA Cancer J Clin 2018). The performance of recommended tests, including the multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA; marketed as Cologuard™) test, has been minimally described in populations under 50 years old. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a retrospective study of DNA markers (KRAS, BMP3, NDRG4) included in the mt-sDNA assay to quantify and compare tissue marker levels in sporadic CRC cases and normal colon controls from patients in 45–49 and 50–64 year-old age groups. Our primary hypothesis was that mt-sDNA marker levels would be statistically similar between cases in both age groups. METHODS: Patient samples were identified from a pathology tissue archive at Mayo Clinic, excluding those with inflammatory bowel disease or familial cancer syndromes. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues were reviewed by a GI pathologist for 45–49 year-old (n = 90) and 50–64 year-old (n = 96) CRC cases; normal colon samples (45–49, n = 76; 50–64, n = 92) were also included for comparison. DNA extracted from core punches was blinded and processed in a randomized order. Quantitative Allele specific Realtime Target and Signal amplification (QuARTS) assays were used to quantify KRAS mutations, and BMP3 and NDRG4 methylation. Marker level in each sample was reported as the QuARTS product of mutant KRAS , methylated BMP3 or NDRG4 relative to the ACTB product in each sample, reported as a percentage. At least 60 patients per group provided sufficient power to demonstrate differences in marker levels of ±25% between case groups and between control groups using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. RESULTS: CRC cases in the 45–49 vs 50–64 year-old groups did not differ significantly with respect to sex ( P = 0.77) or race/ethnicity ( P = 0.06); left-sided CRC was more common in the 45–49 vs 50–64 year-old group (87% vs. 72%; P = 0.02). None of the marker levels were statistically different between cases of the younger vs older groups or between controls of these groups (Figure 1). CONCLUSION: These data support the expectation of no age-related differences in CRC detection by mt-sDNA, as the relevant molecular markers, when they occur, are present at similar levels across age groups 45–49 and 50–64 years.
Methylated DNA markers (MDMs) in primary (pCRC) and metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRC).
3599 Background: Existing tools for post-treatment CRC surveillance and monitoring are insensitive and expensive. MDMs are broadly informative for early detection of CRC but have not been extensively studied for disease monitoring. As a first step, we sought to assess the concordance of novel CRC-associated MDMs in pCRC and mCRC. Methods: A panel of 14 MDMs previously identified to be highly discriminant for pCRC was selected on the basis of high median fold-change of MDM levels relative to buffy coat (682 (IQR: 132-19347)). Surgically resected pCRC and paired mCRC were identified from institutional pathology databases. Quantitative methylation-specific PCR was used to assay MDMs. 30 paired samples per metastatic subtype were calculated to be sufficient. MDM levels were compared using two-sample and paired Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results: 87 patients with paired pCRC and mCRC including 57 synchronous and 30 metachronous metastases were included. 41/87 (47%) had neoadjuvant and 59/87 (68%) had adjuvant chemotherapy. All synchronous metastases were to liver. Metachronous metastases were to liver in 19/30 (63%) and to lung in 11/30 (37%). The levels of 14 selected MDMs were remarkably similar between paired pCRC and mCRC (Table). Individual MDM levels and the average level of all MDMs combined were not significantly different ( p> 0.0018 by Bonferroni correction). Conclusions: MDM levels are highly concordant in pCRC and mCRC. Thus, MDMs discovered from pCRC should be further studied for non-invasive surveillance after surgical resection and monitoring of treatment response in mCRC. [Table: see text]