↓ Skip to main content

Combined Performance of Fecal Immunochemical Tests and a Genetic Risk Score for Advanced Neoplasia Detection.

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Prevention Research, June 2022
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Combined Performance of Fecal Immunochemical Tests and a Genetic Risk Score for Advanced Neoplasia Detection.
Published in
Cancer Prevention Research, June 2022
DOI 10.1158/1940-6207.capr-21-0552
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are increasingly used as noninvasive screening tests in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are increasingly propagated for risk stratification in CRC screening. We aimed to assess the potential of combining FIT results and PRS to enhance diagnostic accuracy of detecting advanced neoplasia (AN) compared to using FIT results alone. Of 10,362 participants of screening colonoscopy in Southern Germany who conducted either one of two quantitative FITs, genotyping was done in all participants with advanced neoplasia (CRC or advanced adenoma) and a random subset of controls. Among 5,306 individuals, a PRS was calculated based on the number of risk alleles in 140 single nucleotide polymorphisms. Partial areas under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves (pAUCs) were computed for FIT and PRS alone and combined, focusing on a specificity range of 100%-80%. Both FITs showed similar performance characteristics with pAUCs (95%CIs) of 0.661 (0.625-0.698) (Ridascreen Hemoglobin) and 0.682 (0.661-0.701) (FOB Gold) for AN detection. PRS alone reached a pAUC (95%CI) of 0.524 (0.499-0.550) and 0.530 (0.516-0.545), respectively, and its addition to FIT did not improve pAUCs (0.659 (0.622-0.697) and 0.667 (0.650-0.687), respectively). This finding was confirmed by investigating sensitivities at fixed specificities at 85%, 90% and 95%. Partial AUCs also did not improve when adding the weighted PRS to FIT instead of the unweighted PRS. In summary, the combination with PRS did not improve diagnostic accuracy of FIT-based screening in a large asymptomatic CRC screening population from South-Western Germany.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Other 1 6%
Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 9 50%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 22%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 8 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 August 2022.
All research outputs
#24,773,717
of 34,386,255 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Prevention Research
#1,221
of 1,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#296,190
of 473,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Prevention Research
#16
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,386,255 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,672 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 473,925 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.