Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

The CRCbiome study: a large prospective cohort study examining the role of lifestyle and the gut microbiome in colorectal cancer screening participants

View ORCID ProfileAne Sørlie Kværner, Einar Birkeland, Cecilie Bucher-Johannessen, Elina Vinberg, Jan Inge Nordby, Harri Kangas, Vahid Bemanian, Pekka Ellonen, Edoardo Botteri, Erik Natvig, Torbjørn Rognes, Eivind Hovig, Robert Lyle, Ole Herman Ambur, Willem M. de Vos, Scott Bultman, Anette Hjartåker, Rikard Landberg, Mingyang Song, Giske Ursin, Kristin Ranheim Randel, Thomas de Lange, Geir Hoff, Øyvind Holme, Paula Berstad, Trine B. Rounge
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.22.20248658
Ane Sørlie Kværner
aSection for Colorectal Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ane Sørlie Kværner
Einar Birkeland
bDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cecilie Bucher-Johannessen
bDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
cDepartment of Tumor Biology, Institute for Cancer Research, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elina Vinberg
bDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jan Inge Nordby
dDepartment of Medical Biochemistry, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Harri Kangas
eInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland, HiLIFE, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vahid Bemanian
fDepartment of Multidisciplinary Laboratory Science and Medical Biochemistry, Genetic Unit, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pekka Ellonen
eInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland, HiLIFE, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Edoardo Botteri
aSection for Colorectal Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
bDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erik Natvig
aSection for Colorectal Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Torbjørn Rognes
gCentre for Bioinformatics, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
hDepartment of Microbiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eivind Hovig
cDepartment of Tumor Biology, Institute for Cancer Research, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
gCentre for Bioinformatics, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Lyle
iDepartment of Medical Genetics, Oslo University Hospital and University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
jCentre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ole Herman Ambur
kDepartment of Microbiology and Infection Control, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway
lDepartment of Natural Sciences and Health, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Willem M. de Vos
mLaboratory of Microbiology, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands
nHuman Microbiome Research Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Scott Bultman
oDepartment of Genetics and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anette Hjartåker
pDepartment of Nutrition, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rikard Landberg
qDepartment of Biology and Biological Engineering, Division of Food and Nutrition Science, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mingyang Song
rDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
sDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
tClinical and Translational Epidemiology Unit and Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Giske Ursin
uCancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kristin Ranheim Randel
aSection for Colorectal Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas de Lange
vMedical Department, Sahlgrenska University Hospital-Mölndal, Mölndal, Sweden
wDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg. Gothenburg, Sweden
xDepartment of Medical Research, Bærum Hospital, Bærum, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Geir Hoff
aSection for Colorectal Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
yDepartment of Research, Telemark Hospital, Skien, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Øyvind Holme
aSection for Colorectal Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
zDepartment of Medicine, Sorlandet Hospital Kristiansand, Kristiansand, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paula Berstad
aSection for Colorectal Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: paula.berstad{at}kreftregisteret.no trine.rounge{at}kreftregisteret.no
Trine B. Rounge
bDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
gCentre for Bioinformatics, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: paula.berstad{at}kreftregisteret.no trine.rounge{at}kreftregisteret.no
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality. However, current screening methods are either hampered by invasiveness or suboptimal performance, limiting their effectiveness as primary screening methods. To aid in the development of a non-invasive screening test with improved sensitivity and specificity, we have initiated a prospective biomarker study (CRCbiome), nested within a large randomized CRC screening trial in Norway. We aim to develop a microbiome-based classification algorithm to identify advanced colorectal lesions in screening participants testing positive for an immunochemical fecal occult blood test (FIT). We will also examine interactions with host factors, diet, lifestyle and prescription drugs. The prospective nature of the study also enables the analysis of changes in the gut microbiome following the removal of precancerous lesions.

Methods The CRCbiome study recruits participants enrolled in the Bowel Cancer Screening in Norway (BCSN) study, a randomized trial initiated in 2012 comparing once-only sigmoidoscopy to repeated biennial FIT, where women and men aged 50-74 years at study entry are invited to participate. Since 2017, participants randomized to FIT screening with a positive test result have been invited to join the CRCbiome study. Self-reported diet, lifestyle and demographic data are collected prior to colonoscopy after the positive FIT-test (baseline). Screening data, including colonoscopy findings are obtained from the BCSN database. Fecal samples for gut microbiome analyses are collected both before and 2 and 12 months after colonoscopy. Samples are analyzed using metagenome sequencing, with taxonomy profiles, and gene and pathway content as primary measures. CRCbiome data will also be linked to national registries to obtain information on prescription histories and cancer relevant outcomes occurring during the 10 year follow-up period.

Discussion The CRCbiome study will increase our understanding of how the gut microbiome, in combination with lifestyle and environmental factors, influences the early stages of colorectal carcinogenesis. This knowledge will be crucial to develop microbiome- based screening tools for CRC. By evaluating biomarker performance in a screening setting, using samples from the target population, the generalizability of the findings to future screening cohorts is likely to be high.

Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01538550

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major global health burden, accounting for nearly 10% of all cancers diagnosed and cancer-related deaths each year (1). Although a decline in the age- standardized mortality rate has been observed over the past two to three decades in many countries (2–4), death rates remain high, particularly when diagnosed at later stages (5-year survival rate of 13% for metastatic disease compared to 90% when diagnosed at a localized stage) (1,5). The significant contribution to global cancer deaths, together with the worrying rise in incidence rates seen globally (3), especially the recent increase among younger age groups (6,7), highlights the need for widespread prevention strategies that are both effective and feasible on a large-scale basis.

There are two major precursor lesions of CRC: adenomatous polyps, accounting for the majority of cases, and serrated lesions, estimated to underlie up to 30% of CRC (8). The progression of precursor lesions to CRC is a long-term process, spanning a period of 10-15 years for most lesions (9). During this long latency period, most cancers develop asymptomatically, making them difficult to detect at a preclinical stage. Therefore, international guidelines recommend screening, with the aim of detection and removal of precancerous lesions to prevent cancer from occurring, or to detect cancer at the earliest stage possible (10–13).

