4.5 Article

Fecal Cyclooxygenase 2 Plus Matrix Metalloproteinase 7 mRNA Assays as a Marker for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
Volume 18, Issue 6, Pages 1888-1893

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0937

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Kurozumi Medical Foundation
  2. Osaka Cancer Research Foundation
  3. Aichi Cancer Research Foundation
  4. Hamamatsu Foundation for Science and Technology Promotion

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We previously reported that fecal cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) mRNA assay, detecting COX-2 mRNA in feces, is useful for identifying subjects with colorectal cancer (CRC). To further improve the sensitivity, we evaluated the usefulness of the combination of COX-2 mRNA and matrix metalloproteinase 7 (MMP-7) mRNA assays as a marker of CRC. The study cohort included 62 patients with CRC and 29 control patients without colorectal neoplasia. RNA was isolated from routinely collected fecal samples. The expression levels of COX-2 and MMP-7 mRNAs were determined by nested reverse transcription-PCR. PCR conditions were optimized where the specificity of fecal COX-2 and MMP-7 mRNA assay result in 100%. The sensitivity of each fecal assay was 87% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 76-94%] and 65% (95% CI, 51-76%) for CRC, respectively. The sensitivity of fecal RNA test (either marker being positive) was high for CRC (90%; 95% CI, 80-96%). The sensitivity of the fecal RNA test was also high (93%; 95% CI, 80-98%) in patients with stage I or II who are often cured by surgical resection. The fecal RNA test using COX-2 and MMP-7 mRNAs improved the sensitivity to detect CRC without decreasing the specificity. These results suggest that the fecal RNA test would be a promising approach for CRC screening, although larger clinical investigations are indicated. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(6):1888-93)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available