You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 12, Issue 5
  • Accuracy of blood-based biomarkers for screening precancerous colorectal lesions: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Article Text

Article menu
Gastroenterology and hepatology
Protocol
Accuracy of blood-based biomarkers for screening precancerous colorectal lesions: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis
  1. Timothy J H Lathlean1,
  2. Molla M Wassie1,
  3. Jean M Winter1,
  4. Rishabh Goyal2,
  5. Graeme P Young1,
  6. Erin L Symonds1,3
  1. 1Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia
  2. 2Department of Medicine, Flinders University College of Medicine and Public Health, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia
  3. 3Bowel Health Service, Gastroenterology Department, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Timothy J H Lathlean; tim.lathleanphd{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most diagnosed cancer and the second most common cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Most CRCs develop through either the adenoma-to-carcinoma or the serrated pathways, and, therefore, detection and removal of these precursor lesions can prevent the development of cancer. Current screening programmes can aid in the detection of CRC and adenomas; however, participation rates are suboptimal. Blood-based biomarkers may help to address these low participation rates in screening programmes. Although blood-based biomarker tests show promise for cancer detection, limited attention has been placed on the sensitivity and specificity for detection of the precursor lesions. The aim of this research is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of blood-based biomarker tests in detecting advanced precancerous lesions.

Methods and analysis This protocol was informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Protocols (PRISMA-P) and results will be reported in line with the PRISMA guidelines. Literature searches will be conducted on PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. Two reviewers will conduct the searches, and independently screen them, according to title and abstract and then the full-text versions of those selected articles as well as the risk of bias via the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines will be used to validate the certainty of evidence for recommendations based on the risk of bias findings. Meta-analysis will be conducted where appropriate on groups of studies with low heterogeneity.

Ethics and dissemination No patient data will be included in our review and, therefore, ethics approval is not required. It is anticipated that the review will identify the most promising candidate biomarkers for clinical translation in the screening of advanced precancerous lesions. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42021285173.

  • GASTROENTEROLOGY
  • Gastrointestinal tumours
  • Colorectal surgery
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060712

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strength and limitations of this study

    • Comprehensive review of blood-based biomarkers, involving a thorough search strategy to identify studies relating to detection of advanced adenomas.

    • This review will take a thorough approach, carrying out screening, quality appraisal and data extraction according to the independent duplicate method.

    • Meta-analysis of the accuracy of blood-based biomarkers for advanced adenomas will be conducted to identify potential biomarkers upholding high diagnostic accuracy.

    • A potential limitation may be the limited numbers of studies focusing on advanced adenomas in place or in addition to colorectal cancer.

    Introduction

    Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most diagnosed cancer and the second most common cause of cancer mortality worldwide.1 In Australia, the age-standardised CRC incidence rate is approximately 50 per 100 000 people.2 CRC screening programmes (colonoscopy and/or faecal-based screening measures) have demonstrated efficacy in reducing both CRC incidence and mortality.3 4 CRC develops through the adenoma (or sessile serrated) carcinoma pathway, where precancerous lesions such as advanced adenomas and sessile serrated lesions may progress to CRC.5 6 The purpose of screening is to detect CRC at an early stage, enabling earlier interventions, which can lead to more efficacious treatment options and better patient outcomes, including reduced morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, screening can also assist in the detection of precancerous lesions, such as adenomas and advanced sessile serrated lesions that can be removed at colonoscopy, preventing approximately 80% of cancers.7 8 While colonoscopy is used as the main form of screening in several countries,9 there are risks associated with the procedure such as bowel perforations (3.1/10 000 procedures) and major bleeding (14.6/10 000).10 Colonoscopy can also be expensive, and many countries have limited capacity and resources for this procedure. Therefore, implementation of less-invasive strategies for screening for precancerous lesions is needed.