Screening has been shown to reduce both CRC incidence (14–17) and mortality (14–21) in randomized controlled trials, even though current screening methods have known limitations (22). At present, the most commonly used screening method is the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for occult blood, having mostly replaced the less sensitive guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) (23). Despite being more sensitive, performance characteristics are still suboptimal with regards to sensitivity and specificity, resulting in both missed neoplasms and unnecessary colonoscopy referrals (22). Of particular concern has been the limited performance in detecting precancerous lesions, representing a missed opportunity given the great potential for cancer prevention following removal of these lesions. There is also evidence that current screening methods perform worse for right-sided tumors, compared to left-sided ones (24), as well as in women compared to men (25,26). Thus, there is a requirement for screening methods and tools with improved performance for the entire screening population.

Both observational and experimental evidence point to an important role of the gut microbiome in development and progression of CRC (27). Numerous studies have demonstrated differences in the gut microbiome of tumor and adjacent non-tumor tissue (28,29), as well as in stool samples from CRC patients and healthy controls (30–38). Typically, the presence of a colorectal tumor has been associated with enrichment of pathogenic bacterial species, such as Fusobacterium nucleatum, Escherichia coli and Bacteroides fragilis, and depletion of potentially protective bacteria (e.g. producers of short chain fatty acid (SCFAs)) (27). Although less studied, there are reports indicating that subjects with precancerous lesions display shifts in their microbial profiles (30,33,39), suggesting the presence of microbial changes at early stages of colorectal carcinogenesis.

The gut microbiome is heavily influenced by the environment (40). Established risk factors for CRC, such as excess body weight, physical inactivity and a Western dietary pattern (typically high in red and processed meat and low in whole grains and dietary fiber) and protective factors, such as dairy products and use of certain medications (e.g. aspirin/NSAIDs and metformin) are suggested to modify the gut microbiome (41). At the same time, accumulating evidence indicates that modifications of the gut microbiome may allow environmental risk factors to induce malignant transformation (42,43). This highlights the complex relationship between the environment and the microbiome in the etiology of CRC.

The connection between a potentially pathogenic gut microbiome and CRC has resulted in a growing interest in the use of gut microbial biomarkers as screening tests for early detection of precancerous and cancerous lesions. Several studies have shown that combining microbiome data with the results of established screening methods, such as gFOBT or FIT, substantially increase the ability to classify groups of individuals with healthy colons, adenoma and CRC (30,33,34). Two recent meta-analyses of metagenome data showed that both taxonomic and functional gut microbial profiles predicted CRC at time of diagnosis with high accuracy (44,45).

Although results from previous biomarker studies are promising, no microbial biomarkers are currently used in national screening programs. In order to advance the utility of the gut microbiome in screening, additional data from prospective studies are needed.

Objectives

The primary aim of the CRCbiome study is to develop a classification algorithm for identification of advanced colorectal lesions based on the screened individuals’ gut metagenome, demographics and lifestyle. Secondary aims are to provide a deeper understanding of how the gut microbiome evolves prior to a cancer diagnosis, as well as its interactions with host, lifestyle and environmental factors:

  1. Identification of associations of the gut microbiome with advanced colorectal lesions, defined as presence of advanced adenomas, advanced serrated lesions or CRC, at baseline

  2. Examination of interactions of the gut microbiome with host factors, diet, lifestyle and medication use on risk of advanced colorectal lesions at baseline

  3. Description of changes in the gut microbiome following removal of precursor lesions of CRC

Long-term outcomes (i.e. incidence and mortality of advanced colorectal lesions) will be examined by means of passive follow-up using data from the national registries. The outcome assessment will be aligned with the 10 year follow-up of the Bowel Cancer Screening in Norway (BCSN) trial (46), from which the CRCbiome study recruits participants.

Methods

Study design

The CRCbiome study is a prospective cohort study nested within the BCSN trial, which is a pilot for a national screening program, organized by the Cancer Registry of Norway. The BCSN study is designed as a randomized trial comparing once-only sigmoidoscopy with FIT tests every two years for a maximum of four rounds (46). The trial was started in 2012, with follow-up FIT rounds scheduled to be completed in 2024. Participants randomized to the FIT group who test positive (i.e. hemoglobin >15 mcg/g feces), are referred for follow-up colonoscopy at their local screening center. Neoplastic lesions detected as part of the screening examination are removed during colonoscopy or elective surgery, if necessary. Biennial FIT testing is discontinued for those having undergone colonoscopy following a positive FIT test.

The CRCbiome study recruits participants from the BCSN trial who receive a positive FIT test. FIT positive participants are selected since they are referred to follow-up colonoscopies in line with the BCSN study protocol and will have detailed clinicopathological information. Conversely, as no diagnostic information is available for those with a negative FIT test, these are not included in the CRCbiome study. Of note, as recruitment for the CRCbiome study started five years after commencement of the BCSN trial, those with positive FIT findings in the first and initial part of the second round of screening in the BCSN were not invited. Even so, due to incomplete participation in the first round of FIT testing, 10% of the CRCbiome participants had their inclusion sample as their first screening test.

Participants are invited to the CRCbiome study prior to their colonoscopy examination. The invitation includes an information letter and two questionnaires (further details given below). FIT-positive fecal samples from the BCSN are retrieved following enrolment and represent the baseline sample of the CRCbiome study. Participants are thereafter contacted 2 and 12 months after colonoscopy for collection of follow-up fecal samples using the same sampling method. Fecal samples are processed for microbiome analysis as they become available to the project.

Based on the colonoscopy examination, participants are categorized into diagnostic groups ranging from no pathological findings to presence of advanced lesions and CRC. The groups selected for analyses will vary depending on aim (see Outcome variables for a complete description of outcomes).

Data collected in the CRCbiome study will be linked to national registries, including the Norwegian Prescription Database (47) and the Cancer Registry of Norway (48). An overview of the study design is shown in Figure 1. The design and handling of data in the CRCbiome study is in accordance with the STROBE guidelines for observational and metagenomics studies (49–51).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 1. Flowchart of the CRCbiome study, nested within the BCSN.

