Search

Background: The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) suffers from suboptimal performance and participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Urinary volatile organic compounds (VOCs) may be a useful alternative. We aimed to determine the diagnostic potential of urinary VOCs for CRC/adenomas. By relating VOCs to known pathways, we aimed to gain insight into the pathophysiology of colorectal neoplasia. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. Original studies on urinary VOCs for CRC/adenoma detection with a control group were included. QUADAS-2 tool was used for quality assessment. Meta-analysis was performed by adopting a bivariate model for sensitivity/specificity. Fagan's nomogram estimated the performance of combined FIT-VOC. Neoplasm-associated VOCs were linked to pathways using the KEGG database. Results: Sixteen studies—involving 837 CRC patients and 1618 controls—were included; 11 performed chemical identification and 7 chemical fingerprinting. In all studies, urinary VOCs discriminated CRC from controls. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for CRC based on chemical fingerprinting were 84% (95% CI 73–91%) and 70% (95% CI 63–77%), respectively. The most distinctive individual VOC was butanal (AUC 0.98). The estimated probability of having CRC following negative FIT was 0.38%, whereas 0.09% following negative FIT-VOC. Combined FIT-VOC would detect 33% more CRCs. In total 100 CRC-associated urinary VOCs were identified; particularly hydrocarbons, carboxylic acids, aldehydes/ketones and amino acids, and predominantly involved in TCA-cycle or alanine/aspartate/glutamine/glutamate/phenylalanine/tyrosine/tryptophan metabolism, which is supported by previous research on (colorectal)cancer biology. The potential of urinary VOCs to detect precancerous adenomas or gain insight into their pathophysiology appeared understudied. Conclusion: Urinary VOCs hold potential for non-invasive CRC screening. Multicentre validation studies are needed, especially focusing on adenoma detection. Urinary VOCs elucidate underlying pathophysiologic processes.

Background: One in four patients with primary Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) develops recurrent CDI (rCDI). With every recurrence, the chance of a subsequent CDI episode increases. Early identification of patients at risk for rCDI might help doctors to guide treatment. The aim of this study was to externally validate published clinical prediction tools for rCDI. Methods: The validation cohort consisted of 129 patients, diagnosed with CDI between 2018 and 2020. rCDI risk scores were calculated for each individual patient in the validation cohort using the scoring tools described in the derivation studies. Per score value, we compared the average predicted risk of rCDI with the observed number of rCDI cases. Discrimination was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: Two prediction tools were selected for validation (Cobo 2018 and Larrainzar-Coghen 2016). The two derivation studies used different definitions for rCDI. Using Cobo’s definition, rCDI occurred in 34 patients (26%) of the validation cohort: using the definition of Larrainzar-Coghen, we observed 19 recurrences (15%). The performance of both prediction tools was poor when applied to our validation cohort. The estimated AUC was 0.43 [95% confidence interval (CI); 0.32–0.54] for Cobo’s tool and 0.42 (95% CI; 0.28–0.56) for Larrainzar-Coghen’s tool. Conclusion: Performance of both prediction tools was disappointing in the external validation cohort. Currently identified clinical risk factors may not be sufficient for accurate prediction of rCDI.

Background: One in four patients with primary Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) develops recurrent CDI (rCDI). With every recurrence, the chance of a subsequent CDI episode increases. Early identification of patients at risk for rCDI might help doctors to guide treatment. The aim of this study was to externally validate published clinical prediction tools for rCDI. Methods: The validation cohort consisted of 129 patients, diagnosed with CDI between 2018 and 2020. rCDI risk scores were calculated for each individual patient in the validation cohort using the scoring tools described in the derivation studies. Per score value, we compared the average predicted risk of rCDI with the observed number of rCDI cases. Discrimination was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: Two prediction tools were selected for validation (Cobo 2018 and Larrainzar-Coghen 2016). The two derivation studies used different definitions for rCDI. Using Cobo’s definition, rCDI occurred in 34 patients (26%) of the validation cohort: using the definition of Larrainzar-Coghen, we observed 19 recurrences (15%). The performance of both prediction tools was poor when applied to our validation cohort. The estimated AUC was 0.43 [95% confidence interval (CI); 0.32–0.54] for Cobo’s tool and 0.42 (95% CI; 0.28–0.56) for Larrainzar-Coghen’s tool. Conclusion: Performance of both prediction tools was disappointing in the external validation cohort. Currently identified clinical risk factors may not be sufficient for accurate prediction of rCDI.