    The faecal occult blood test, in particular, the one using faecal immunochemical test (FIT) technology, which detects the level of human haemoglobin in the stool, has been shown to have benefit in the early detection and prevention of CRC.10–12 Most organised CRC screening programmes around the world use FIT, mainly focusing on people at average risk (ie, no family history13 and/or no previous precancerous lesions).14–16 As outlined in a recent review,16 FIT appears to maintain both high sensitivity (range 55%–100%) and specificity (range 77%–97%) across 12 previous studies in the detection of CRC.15 17 While FIT has high accuracy for CRC detection, it can only detect up to 40% of advanced adenomas14 and only 16% of advanced sessile serrated lesions5 18 (depending on the positivity threshold applied and the number of samples collected). Even though FIT has good sensitivity for detecting CRC, the participation rate in FIT CRC screening programmes is low, mainly due to faecal aversion and other issues, leading to low acceptability in consumers.19 An earlier study reported 78% of those surveyed preferring blood-based tests over faecal tests.19 Furthermore, 83% of consumers would also prefer to have blood-based tests over colonoscopy, indicating the high acceptance rates of blood sampling over current screening options.20 This highlights the need for blood-based biomarkers, which may improve participation in CRC screening as well as potentially increasing sensitivity for detection of precancerous colonic lesions.

    Blood-based biomarker tests can target the various changes occurring along the advanced adenoma to carcinoma pathway, contributing to aberrant protein, metabolic and immune functions.6 21 Following these early initiating events, hyperproliferation of the colorectal epithelial cells can lead to the formation of polyps, which if left in place, can become adenomas and ultimately become invasive cancer. An alternate pathway (proposed more recently) is that of the alternative serrated pathway (15%–30% of CRC),22 where the precursor lesion is the sessile serrated lesion. A useful diagnostic blood biomarker should be sensitive and specific for detecting early neoplastic transformation as well as for CRC and have clinical accuracy to allow for optimal detection of CRC and precancerous lesions.13 17 To date, there are no reviews investigating the accuracy of blood-based biomarkers for detection of advanced colonic adenomas and/or sessile serrated lesions. This project aims to investigate the sensitivity and specificity of blood-based biomarkers for the detection of advanced colonic adenomas and advanced sessile serrated lesions.

    Objectives

    1. To evaluate the accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of blood-based biomarkers for detection of important precancerous lesions, namely, advanced colorectal adenomas and advanced sessile serrated lesions.

    2. To determine whether the accuracy of blood-based biomarkers is influenced by clinicopathological features of precancerous lesions.

    Methods and analysis

    The protocol for this review was based on Cochrane guidelines,23 24 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines25 26 and other reviews already conducted in this area.27–29 Registration was registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews), an international database for systematic reviews prospectively registered by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination of the University of York (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021285173). This study commenced on October 2021 and is anticipated to be ready for publication in May 2022.

    Patient and public involvement

    The development of the research question and outcomes measures has been informed by patients’ priorities, experience and preferences through regular contact with consumer groups, including Cancer Voices Australia. These consumers had previous experience either as a patient or support person for someone with CRC or had experience with having adenomas detected at colonoscopy. Provision for ‘ad hoc’ comments on the research process will also be facilitated due to regular contact with these groups. Patients will not be involved in the analysis and data collection of the systematic review and meta-analysis.

    Eligibility criteria

    Population

    People over the age of 18 of either sex with a diagnosis of advanced adenomas and/or sessile serrated lesions based on colonoscopy findings, who have also had any blood-based biomarker test, will be included in the study. Advanced adenoma features are defined as advanced are polyp size ≥10 mm, villous features or high-grade dysplasia,30–32 whereas advanced sessile serrated lesions include those with dysplastic changes33 and/or size ≥10 mm5. These definitions for advanced precancerous lesions match Australian34 and US35 guidelines. Studies investigating high-risk patients (eg, familial risk and hereditary syndromes) will be excluded as this does not represent the average population risk for development of colorectal adenomas or sessile serrated lesions. Furthermore, only studies published after 2006 will be included given the increase in the number of studies from this period and the changes in technology to accurately detect blood-based biomarkers.

    Intervention

    This review will consider studies that evaluate diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of blood-based biomarkers for detection of advanced adenomas and/or advanced sessile serrated lesions. The blood biomarker study must apply wet lab-based methods (eg, by testing a biological mechanism that is thought to be dysregulated in cancer) in blood samples collected from patients. Furthermore, sufficient detailed methodology about the technique used for testing, sample preparation methods and analytical technique used is required in order to assess the reliability and the validity of each blood-based biomarker.