Abbreviations: BCSN, Bowel Cancer Screening in Norway; CRN, Cancer Registry of Norway; FIT, fecal immunochemical test; FU, follow-up; NorPD, Norwegian Prescription Database.

Participants and eligibility

The BCSN trial includes 139,291 women and men aged 50-74 years in 2012, living in South- East Norway. Of these, 70,096 have been randomized to FIT screening. So far, the cumulative participation rate for the first three FIT rounds has been 68% (46). All screening participants with a positive FIT test are eligible for the CRCbiome study. Recruitment for the CRCbiome study started in 2017, and will continue until a minimum of 2,700 participants have been invited. So far, 2,426 have been invited and 1,413 (58%) have agreed to participate. With the current participation rate, we expect recruitment to be completed by March 2021 with a final number of participants of about 1,600 (see below for the sample size considerations).

The main inclusion and exclusion criteria for the BCSN trial and the CRCbiome study are listed in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria in the BCSN trial and CRCbiome study.

Recruitment of participants

Eligible subjects are invited after being informed about their positive FIT test and a colonoscopy appointment has been scheduled. Invitations to the CRCbiome study, including the two questionnaires, are sent out by mail a minimum of four days prior to the colonoscopy. Returning at least one of the two questionnaires is regarded as a consent to the study, and includes permission to collect, analyze and store fecal samples, and to retrieve information from questionnaires and health registries.

Both the BCSN trial and the CRCbiome study have been approved by the Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics in South East Norway (Approval no.: 2011/1272 and 63148, respectively). The BCSN is also registered at clinicaltrials.gov (Clinical Trial (NCT) no.: 01538550).

Outcome variables

For the first two aims, the outcome variable will be defined based on the colonoscopy result. Participants will be grouped into four main categories: no confirmed neoplastic findings (Group 1); non-advanced lesions (Group 2); advanced lesions (Group 3); and CRC (Group 4) (Table 2). We may further subdivide lesions by clinicopathological features, including histopathological subtype (e.g. adenomas versus serrated lesions) and site of occurrence (proximal versus distal colon). Also of interest is the potential for distinct roles of environmental factors and the gut microbiome in the two main pathways of colorectal carcinogenesis: the adenoma-carcinoma pathway, and the serrated carcinoma pathway.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

Main outcomes of the screening colonoscopy among CRCbiome participants with preliminary distribution in percentages as of November 2020.

For the third aim, the outcome variable will be defined based on the metagenome data. We will monitor several aspects of the gut microbiome, leveraging information derived from metagenomic sequencing to describe the presence of bacterial strains and the functional potential in paired samples during re-establishment of the gut microbiome following bowel cleansing and colonoscopy.

Long-term effects in the study will be assessed 10 years after recruitment is completed. This will include an investigation of incidence and mortality of advanced colorectal lesions.

Clinical data, biological sampling and questionnaires

Assessment of clinical data

As part of the BCSN (46), participants are contacted by a study nurse prior to follow-up colonoscopy, to obtain information on medical history. This includes prior colonoscopies and CT colonographies, comorbidities, drug use, gastrointestinal symptoms, smoking habits, and body weight and height (Table 3). A variety of data are collected in relation to the follow-up colonoscopy, including screening outcomes (i.e. presence and clinicopathological characterization of detected lesions) and cgaracteristics relevant to the endoscopic procedure (Table 3). For all lesions detected, size, location, appearance, technique used for removal and tissue sampling, and completeness of removal are recorded. Both the medical history data and data collected as part of the follow-up colonoscopy are entered into a dedicated database by the responsible health care provider. A complete overview of the data collected in the BCSN trial can be found elsewhere (46).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 3.

Data sources and output generated in the CRCbiome study.

Biological sampling and gut microbiome analysis

FIT sampling and storage

Sampling kits for stool sample collection are mailed to the participants three times during the study period. No restrictions on diet or medication use are required prior to sampling. Stool is collected using plastic sticks, which collect about 10 mg stool. The stool is then stored in 2 ml of buffer containing HEPES (4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazineethanesulfonic acid), BSA (Bovine serum albumin) and sodium azide. Samples are then packed in padded envelopes and returned by mail to a laboratory at Oslo University Hospital for analysis and further storage at -80 °C. Shipping time is estimated to 3–10 days. Immunochemical testing for blood in feces is performed continuously using the OC-Sensor Diana (Eiken Chemical, Tokyo, Japan) as samples are received at the laboratory.

DNA extraction

Thawed samples are transferred to three 500 ml aliquots from the sampling bottle using a blood sampling needle (Vacuette) perforating the plastic lid. Samples are stored at -80 °C until further processing.

Extraction of DNA is carried out using the QIAsymphony automated extraction system, using the QIAsymphony DSP Virus/Pathogen Midikit (Qiagen), after an off-board lysis protocol with some modifications. Each sample is lysed with bead-beating: a 500 µl sample aliquot is transferred to a Lysing Matrix E tube (MP Biomedicals) and mixed with 700 µl phosphate- buffered saline (PBS) buffer. The mixture is then shaken at 6.5 m/s for 45 s. After the bead- beating, 800 µl of the sample is mixed with 1055 µl of off-board lysis buffer (proteinase K, ATL buffer, ACL buffer and nuclease-free water) as recommended by Qiagen. The sample is incubated at 68 °C for 15 min for lysis. Nucleic acid purification is performed on the QIAsymphony extraction robot using the Complex800_OBL_CR22796_ID 3489 protocol, a modified version of the Complex800_OBL_V4_DSP protocol. Purified DNA is eluted in 60 µl AVE-buffer (Qiagen). DNA purity is assessed using a Nanodrop2000 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA), and the concentration is measured by Qubit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA).

Metagenome sequencing

Libraries for metagenome sequencing are prepared from extracted DNA at the sequencing laboratory of the Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland FIMM Technology Centre, University of Helsinki (P.O. Box 20, University of Helsinki, Finland) using Illumina sequencing, with the aim of producing 3 gigabases of DNA sequence per sample.

