The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prospective evaluation of methylated SEPT9 in plasma for detection of asymptomatic colorectal cancer
Open accessAbstract
Background: As screening methods for colorectal cancer (CRC) are limited by uptake and adherence, further options are sought. A blood test might increase both, but none has yet been tested in a screening setting. Objective: We prospectively assessed the accuracy of circulating methylated SEPT9 DNA (mSEPT9) for detecting CRC in a screening population. Design: Asymptomatic individuals ≥50 years old scheduled for screening colonoscopy at 32 US and German clinics voluntarily gave blood plasma samples before colon preparation. Using a commercially available assay, three independent blinded laboratories assayed plasma DNA of all CRC cases and a stratified random sample of other subjects in duplicate real time PCRs. The primary outcomes measures were standardised for overall sensitivity and specificity estimates. Results: 7941 men (45%) and women (55%), mean age 60 years, enrolled. Results from 53 CRC cases and from 1457 subjects without CRC yielded a standardised sensitivity of 48.2% (95% CI 32.4% to 63.6%; crude rate 50.9%); for CRC stages I–IV, values were 35.0%, 63.0%, 46.0% and 77.4%, respectively. Specificity was 91.5% (95% CI 89.7% to 93.1%; crude rate 91.4%). Sensitivity for advanced adenomas was low (11.2%). Conclusions: Our study using the blood based mSEPT9 test showed that CRC signal in blood can be detected in asymptomatic average risk individuals undergoing screening. However, the utility of the test for population screening for CRC will require improved sensitivity for detection of early cancers and advanced adenomas. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT00855348
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Xu, J., & Ward, E. (2010) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.20073 · Cited by 12,596
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41 · Cited by 3,215
Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2261021292 · Cited by 3,215
Next-Generation Stool DNA Test Accurately Detects Colorectal Cancer and Large Adenomas
Ahlquist, D. A., Zou, H., Domanico, M., Mahoney, D. W., Yab, T. C., Taylor, W. R., Butz, M. L., Thibodeau, S. N., Rabeneck, L., Paszat, L. F., et al. (2012) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2011.10.031 · Cited by 315
Cited by
Dekker, E., Tanis, P. J., Vleugels, J. L. A., Kasi, P. M., & Wallace, M. B. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)32319-0 · Cited by 4,974
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
US Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo, K., Grossman, D. C., Curry, S. J., Davidson, K. W., Epling, J. W., García, F. A. R., Gillman, M. W., Harper, D. M., Kemper, A. R., et al. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.5989 · Cited by 2,509
Wolf, A. M. D., Fontham, E. T. H., Church, T. R., Flowers, C. R., Guerra, C. E., LaMonte, S. J., Etzioni, R., McKenna, M. T., Oeffinger, K. C., Shih, Y. T., et al. (2018) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21457 · Cited by 1,944
Self-citationColorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes
Schreuders, E. H., Ruco, A., Rabeneck, L., Schoen, R. E., Sung, J. J. Y., Young, G. P., & Kuipers, E. J. (2015) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2014-309086 · Cited by 1,328
Lin, J. S., Bowles, E. J. A., Williams, S. B., & Morrison, C. C. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.0562 · Cited by 1,082
Metadata
- Authors
- Church, T. R., Wandell, M., Lofton-Day, C., Mongin, S. J., Burger, M., Payne, S. R., Castaños-Vélez, E., Blumenstein, B. A., Rösch, T., Osborn, N., Snover, D., Day, R. W., Ransohoff, D. F., & for the PRESEPT Clinical Study Steering Committee, I. A. S. T.
- Venue
- Gut
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2013-02-13
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 317-325
- ISSN
- 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3288
- OpenAlex
- W2127821100
- Cited by
- 796
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 24.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prospective evaluation of methylated SEPT9 in plasma for detection of asymptomatic colorectal cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304149
- The paper
- Church, T. R., Wandell, M., Lofton-Day, C., Mongin, S. J., Burger, M., Payne, S. R., Castaños-Vélez, E., Blumenstein, B. A., Rösch, T., Osborn, N., Snover, D., Day, R. W., Ransohoff, D. F., & for the PRESEPT Clinical Study Steering Committee, I. A. S. T. (2014). Prospective evaluation of methylated SEPT9 in plasma for detection of asymptomatic colorectal cancer. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304149
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