    Comparison

    The studies must compare the diagnostic accuracy of the blood biomarkers from individuals with colonic precancerous lesions alongside (1) individuals with no evidence of colonic neoplastic disease and/or (2) individuals with CRC.

    Outcomes

    The main outcomes to be evaluated are:

    1. Accuracy: the sensitivity and specificity of a blood-based biomarker test to detect advanced precancerous lesions(s).

    2. How the accuracy of the test to detect advanced adenomas/sessile serrated lesions compared to its ability to detect CRC.

    Secondary outcomes of interest are:

    1. Whether the blood test can detect adenomas/sessile serrated lesions in certain places of the colon (eg, distal vs proximal).

    2. The association between the blood test results and pathology of the precancerous lesions.

    3. Whether there have been investigations into the cause of false-positive blood test results in participants without adenomas, sessile serrated lesions or CRC.

    Measures of effect: sensitivity will be presented on a 0 (least sensitive) to 1 (most sensitive) scale on Forest plots produced from the analysis. Concurrent analysis of sensitivity/specificity will be presented on a receiver operating characteristic (ROC)/area under the curve (AUC) for the combination of all the tests.

    Studies

    Given initial searches so far, it is anticipated that the level of evidence for this review is most likely to be based on observational (and some experimental studies), including cohort, case–control and cross-sectional designs. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for this review are summarised in table 1.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Summary of inclusion and exclusion criteria

    Information sources

    Information sources will be restricted to publications in English and articles published after 2006. Specific search strategies using medical subjective heading (MESH) will be used where appropriate. The following databases will be used for the literature search: PubMed, Embase (OVID interface) and Web of Science. Authors who have published conference abstracts of work not yet published in peer-reviewed journals as a full-text original research article will be contacted to identify relevant unpublished literature. Grey literature will be included in the review via a Google Scholar search. White papers and industry databases were deemed outside the scope of the review.

    Search strategy

    The search will be conducted by two authors (RG and TJHL) and informed by subject-specific expertise (ELS, JMW, MMW, GPY). The keyword search strategy was developed for PubMed and identified appropriate MESH keywords to ensure completeness of the search. If MESH search terms do not add any further hits, these will be removed and only keywords used to improve the precision of the search approach. Different search terms may be used to reflect differences across the three databases. The initial PubMed search strategy is included in the online supplemental table 1.

    Two authors (RG and TJHL) under the guidance of the other authors (ELS, JMW, MMW, GPY) will search all information sources to identify suitable studies and then independently screen the full-text articles of all eligible studies. Information extracted (using a specified extraction template) will be completed by RG, with accuracy checked by TJHL. There will be no blinding by author, research group and/or institution in the included studies.

    Data management

    The complete record for each eligible study (including citation, abstract and other identifiable information) will be imported into Endnote V.20 (Clarivate Analytics). The full-text version for all included studies will be obtained and store in Endnote V.20. Screening will be carried out using a predetermined template to reflect the above stated inclusion and exclusion criteria.

    Selection process

    The study selection process aims to reflect the best practice guidelines outlined in the Cochrane handbook.23 Initial screening aims to only include studies aligning with the inclusion criteria readily identifiable from the title and abstract. The reason for exclusion for each study will be recorded. Where eligibility is unclear, the reviewers will obtain and review the full text of the article, using the predetermined screening template to ascertain eligibility for inclusion. Studies identified as unclear will be checked to determine the eligibility of the study.

    Data collection process

    Data will be extracted from studies by two independent reviewers (RG and MMW) using a standardised extraction form, based on the Cochrane data extraction template23 as a guide and entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The data extracted will include study population (including age, gender, country, reason for colonoscopy), type of blood-based biomarker (eg, methylated DNA), test method (eg, serum vs plasma; analysis technique such as digital droplet PCR), type of study, number of participants, pathology details (eg, type of precancerous lesion, stage of CRC, how patients were classified as ‘healthy’ or without cancer) and outcomes of significance to the review objectives (ie, the sensitivity/specificity of the blood-based biomarker for colonic adenomas/sessile lesions as well as CRC and non-neoplastic controls). Data extraction domains will involve: (1) article details (author, title, country of origin), (2) population, (3) methods and (4) results. A standardised extraction sheet will be tested for completeness on a subset of studies, after which any relevant updates will be made prior to full extraction of all eligible studies. The extracted data will be reviewed for accuracy by TJHL and any discrepancies discussed and resolved as a group.