In details, 29 µl of extracted DNA is purified and concentrated by adding an equal volume of AMPure XP (Beckman Coulter Life Sciences, Indianapolis, IN, USA). Purification is then performed as per the manufacturer’s instructions. The purified samples are eluted to 17 µl of 10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.5, and DNA concentrations are determined by Quant-iT PicoGreen dsDNA Assay Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). The samples are normalized to a maximum concentration of 3.3 ng/µl, resulting in DNA inputs of 25 ng or less.

Sequencing libraries are prepared according to the Nextera DNA Flex Library Prep Reference Guide (v07) (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA), with the exception that the reaction volumes are scaled down to ¼ of the protocol volumes. The libraries are amplified according to the protocol with 7 PCR cycles. All the library preparation steps are performed on a Microlab STARlet (Hamilton Company, Reno, NV, USA) and Biomek NX□ (Beckman Coulter Life Sciences, Indianapolis, IN, USA) liquid handlers running custom scripts.

DNA concentrations of the finished libraries are determined with Quant-iT PicoGreen dsDNA Assay. Libraries are combined into pools containing 240 libraries with 4.5 ng of each library using Echo 525 Acoustic Liquid Handler (Beckman Coulter Life Sciences, Indianapolis, IN, USA). Library pools are size-selected to a fragment size range between 650 and 900 bp using BluePippin (Sage Science Beverly, MA, USA).

Sequencing is performed with the Illumina NovaSeq system using S4 flow cells with lane divider (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). Each pool is sequenced on a single lane. Read length for the paired-end run is 2×151 bp.

Processing and analysis of sequencing data

Sequencing data are transferred to a platform for secure storage and analysis of sensitive research-related data at the University of Oslo (52). The analysis of metagenomic sequencing data is handled in a uniform manner using a customizable workflow manager (53). To establish a quality-filtered dataset, standard filters are applied: sequences corresponding to adapters used in library preparation, being of low quality (54) and those mapping to the human genome (55), with subsequent quality control of filtered sequencing reads (56).

Taxonomic classification and determination of microbial gene content, including functional annotation (e.g. using gene ontology and KEGG databases) will be performed using publicly available tools. Abundance measures will be used to calculate taxonomic and functional alpha and beta diversity, as well as serving as input for machine learning approaches aimed at producing classifiers for high-risk individuals in a data-driven manner. Further metagenome- derived measures may include identification of metagenome-assembled genomes, strain-level analysis and description of the gut virome.

Questionnaires

Two questionnaires are used to collect data on diet, lifestyle and demographic data: a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and a general lifestyle and demographics questionnaire (LDQ). Self-reported dates of questionnaire completion are registered in the project database. Returned questionnaires are reviewed manually before scanning and further processing. In cases of low-quality data, participants are contacted for clarification.

Assessment of dietary intake

Dietary intake is assessed using a semiquantitative, 14-page FFQ, designed to assess the habitual diet during the preceding year. The questionnaire is a modified version of an FFQ developed and validated by the Department of Nutrition, University of Oslo (57–62). The questionnaire has been validated for both energy intake (57–59), intake of macro and micronutrients (57,59,62), as well as selected food items and groups (59–62). The questionnaire includes 23 main questions, covering a total of 256 food items, as well as a free- text field for entries of food items not covered by the questionnaire. For each food item (except one on preferred types of fat for cooking), participants are asked to record frequency of consumption, ranging from never/seldom to several times a day, and/or amount, typically as portion size given in various household units (e.g. deciliters, glasses, cups, spoons). In total, there are 249 questions on frequency, 204 on portion size, one on preferences and nine other, mostly related to meal patterns (Additional file 1, supplementary Table 1).

As with any dietary assessment method, the FFQ is prone to errors due to inaccurate reporting and missing answers. Therefore, to mitigate such errors, a standardized framework for how to review and evaluate FFQ quality has been developed. A detailed overview of the framework is given in Additinoal file 2, supplementary Figure 1. In brief, incoming FFQs are reviewed by trained personnel according to a set of predefined criteria. Scanning of questionnaires is performed using the Cardiff TeleForm program (Datascan, Oslo, Norway). The dietary calculation system KBS (short for “Kostberegningssystem”), developed at the Department of Nutrition, University of Oslo, is used to calculate food and nutrient intake. The latest version of the food database (i.e. AE-18 or newer) will be used, which is largely based on the Norwegian Food Composition Table (63). In line with common practice in nutrition studies, missing answers are imputed as zero intake (59,61,64,65) and observations with extreme energy intake levels in both the upper and lower range will be excluded (66).

The main focus of the dietary analyses will be on foods and drinks linked to the risk of CRC and its precursor lesions, including intakes of alcohol, red and processed meat, wholegrains, foods containing dietary fiber, dairy products and calcium supplements (67). Dietary intake will also be studied holistically by employing various dietary indices such as the 2018 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) index for adherence to cancer prevention recommendations (68).

Assessment of lifestyle and demographic data

Lifestyle and demographic data are assessed using a four page questionnaire, based on questions used in previous national surveys (69,70). Prior to the study start, the questionnaire was piloted in a targeted population and adjusted based on feedback from pilot study participants. The questionnaire has ten main questions, covering demographic factors (education, occupation and marital status), diagnosis of CRC among first-degree relatives, presence of chronic bowel disorders and food intolerances, removal of the appendix, mode of delivery at birth, smoking and snus (i.e. smokeless tobacco) habits, recent use of medications, the past years’ physical activity level and lastly use of regular and cultured milk, which is not completely covered in the FFQ (see Table 3 for a detailed overview). In the questions concerning smoking and snus habits, participants are asked to recall their current habits, including the daily number of cigarettes/snus portions, as well as years since possible cessation and total years of use. Questionnaires are scanned and processed using the Cardiff TeleForm program (InfoShare, Oslo, Norway).

Registry data

Data collected in the CRCbiome study will be linked to national registries, including the Norwegian Prescription Database and the Cancer Registry of Norway, using personal identification numbers. Complete data linkages will be undertaken twice during active follow- up: after all participants have completed baseline and diagnostic information from follow-up colonoscopies is available, and then after the one-year follow-up is completed. In addition, linkage to the Cancer Registry of Norway will be performed at least once during the 10 year follow-up period.

