These results suggest that determining F. nucleatum levels may help predict clinical outcomes in colorectal cancer patients. Further confirmatory studies using independent datasets are required to confirm our findings.

Although methylated TWIST1 is a biomarker of colorectal neoplasia, its detection from serum samples is very difficult by conventional bisulfite-based methylation assays. Therefore, we have developed a new methylation assay that enables counting of even one copy of a methylated gene in a small DNA sample amount without DNA bisulfite treatment. We performed this study to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of serum DNA testing by the new methylation assay in combination with and without the fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin for the detection of colorectal neoplasia. This study comprised 113 patients with colorectal neoplasia and 25 control individuals. For the new methylation assay, DNA was treated in two stages with methylation-sensitive restriction enzymes, followed by measurement of copy numbers of hTERT and methylated TWIST1 by multiplex droplet digital PCR. The fecal immunochemical test had a sensitivity of 8.0% for non-advanced adenoma, 24.3% for advanced adenoma, and 44.4% for colorectal cancer, and a specificity of 88.0%. The new assay had a sensitivity of 36.0% for non-advanced adenoma, 30.0% for advanced adenoma, and 44.4% for colorectal cancer, and a specificity of 92.0%. Combination of the both tests increased the sensitivity to 40.0%, 45.7%, and 72.2% for the detection of non-advanced adenoma, advanced adenoma, and colorectal cancer, respectively, and resulted in a specificity of 84.0%. Combination of both tests may provide an alternative screening strategy for colorectal neoplasia including potentially precancerous lesions and colorectal cancer.

Purpose The utility of chromoendoscopy for early gastric cancer (GC) was determined by machine learning using data of color differences. Methods Eighteen histopathologically confirmed early GC lesions were examined. We prepared images from white light endoscopy (WL), indigo carmine (Indigo), and acetic acid-indigo carmine chromoendoscopy (AIM). A border between cancerous and non-cancerous areas on endoscopic images was established from post-treatment pathological findings, and 2000 pixels with equivalent luminance values were randomly extracted from each image of cancerous and non-cancerous areas. Each pixel was represented as a three-dimensional vector with RGB values and defined as a sample. We evaluated the Mahalanobis distance using RGB values, indicative of color differences between cancerous and non-cancerous areas. We then conducted diagnosis test using a support vector machine (SVM) for each image. SVM was trained using the 100 training samples per class and determined which area each of 1900 test samples per class came from. Results The means of the Mahalanobis distances for WL, Indigo, and AIM were 1.52, 1.32, and 2.53, respectively and there were no significant differences in the three modalities. Diagnosability per endoscopy technique was assessed using the F1 measure. The means of F1 measures for WL, Indigo, and AIM were 0.636, 0.618, and 0.687, respectively. AIM images were better than WL and Indigo images for the diagnosis of GC. Conclusion Objective assessment by SVM found AIM to be suitable for diagnosis of early GC based on color differences.

INTRODUCTION: We have reported previously that fecal DNA testing of TWIST1 methylation in combination with the fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin (FIT) (combination test) is useful for colorectal neoplasia screening. In this study, using larger sample sizes, we studied the clinical performance of the combination test for the detection of colorectal neoplasia and, especially, advanced colorectal adenoma. METHODS: We performed a prospective study in which FIT, fecal DNA testing of TWIST1 methylation, and colonoscopy were performed on 372 patients with colorectal neoplasia and 71 subjects without colorectal neoplasia. We assessed the individual clinical performance of each of FIT and fecal DNA testing of TWIST1 methylation and of the combination test for the detection of colorectal neoplasia including advanced adenoma based on morphologic subtypes. RESULTS: The FIT alone had a sensitivity of 7.5% (3/40) for nonadvanced adenoma, 32.3% (41/127) for advanced adenoma, and 93.7% (192/205) for colorectal cancer and a specificity of 87.3% (62/71). The combination test had a sensitivity of 35.0% (14/40) for nonadvanced adenoma, 68.5% (87/127) for advanced adenoma, and 95.6% (196/205) for colorectal cancer and a specificity of 80.3% (57/71). For morphological subtypes of advanced adenoma, the sensitivity of FIT was only 28.2% (20/71) for polypoid type and 16.1% (5/31) for nonpolypoid type, whereas the combination test increased the sensitivities to 64.8% (46/71) and 71.0% (22/31), respectively. DISCUSSION: The combination of the fecal DNA test with FIT seemed to be useful to detect colorectal neoplasia and, especially, advanced adenoma of the nonpolypoid type.

Background: Although faecal DNA testing of Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn) is expected to be useful for colorectal neoplasia detection, there is no standardized quantification method of Fn. We performed this study to establish a possible standardized method. Methods: In this study, 322 participants including 71 subjects without colorectal neoplasia (control group), 31 patients with non-advanced colorectal adenoma, 93 patients with advanced colorectal adenoma, and 127 patients with colorectal cancer were enrolled. Faecal Fn were quantified by droplet-digital PCR (ddPCR) using two PCR primer-probe sets reported previously that are tentatively named Fn1 and Fn2. Fn1 has been used in ddPCR by us and Fn2 has been widely used in quantitative real-time PCR. Results: The Fn copy number using Fn1 was five times higher than that using Fn2, with a linear relationship shown between them. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed the area under the curve (AUC) to be almost the same between Fn1 and Fn2 in discriminating between the control group and the colorectal cancer group (AUC = 0.81 and 0.81, respectively), and between the control/non-advanced colorectal adenoma group and the advanced colorectal adenoma/colorectal cancer group (AUC = 0.74 and 0.74, respectively). Conclusions: As the diagnostic performance was quite similar between Fn1 and Fn2, ddPCR-based Fn testing using Fn1 and Fn2 could be a possible standardized method for a colorectal neoplasia screening test, considering that Fn levels quantified by Fn1 are about five times higher than those by Fn2.