    Data items

    A summary of data items to be extracted from included studies is outlined in table 2, where data are not identifiable or unclear, attempts will be made to contact the corresponding author for clarification. On attempts to contact the author being unsuccessful within a set timeframe and the clarification potentially having an impact on the eligibility, the study will be deemed ineligible based on ambiguity. If there is evidence of overlapping samples, where the same cohort appears to have been used for multiple studies, the authors will be contacted to confirm eligibility. Where other types of biomarkers (eg, tissue-based biomarkers) or blood-based biomarkers used for other advanced cancers are used, only the blood-based biomarkers specific to colonic advanced precancerous lesions (and CRC) will be used for extraction.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Summary of items to be extracted from eligible studies using the standardised extraction form

    Risk of bias

    A formal risk of bias assessment will be conducted via the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2) tool, as recommended in the Cochrane Handbook,23 which is used for evaluating potential bias (quality appraisal) of studies assessing diagnostic test accuracy. The following domains will be assessed: (1) patient selection, (2) type of blood biomarker, (3) reference standard and (4) flow of patients through the study and timing of the index test(s) and reference standard (‘flow and timing’). The tool will be completed according to four phases: (1) state the review question, (2) develop review-specific guidance, (3) review the published flow diagram for the primary study or construct a flow diagram if none is reported and (4) judgement of bias and applicability. Each domain will then be assessed in terms of the risk of bias and the first three domains are also assessed for applicability. To help reach a judgement on the risk of bias, signalling questions will be included, such as ‘were the participants representative of the general population of those with advanced colorectal lesion?’ and “was there an acceptable reference standard referred to?’. These identify aspects of study design related to the potential for bias and aim to help reviewers make risk of bias judgements.

    Data synthesis

    Studies will be synthesised using a best evidence synthesis. Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy can be carried out; however, more sophisticated methods may be required to simultaneously analyse outcome measures (ie, sensitivity and specificity). Methods such as bivariate model and hierarchical summary ROC model may be carried out.

    In order to be considered for meta-analysis, the outcomes and the methodology of eligible studies must maintain homogeneity. For example, they need to have used the same type of test with the same type of comparators (ie, a DNA methylation test for adenomas vs non-cancer controls). The process for meta-analysis will be more clear pending data extraction, based on assumptions of homogeneity remaining true. The remainder of this section is based on such an assumption of homogeneity in outcomes and methodology of the studies; however, some changes may be needed following data extraction.

    The heterogeneity of the eligible studies will be assessed according to outcome categories, such as:

    1. The sensitivity of the test to detect precancerous lesion (advanced adenoma and/or sessile serrated lesion).

    2. The blood test methodology has been clearly described.

    3. The blood test considers the anatomical status (ie, distal vs proximal) of the precancerous lesion (advanced adenoma/sessile serrated lesion).

    4. The association between the blood test results and pathological or histological features of the precancerous lesion (advanced adenoma/sessile serrated lesion).

    5. The association between the blood test results and CRC status.

    6. The assessment of factors influencing the accuracy of the blood test.

    7. The quality of the studies included according to the QUADAS-2 tool.

    Where homogeneity is sufficient between groups within these categories, then inclusion within meta-analysis either as a large group or several subgroups will be determined by all authors. If the eligible studies are clearly homogenous, then each reviewer will place studies into appropriate subgroups for analysis. This process will be done by each reviewer independently to determine, which factors will allow the best and most accurate comparisons to be made. Relevant subgroupings are likely to be made based on the methodological factors listed in table 2 above. For example, subgroupings according to whether the patient group(s) have different classifications of colonic adenoma(s)/sessile serrated lesion(s) would be considered, as appropriate for the eligible studies. If suitable, reviewers can include studies in more than one subgroup (ie, different genomic analysis, different technique); however, in this instance, the subgroups will not be used in the same meta-analysis. Where reviewers agree on what is to be grouped for each meta-analysis, this process will be carried out. If there is not broad consensus on the groups, further discussion will take place. If the reviewers disagree, the authors as a group will determine suitability of meta-analysis or meta-synthesis.