Norwegian Prescription Database

The Norwegian Prescription Database (71) will be used to obtain information on medication history prior to CRC screening, and during the first year of follow-up. The registry contains data on all medications prescribed to Norwegian citizens since 2004. Prescription drugs are categorized according to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) system, a hierarchical classification system developed by the WHO (72,73). For each drug, the number of packages dispensed, the number of defined daily doses (DDD), the prescription category, and the date of dispensing are registered.

Linkage to the Norwegian Prescription Database enables an in-depth analysis of associations between drug use, the gut microbiome and advanced colorectal lesions. Initially, we will perform drug-wide association analyses to screen for potential associations, adjusting for key covariates. Detected associations will then be examined in detail, including a more refined categorization of drug variables, robust covariate adjustments as well as the analysis of timing and dose-response relations. Prescription histories will also be used as a proxy for life-long burden of chronic diseases.

Cancer Registry of Norway

Information on clinicopathological characteristics, cancer therapy, as well as outcomes assessed as part of passive follow-up, will be obtained from the Cancer Registry of Norway (74). The Cancer Registry of Norway has recorded incident cancer cases on a nationwide basis since 1953 and has been shown to have accurate and almost complete ascertainment of cases (98.8% for the registration period 2001-2005) (75). According to recent estimates, about 93% of all cancer cases and ≥95% of cancers in the colon and rectum are morphologically verified (48). Cancer diagnoses are recorded using the International Classification of Diseases, version 10 (ICD-10). Mortality data in the registry are obtained from the Cause of Death Registry and coded using the same ICD-10 categories as for the incidence data.

Data processing and management

To facilitate project administration, including recruitment and follow-up of participants, custom software has been developed. This application communicates with two project specific databases (i.e. the BCSN and CRCbiome databases). Only authorized data manager personnel have complete access to the datasets. A simplified version of the data generation process is depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 2. Simplified version of the data generation process in CRCbiome.

The figure is created based on free images from Servier Medical Art (Creative Commons Attribution Liscence, creativecommons.org/liscences/by/3.0/) and Stockio (https://www.stockio.com/).

In line with common practice for linkage with national registries (76), linked data will receive unique ID numbers specific to the particular project. Linkage of research data will be performed by the data controller. For the metagenome data, which due to its size cannot be transferred using ordinary methods, linkage will be performed in-house by an independent data manager without access to other parts of the data than those strictly necessary for linkage.

All data collected in the CRCbiome study will be stored and analyzed at a platform for secure handling of sensitive research-related data, operated by the University of Oslo (52). Access to research data for external investigators, or use outside of the current protocol, will require approval from the Norwegian Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics and a data access committee (information available on the project web site (77)). Research data are not openly available because of the principles and conditions set out in articles 6 (1) (e) and 9 (2) (j) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Sample size considerations

The number of participants to include was chosen with the aim of providing adequate power for the development of a highly sensitive classification algorithm via data-driven analyses of gut metagenomes that will accurately identify FIT-positive individuals in need of clinical intervention.

The classifier will be trained using counts of taxonomic units, signature and genes categorized according to gene ontology or pathway membership from metagenomes, FFQ, demographic and lifestyle data as input variables, and advanced colorectal lesions as outcome (i.e. group group 3 and group 4, Table 2). The CRC risk classification will be done using machine learning algorithms suited to metagenome data, such as lasso regression (78), support-vector machines (79), random forests (80), multi-layer perception neural networks (81) and scalable tree boosting (82) algorithms. Evaluation of the classifier will be conducted in a leave-out test set. As outlined below, we believe that with sufficient sample size, development of a classifier with a sensitivity of 0.95 is achievable in the training set, being within the range of published reports (30,33).

With a projected classifier sensitivity of 0.95 and a minimally acceptable sensitivity of 0.8, at 80% power and 95% confidence level, 50 participants with advanced colorectal lesions are required in the test set (83). Classifier specificity in the setting of FIT-positive individuals will have a lower requirement, and we therefore set the expected classifier specificity to 0.75 and a minimally acceptable specificity of 0.6, thus requiring 100 participants with normal findings in the test set. Based on initial recruitment, we expect a participation rate of 58%, with 26% of participants having findings of advanced lesions or CRC (Table 2). By inviting 2,700 FIT- positive BCSN participants, and splitting the training and test sets 80/20, a projected number of 1,253 and 313 participants will constitute the training and test sets, respectively, which will include adequate numbers of participants with both advanced colorectal lesions and normal findings in the test set. With this sample size, we will also be able to perform stratified analyses.

Discussion

CRC remains a major public health challenge with substantial personal and societal costs (22). Screening is an effective measure to reduce disease burden (22). However, current screening methods suffer from limitations, limiting the number of preventable cases. Innovative use of currently available methods represents a promising avenue for improvements in CRC prevention (22). The current study is designed to contribute to the development of microbial biomarkers, using metagenome sequencing and comprehensive questionnaire and registry data for improved detection of advanced lesions and CRC in a FIT- positive population. The CRCbiome study is unique in that it uses data from the screening population to develop relevant biomarkers.

The idea of using microbial biomarkers to increase the performance of CRC screening has received increased attention with the adoption of high-throughput characterization of the gut microbiome. Ideally, combining microbial biomarkers with FIT testing could achieve the sensitivity of direct visualization methods and the uptake of non-invasive fecal tests. Several studies have demonstrated improved ability to discriminate individuals with healthy colons from those with advanced neoplasia when adding microbial biomarkers in the prediction model, more so for carcinoma (area under the curve (AUC) of 0.87-0.97 (30,33,34)) than adenoma (AUC of 0.76 (33)). Despite great promise, these studies have typically been limited by small sample sizes (30,32–34), cross-sectional designs (30–34), use of suboptimal or low- resolution methods to study the gut-microbiome (30–33) and lack of data on important confounders (30–34). The CRCbiome study seeks to address several of these shortcomings.

