Cited by 354Gut microbiota and healthColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionGenetic factors in colorectal cancer

Microbiota-based model improves the sensitivity of fecal immunochemical test for detecting colonic lesions

Open access
Baxter, Nielson T., Ruffin, Mack T., Rogers, Mary A. M., Schloss, Patrick D.·2016·Genome Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of death among cancers in the United States. Although individuals diagnosed early have a greater than 90% chance of survival, more than one-third of individuals do not adhere to screening recommendations partly because the standard diagnostics, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy, are expensive and invasive. Thus, there is a great need to improve the sensitivity of non-invasive tests to detect early stage cancers and adenomas. Numerous studies have identified shifts in the composition of the gut microbiota associated with the progression of CRC, suggesting that the gut microbiota may represent a reservoir of biomarkers that would complement existing non-invasive methods such as the widely used fecal immunochemical test (FIT). METHODS: We sequenced the 16S rRNA genes from the stool samples of 490 patients. We used the relative abundances of the bacterial populations within each sample to develop a random forest classification model that detects colonic lesions using the relative abundance of gut microbiota and the concentration of hemoglobin in stool. RESULTS: The microbiota-based random forest model detected 91.7% of cancers and 45.5% of adenomas while FIT alone detected 75.0% and 15.7%, respectively. Of the colonic lesions missed by FIT, the model detected 70.0% of cancers and 37.7% of adenomas. We confirmed known associations of Porphyromonas assaccharolytica, Peptostreptococcus stomatis, Parvimonas micra, and Fusobacterium nucleatum with CRC. Yet, we found that the loss of potentially beneficial organisms, such as members of the Lachnospiraceae, was more predictive for identifying patients with adenomas when used in combination with FIT. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the potential for microbiota analysis to complement existing screening methods to improve detection of colonic lesions.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13073-016-0290-3

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Adding stool microbiome data to risk-factor model scores or to screening tests like FOBT and FIT improves detection accuracy for advanced adenomas.

    “Combining the fecal microbiome data with scores from risk factor-based models or results of screening tests (such as fecal occult blood test and fecal immunochemical test) increases the accuracy of detection for advanced adenomas.35, 186, 187”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baxter, N. T., Ruffin, M. T., Rogers, M. A. M., & Schloss, P. D.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Schloss, Patrick D.
Venue
Genome Medicine
Published
2016-04-06
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
37-37
ISSN
1756-994X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2314413252
Cited by
354
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 7
FWCI
15.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (U01CA86400)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM099514)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
Keywords
colorectal cancer, colorectal adenoma, fecal immunochemical test, gut microbiota, random forest classification, non-invasive cancer screening, 16S rRNA gene sequencing, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Lachnospiraceae, Porphyromonas asaccharolytica, Peptostreptococcus stomatis, Parvimonas micra, early cancer detection
MeSH terms
Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Colonic Diseases, Feces, Female, Humans, Immunochemistry, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Biological, Occult Blood, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Microbiota

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