    On a meta-analysis being deemed appropriate by the reviewers, a statistical test of heterogeneity will be carried out, providing an I2 value in the heterogeneity of the sample.36 The I2 value will be reported as a percentage and interpreted as suggested in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews.23 Significance in the measure of heterogeneity as calculated by the χ2 test will be set at p≤0.10. In the event significance was reported, the I2 statistic will be then explored to define the magnitude of heterogeneity about the finding, where 0–40, 30–60, 50–90 and 75+ are suggestive of low, moderate, substantial and considerable heterogeneity, respectively.23 In the instance of statistical heterogeneity, leave-one-out sensitivity analyses may be performed; however, groups considered to exceed the minimal value for heterogeneity will be ineligible for meta-analysis and, hence, considered for meta-synthesis instead.

    Comparisons in some of the categories may be challenging to assess due to differences in biomarker selection as well as study design. Where meta-analysis has been decided as appropriate by the group, results will be extracted from the eligible studies and aggregated, with changes normalised and reported as percentage changes or standard mean differences in all studies. Where data are lacking, the authors of relevant studies will be contacted to provide further clarity on the data. If the data are not sufficiently homogenous, a critical/narrative synthesis will be focused from the data set alongside some binary elements of analysis. In this context, statements such as ‘increase’, ‘decrease’ or ‘no change’ in the accuracy of the proposed blood-based biomarkers will be described.

    Confidence in cumulative evidence

    The potential of publication bias will be minimised through a comprehensive search of unpublished studies, contacting respective authors in the field and including grey literature obtained via several further methods (eg, snowballing of primary and review article reference lists). Conference presentations not carried through to publication will also be reviewed, with authors contacted. Further statistical tests, such as the Begg and Mazumbar’s rank correlation test and Egger’s linear regression model, may be applied to each category and overall analyses. On publication bias being detected, Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill correction may be applied, and the resultant effect sizes and 95% cCIs examined in further detail.

    The pooled data will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the overall quality and ‘certainty of recommendations’ from the literature.36–38 The GRADE approach will be used to determine the certainty and strength of evidence according to the categories (methodological and outcome based/results) in table 2 and carried out in accordance with set recommendations. For example, observational studies will be assigned a ‘low’ certainty of recommendation prior to then either being upgraded or downgraded from this point, based on the quality of the evidence.39 Studies will be upgraded for factors such as large effect sizes or mean test positivity is associated with more aggressive precancerous lesions, blood-based biomarker characteristics and accuracy of the biomarker (sensitivity/specificity). Potential downgrading of studies for certainty of evidence may occur when there is substantial publication bias, indirect relationships with results (ie, unexplained confounding) or inconsistencies between studies. From this process, qualitative ratings for the certainty of evidence and recommendations will be listed as ‘high’, ‘moderate’, ‘low’ or ‘very low’ and able to be interpreted according to the GRADE approach.38–40