Major strengths of the CRCbiome study include its large sample size and prospective nature, use of state of the art methodology for studying the gut microbiome and access to detailed information on likely confounders of the relationship between the gut-microbiome and advanced colorectal lesions. A further strength of the study is in its organization and logistics structure, being nested within the BCSN. The immediate availability of clinically verified outcome data, via follow-up colonoscopies and cancer registry data, allow for prospective investigations on multiple outcomes relevant to the screening population (e.g. polyp recurrence). Access to comprehensive high-quality data on diet and lifestyle, including complete prescription histories, also enables the investigation of the predictive performance of more broad classifiers, laying the ground for personalized screening strategies, including risk- stratified approaches.

With a study population solely consisting of FIT positive participants, the projected number of individuals with high-risk lesions or CRC is relatively high (about 409 (26%), group 3 and 4, Table 2), thereby increasing the power to achieve accurate classification of advanced colorectal neoplasms. Still, whether findings in this population extends to cases missed by FIT testing is unknown.

Collection of follow-up samples at 2 and 12-months post colonoscopy represents an extension of the cross-sectional design of most prior studies, shedding light on the development of the gut microbiome following colonoscopy with or without removal of CRC precursor lesions. While there are examples of shifts in microbial profiles following colonoscopy, the gut microbiome typically reverts to the initial state within weeks (84). Deviations from re- establishment of the gut microbiome both in the medium and long term have the potential for causal interpretations.

The study also has some limitations. Exclusive selection of FIT positive participants may limit the generalizability of the findings to those with bleeding neoplastic lesions. Consequently, improvements in diagnostic performance may be limited to specificity, and thus the ability to correctly classify healthy individuals. However, since lesions tend to bleed intermittently (85) and the study aims to identify potential causal pathways, we consider it likely that the identified biomarker also may have improved sensitivity in the screening population as a whole.

A further limitation is the lack of information on fecal metrics such as the Bristol stool scale, which has been shown to be an important determinant of microbiota richness and variance (86). However, variation in microbiome profile due to stool consistency could likely be explored by use of gastrointestinal symptoms as a surrogate, data on which is available in the BCSN database.

Lastly, lack of follow-up data on diet and lifestyle may complicate the interpretation of microbial changes following colonoscopy. Even though prior studies in comparable study populations show that potential changes in diet and lifestyle following screening are modest (87,88), caution in interpretation of follow-up samples is warranted.

The CRCbiome study represents a valuable source of data for further research. An example is access to complete prescription histories from the Norwegian Prescription Database that enables in-depth analyses of associations between a broad range of medications, microbial features and neoplasia risk, both during short and long-term follow-up. The fecal samples collected are also biobanked and can be used for other purposes beside the study aims of the current protocol. For instance, in addition to metagenome sequencing, the fecal samples can potentially be used for other omics analyses, such as transcriptome and metabolome analysis. All tissue specimens removed during colonoscopy are also available to the project, enabling in-depth molecular profiling.

Conclusion

The CRCbiome study investigates the role of the gut microbiome, and its interactions with host factors, diet and lifestyle, in early stage colorectal carcinogenesis. Information obtained from this project will guide the development of a microbial biomarker for accurate detection of advanced colorectal lesions. By performing biomarker discovery within a screening population, the generalizability of the findings to future screening cohorts is likely to be high.

Data Availability

Due to the principles and conditions set out in articles 6 (1) (e) and 9 (2) (j) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), research data generated in the CRCbiome study are not openly available. Further information on access to CRCbiome data can be found on the project web site: https://www.kreftregisteret.no/en/Research/Projects/microbiota-and-lifestyle-in-colorectal-cancer-screeing/

https://www.kreftregisteret.no/en/Research/Projects/microbiota-and-lifestyle-in-colorectal-cancer-screeing/

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The CRCbiome study is approved by the Norwegian Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics (Approval no.: 63148). Written informed consent to participate has been obtained from all participants at study enrollment. All biological materials are stored in a biobank at Oslo University Hospital.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Due to the principles and conditions set out in articles 6 (1) (e) and 9 (2) (j) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), research data generated in the CRCbiome study are not openly available. Further information on access to CRCbiome data can be found on the project web site (77)).

Competing interests

There are no competing interests.

Funding

This project would not have been possible without funding from the Norwegian Cancer Society, the Research Council of Norway and the South Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority.

Authors’ contributions

ASK and EB (Birkeland) had the main responsibility for writing the manuscript.

PB and TBR are the principal investigators.

All authors contributed to the study design and protocol.

All authors contributed to the writing and approval of the final manuscript

Additional files

Additional file 1: Supplementary tables (Additional file 1)

Additional_file-1.docx

Contains two supplementary tables.

Additional file 2: Supplemetary figures (Additional file 2)

Additional_file-2.docx

Contains a supplementary figure with figure title and legend.

Additional file 3: Ethical approval

Additional_file-3.pdf

A translated version of the ethical approval for the CRCbiome study.

Additional file 4: Funding

Additional_file-4A.pdf

Additional_file-4B.pdf

Additional_file-4C.pdf

The respective files contains documentation of funding (translated from Norwegian) from the Norwegian Cancer Society (4A-B) and the South Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority (4C). Documentation of funding from the Research Council of Norway can be submitted afterwords if required. The funding was provided to a large collabrotative project where the CRCbiome study only represented one part/work package.

Additional file 5: STROBE chechlist

Additional_file-5.pdf

Contains the STROBE checklist for observational studies.

Acknowledgements

We would like to aknowledge the devoted secretaries, nurses and doctors at Bærum and Moss hospital, and the biomedical laboratory scientists at Oslo University Hospital for their contributions to this study. We would also like to thank the personnel involved in sequencing all CRCbiome samples at the Sequencing laboratory of Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland FIMM Technology Centre, University of Helsinki. Lastly, we would like to thank each study participoant, as well as all collaborative partners, technicians and students that have, and will, contribute to this study.

Footnotes

  • ↵æ Institute for Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

List of abbreviations

AICR
American Institute for Cancer Research
ATC
Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical
AUC
area under the curve
BCA
bovine serum albumin
BCSN
Bowel Cancer Screening in Norway
Bp
base pair
CRC
colorectal cancer
CRN
Cancer Registry of Norway
CT
computed tomography
DDD
defined daily doses
DNA
deoxyribonucleic acid
DPIA
Data Processing Impact Assessment
FFQ
food frequency questionnaire
FIMM
Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland
FIT
fecal immunochemical test
FU
follow-up
gFOBT
guaiac-based fecal occult blood test
ICD
International Classification of Diseases
KBS
Kostberegningssystem (“Dietary calculation system”)
KEGG
Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes
LDQ
lifestyle and demographic questionnaire
NCT
National Clinical Trial
NorPD
Norwegian Prescription Database
NSAIDs
non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs
PCR
polymerase chain reaction
PBS
phosphate-buffered saline
SCFA
short chain fatty acid
STROBE
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology
WCRF
World Cancer Research Fund
WHO
World Health Organization

References

  1. 1.↵
    Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68.
  2. 2.↵
    Ouakrim DA, Pizot C, Boniol M, Malvezzi M, Boniol M, Negri E, Bota M, Jenkins MA, Bleiberg H, Autier P. Trends in colorectal cancer mortality in Europe: Retrospective analysis of the WHO mortality database. BMJ. 2015;351:1–10.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    Safiri S, Sepanlou SG, Ikuta KS, Bisignano C, Salimzadeh H, Delavari A, Ansari R, Roshandel G, Merat S, Fitzmaurice C, et al. The global, regional, and national burden of colorectal cancer and its attributable risk factors in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4:913–33.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    Danckert B, Ferlay J, Engholm G, Hansen HL, Johannesen TB, Khan S, Køtlum JE, Ólafsdóttir E, Schmidt LKH, Virtanen A and Storm HH. Danckert B, Ferlay J, Engholm G, Hansen HL, Johannesen TB, Khan S, Køtlum JE, Ólafsdóttir E, Schmidt LKH VA and SH. NORDCAN: Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Prevalence and Survival in the Nordic Countries. Version 8.2. 2019.
  5. 5.↵
    Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Miller D, Brest A, Yu M, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z, Mariotto A, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ CK (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2017, National Cancer Institute. 2020. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2017/, xbased on November 2019 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2020.
  6. 6.↵
    Sung H, Siegel RL, Rosenberg PS, Jemal A. Emerging cancer trends among young adults in the USA: analysis of a population-based cancer registry. Lancet Public Heal. 2019;4.
  7. 7.↵
    Araghi M, Soerjomataram I, Bardot A, Ferlay J, Cabasag CJ, Morrison DS, D. P, Tervonen H, Walsh PM, Bucher O, et al. Changes in colorectal cancer incidence in seven high-income countries: a population-based study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4:511–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Leggett B, Whitehall V. Role of the Serrated Pathway in Colorectal Cancer Pathogenesis. Gastroenterology Elsevier Inc.; 2010;138:2088–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2009.12.066
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    Dekker E, Tanis PJ, Vleugels JLA, Kasi PM, Wallace MB. Colorectal cancer. Lancet (London, England) Elsevier Ltd; 2019;394:1467–80. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31631858
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Davidson KW, Epling JW, García FAR, Gillman MW, Harper DM, Kemper AR, Krist AH, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA - J Am Med Assoc. 2016;315:2564–75.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.
    Segnan N, Patnick J, von Karsa L EC. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Diagnosis - First Edition. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2010.
  12. 12.
    Ebell MH, Thai TN, Royalty KJ. Cancer screening recommendations: An international comparison of high income countries. Public Health Rev. Public Health Reviews; 2018;39:1–19.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    Sung JJY, Ng SC, Chan FKL, Chiu HM, Kim HS, Matsuda T, Ng SSM, Lau JYW, Zheng S, Adler S, et al. An updated Asia Pacific Consensus Recommendations on colorectal cancer screening. Gut. 2015;64:121–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    Atkin W, Wooldrage K, Parkin DM, Kralj-Hans I, MacRae E, Shah U, Duffy S, Cross AJ. Long term effects of once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening after 17 years of follow-up: the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;389:1299–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30396-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.
    Schoen R, Pinsky P, Weissfeld J, Yokochi L, Church T, Laiyemo A, Bresalier R, Andriole G, Buys S, Crawford E, et al. Colorectal-Cancer Incidence and Mortality with Screening Flexible Sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2345–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.
    Segnan N, Armaroli P, Bonelli L, Risio M, Sciallero S, Zappa M, Andreoni B, Arrigoni A, Bisanti L, Casella C, et al. Once-only sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: Follow-up findings of the italian randomized controlled trial - SCORE. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1310–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    Holme Ø, Løberg M, Kalager M, Bretthauer M, Hernán MA, Aas E, Eide TJ, Skovlund E, Schneede J, Tveit KM, et al. Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA - J Am Med Assoc. 2014;312:606–15.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.
    Mandel J, Bond J, Church T, Snover D, Bradley M, Schuman L, Ederer F. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med. 1993;
  19. 19.
    Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jørgensen OD, Søndergaard O. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet Elsevier; 1996;348:1467–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(96)03430-7
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.
    Lindholm E, Brevinge H, Haglind E. Survival benefit in a randomized clinical trial of faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. England; 2008;95:1029–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. 21.↵
    Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MHE, Moss SM, Amar SS, Balfour TW, James PD, Mangham CM. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet Elsevier; 1996;348:1472–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(96)03386-7
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    Ladabaum U, Dominitz JA, Kahi C, Schoen RE. Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening. Gastroenterology Elsevier, Inc; 2020;158:418–32. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.06.043