    Ethics and dissemination of results

    No patient data will be included in our review and; therefore, ethics approval is not required. It is anticipated that the review will identify the most promising candidate biomarkers for clinical translation in the screening for advanced precancerous lesions. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at appropriate domestic/international conferences.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Ferlay J,
      2. Ervik M,
      3. Lam F
      . Global cancer Observatory: cancer today Lyon, 2020. Available: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/home
    2. ↵
      1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW)
      . Cancer in Australia Canberra, 2020. Available: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer/cancer-data-in-australia/
    3. ↵
      1. Levin TR,
      2. Corley DA,
      3. Jensen CD, et al
      . Effects of organized colorectal cancer screening on cancer incidence and mortality in a large community-based population. Gastroenterology 2018;155:1383–91.doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.07.017
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    4. ↵
      1. Zorzi M,
      2. Fedeli U,
      3. Schievano E, et al
      . Impact on colorectal cancer mortality of screening programmes based on the faecal immunochemical test. Gut 2015;64:784–90.doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307508pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25179811
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    5. ↵
      1. Cock C,
      2. Anwar S,
      3. Byrne SE, et al
      . Low sensitivity of fecal immunochemical tests and blood-based markers of DNA hypermethylation for detection of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps. Dig Dis Sci 2019;64:2555–62.doi:10.1007/s10620-019-05569-8pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30835026
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    6. ↵
      1. Loktionov A
      . Biomarkers for detecting colorectal cancer non-invasively: DNA, RNA or proteins? World J Gastrointest Oncol 2020;12:124–48.doi:10.4251/wjgo.v12.i2.124pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32104546
      OpenUrlPubMed
    7. ↵
      1. Citarda F,
      2. Tomaselli G,
      3. Capocaccia R, et al
      . Efficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence. Gut 2001;48:812–5.doi:10.1136/gut.48.6.812pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11358901
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    8. ↵
      1. Winawer SJ,
      2. Zauber AG,
      3. Ho MN, et al
      . Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1977–81.doi:10.1056/NEJM199312303292701pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8247072
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      1. Schreuders EH,
      2. Ruco A,
      3. Rabeneck L, et al
      . Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes. Gut 2015;64:1637–49.doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2014-309086pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26041752
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    10. ↵
      1. Lin JS,
      2. Perdue LA,
      3. Henrikson NB, et al
      . Screening for colorectal cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services Task force. JAMA 2021;325:1978–98.doi:10.1001/jama.2021.4417pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34003220
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
      . Recommendations on screening for colorectal cancer in primary care. Can Med Assoc J 2016;188:340–8.doi:10.1503/cmaj.151125
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    12. ↵
      1. Cubiella J,
      2. Marzo-Castillejo M,
      3. Mascort-Roca JJ, et al
      . Clinical practice guideline. diagnosis and prevention of colorectal cancer. 2018 update. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;41:585–96.doi:10.1016/j.gastrohep.2018.07.012pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30245076
      OpenUrlPubMed
    13. ↵
      1. Ladabaum U,
      2. Dominitz JA,
      3. Kahi C, et al
      . Strategies for colorectal cancer screening. Gastroenterology 2020;158:418–32.doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2019.06.043
      OpenUrlPubMed
    14. ↵
      1. Lane JM,
      2. Chow E,
      3. Young GP, et al
      . Interval fecal immunochemical testing in a colonoscopic surveillance program speeds detection of colorectal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2010;139:1918–26.doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2010.08.005
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    15. ↵
      1. Cancer Council Australia Colorectal Cancer Guidelines Working Party
      . Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention, early detection and management of colorectal cancer. Australia CC, 2017.
    16. ↵
      1. Young GP,
      2. Symonds EL,
      3. Allison JE, et al
      . Advances in fecal occult blood tests: the fit revolution. Dig Dis Sci 2015;60:609–22.doi:10.1007/s10620-014-3445-3pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25492500
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    17. ↵
      1. Worm Ørntoft M-B
      . Review of Blood-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening: How Far Are Circulating Cell-Free DNA Methylation Markers From Clinical Implementation? Clin Colorectal Cancer 2018;17:e415–33.doi:10.1016/j.clcc.2018.02.012pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29678513
      OpenUrlPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Symonds EL,
      2. Pedersen SK,
      3. Baker RT, et al
      . A blood test for methylated BCAT1 and IKZF1 vs. a fecal immunochemical test for detection of colorectal neoplasia. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2016;7:e137.doi:10.1038/ctg.2015.67pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26765125
      OpenUrlPubMed
    19. ↵
      1. Osborne JM,
      2. Wilson C,
      3. Moore V, et al
      . Sample preference for colorectal cancer screening tests: blood or stool? Open J Prev Med 2012;02:326–31.doi:10.4236/ojpm.2012.23047
      OpenUrl
    20. ↵
      1. Adler A,
      2. Geiger S,
      3. Keil A, et al
      . Improving compliance to colorectal cancer screening using blood and stool based tests in patients refusing screening colonoscopy in Germany. BMC Gastroenterol 2014;14:183.doi:10.1186/1471-230X-14-183pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25326034
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. ↵
      1. Grady WM,
      2. Markowitz SD
      . The molecular pathogenesis of colorectal cancer and its potential application to colorectal cancer screening. Dig Dis Sci 2015;60:762–72.doi:10.1007/s10620-014-3444-4pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25492499
      OpenUrlPubMed
    22. ↵
      1. Leggett B,
      2. Whitehall V
      . Role of the serrated pathway in colorectal cancer pathogenesis. Gastroenterology 2010;138:2088–100.doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2009.12.066pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20420948
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    23. ↵
      1. Higgins JPT,
      2. Thomas J,
      3. Chandler J
      . Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Second edition. ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2019.
    24. ↵
      1. Nagorni A,
      2. Bjelakovic G, Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group
      . Colonoscopic polypectomy for prevention of colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;326.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007826
    25. ↵
      1. Moher D,
      2. Shamseer L,
      3. Clarke M, et al
      . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4.doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
    26. ↵
      1. Shamseer L,
      2. Moher D,
      3. Clarke M, et al
      . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;349:g7647.doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647
    27. ↵
      1. Hariharan R,
      2. Jenkins M
      . Utility of the methylated SEPT9 test for the early detection of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy. BMJ Open Gastroenterol 2020;7:e000355.doi:10.1136/bmjgast-2019-000355
    28. ↵
      1. Hitchins MP,
      2. Vogelaar IP,
      3. Brennan K, et al
      . Methylated SEPTIN9 plasma test for colorectal cancer detection may be applicable to Lynch syndrome. BMJ Open Gastroenterol 2019;6:e000299.doi:10.1136/bmjgast-2019-000299
    29. ↵
      1. Rasti A,
      2. Mehrazma M,
      3. Madjd Z, et al
      . Diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of miR-21 in renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open 2016;6:e009667.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009667
    30. ↵
      1. Lambert R,
      2. Provenzale D,
      3. Ectors N, et al
      . Early diagnosis and prevention of sporadic colorectal cancer. Endoscopy 2001;33:1042–64.doi:10.1055/s-2001-18938pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11740647
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    31. ↵
      1. Nagorni A
      . Advanced colorectal adenoma. Arch Oncol 2004;12:59–60.
      OpenUrl
    32. ↵
      1. Fenocchi E,
      2. Gaggero P,
      3. Rondán M, et al
      . Usefulness of the fecal immunochemical test in the detection of advanced adenomas in subjects at average risk for colorectal cancer. Endoscopia 2015;27:64–8.doi:10.1016/j.endomx.2015.07.002
      OpenUrl
    33. ↵
      1. Bettington M,
      2. Walker N,
      3. Rosty C, et al
      . Clinicopathological and molecular features of sessile serrated adenomas with dysplasia or carcinoma. Gut 2017;66:97–106.doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310456pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26475632
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    34. ↵
      1. Cancer Council Australia Colonoscopy Surveillance Working Party
      . Clinical practice guidelines for surveillance colonoscopy. Sydney, 2018.
    35. ↵
      1. Gupta S,
      2. Lieberman D,
      3. Anderson JC, et al
      . Recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task force on colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115:415–34.doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000000544pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32039982
      OpenUrlPubMed
    36. ↵
      1. Yang B,
      2. Mustafa RA,
      3. Bossuyt PM, et al
      . GRADE guidance: 31. assessing the certainty across a body of evidence for comparative test accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol 2021;136:146–56.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.04.001pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33864930
      OpenUrlPubMed
    37. ↵
      1. Goldet G,
      2. Howick J
      . Understanding GRADE: an introduction. J Evid Based Med 2013;6:50–4.doi:10.1111/jebm.12018pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23557528
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    38. ↵
      1. Shunemann H,
      2. Brozek J,
      3. Guyatt GH
      . GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, 2013.
    39. ↵
      1. Balshem H,
      2. Helfand M,
      3. Schünemann HJ, et al
      . Grade guidelines: 3. rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:401–6.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21208779
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    40. ↵
      1. Higgins JPT,
      2. Thompson SG,
      3. Deeks JJ, et al
      . Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–60.doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12958120
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @TimLathlean

    • Contributors All authors have contributed to the focus of this systematic review topic and have revised and reviewed each draft of the protocol and approved the final manuscript. Specifically, ELS and GPY were responsible for the initial conceptualisation of this work. TJHL, ELS, MMW, JMW and RG led the planning, design as well as the conduct and reporting of this manuscript. All authors made substantial contributions to the drafting and critical revision of the work and all authors approved the final manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests GPY has a consultancy arrangement with a company that has developed a blood test for CRC detection (Clinical Genomics).

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.