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    Schreuders EH, Ruco A, Rabeneck L, Schoen RE, Sung JJY, Young GP, Kuipers EJ. Colorectal cancer screening: A global overview of existing programmes. Gut. 2015;64:1637–49.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    Haug U, Kuntz KM, Knudsen AB, Hundt S, Brenner H. Sensitivity of immunochemical faecal occult blood testing for detecting left-vs right-sided colorectal neoplasia. Br J Cancer. Nature Publishing Group; 2011;104:1779–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.160
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    Holme Ø, Løberg M, Kalager M, Bretthauer M, Hernán MA, Aas E, Eide TJ, Skovlund E, Lekven J, Schneede J, et al. Long-term effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in women and men: A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168:775–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Brenner H, Qian J, Werner S. Variation of diagnostic performance of fecal immunochemical testing for hemoglobin by sex and age: Results from a large screening cohort. Clin Epidemiol. 2018;10:381–9.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    Tilg H, Adolph TE, Gerner RR, Moschen AR. The Intestinal Microbiota in Colorectal Cancer. Cancer Cell. Elsevier Inc.; 2018;33:954–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    Kostic AD, Gevers D, Pedamallu CS, Michaud M, Duke F, Earl AM, Ojesina AI, Jung J, Bass AJ, Tabernero J, et al. Genomic analysis identifies association of Fusobacterium with colorectal carcinoma. Genome Res. 2012;22:292–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    Castellarin M, Warren R, Freeman J, Dreolini L, Krzywinski M, Strauss J, Barnes R, Watson P, Allen-Vercoe E, Moore RA, et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum infection is prevalent in human colorectal carcinoma. Genome Res 2012;22:299–306. http://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&from=export&id=L364186952%5Cn http://genome.cshlp.org/content/22/2/299.full.pdf+html%5Cn http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.126516.111%5Cn http://sfx.library.uu.nl/utrecht?sid=EMBASE&issn=10889051&id= doi:10
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    Zackular JP, Rogers MAM, Ruffin MT, Schloss PD. The human gut microbiome as a screening tool for colorectal cancer. Cancer Prev Res. 2014;7:1112–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.
    Guo S, Li L, Xu B, Li M, Zeng Q, Xiao H, Xue Y, Wu Y, Wang Y, Liu W, et al. A simple and novel fecal biomarker for colorectal cancer: Ratio of Fusobacterium nucleatum to probiotics populations, based on their antagonistic effect. Clin Chem. 2018;64:1327–37.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    Liang Q, Chiu J, Chen Y, Huang Y, Higashimori A, Fang J, Brim H, Ashktorab H, Chien Ng S, Ng SSM, et al. Fecal bacteria act as novel biomarkers for noninvasive diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23:2061–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    Baxter NT, Ruffin MT, Rogers MAM, Schloss PD. Microbiota-based model improves the sensitivity of fecal immunochemical test for detecting colonic lesions. Genome Med Genome Medicine; 2016;8:1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13073-016-0290-3
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    Zeller G, Tap J, Voigt AY, Sunagawa S, Kultima JR, Costea PI, Amiot A, Böhm J, Brunetti F, Habermann N, et al. Potential of fecal microbiota for early□stage detection of colorectal cancer. Mol Syst Biol. 2014;10:766.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.
    Ahn J, Sinha R, Pei Z, Dominianni C, Wu J, Shi J, Goedert JJ, Hayes RB, Yang L. Human gut microbiome and risk for colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:1907–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. 36.
    Vogtmann E, Hua X, Zeller G, Sunagawa S, Voigt AY, Hercog R, Goedert JJ, Shi J, Bork P, Sinha R. Colorectal cancer and the human gut microbiome: Reproducibility with whole-genome shotgun sequencing. PLoS One. 2016;11:1–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.
    Feng Q, Liang S, Jia H, Stadlmayr A, Tang L, Lan Z, Zhang D, Xia H, Xu X, Jie Z, et al. Gut microbiome development along the colorectal adenoma-carcinoma sequence. Nat Commun. 2015;6.
  38. 38.↵
    Yu J, Feng Q, Wong SH, Zhang D, Yi Liang Q, Qin Y, Tang L, Zhao H, Stenvang J, Li Y, et al. Metagenomic analysis of faecal microbiome as a tool towards targeted non- invasive biomarkers for colorectal cancer. Gut. 2017;66:70–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    Hale VL, Chen J, Johnson S, Harrington SC, Yab TC, Smyrk TC, Nelson H, Boardman LA, Druliner BR, Levin TR, et al. Shifts in the fecal microbiota associated with adenomatous polyps. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017;26:85–94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    Rothschild D, Weissbrod O, Barkan E, Kurilshikov A, Korem T, Zeevi D, Costea PI, Godneva A, Kalka IN, Bar N, et al. Environment dominates over host genetics in shaping human gut microbiota. Nat Publ Gr. Nature Publishing Group; 2018;
  41. 41.↵
    Song M, Chan AT, Sun J. Influence of the Gut Microbiome, Diet, and Environment on Risk of Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology Elsevier, Inc; 2020;158:322–40. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.06.048
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    Song M, Chan AT. Environmental Factors, Gut Microbiota, and Colorectal Cancer Prevention Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The American Gastroenterological Association; 2019. 275–289 p. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2018.07.012
  43. 43.↵
    Scott AJ, Alexander JL, Merrifield CA, Cunningham D, Jobin C, Brown R, Alverdy J, O’Keefe SJ, Gaskins HR, Teare J, et al. International Cancer Microbiome Consortium consensus statement on the role of the human microbiome in carcinogenesis. Gut. 2019;68:1624–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    Thomas AM, Manghi P, Asnicar F, Pasolli E, Armanini F, Zolfo M, Beghini F, Manara S, Karcher N, Pozzi C, et al. Metagenomic analysis of colorectal cancer datasets identifies cross-cohort microbial diagnostic signatures and a link with choline degradation. Nat Med Springer US; 2019;25:667–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41591-019-0405-7
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    Wirbel J, Pyl PT, Kartal E, Zych K, Kashani A, Milanese A, Fleck JS, Voigt AY, Palleja A, Ponnudurai R, et al. Meta-analysis of fecal metagenomes reveals global microbial signatures that are specific for colorectal cancer. Nat Med Springer US; 2019;25:679–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41591-019-0406-6
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    Randel KR, Schult AL, Botteri E, Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Ursin G, Natvig E, Berstad P, Jørgensen A, Sandvei PK, et al. Colorectal cancer screening with repeated fecal immunochemical test versus sigmoidoscopy: baseline results from a randomized trial. Gastroenterology. United States; 2020;
  47. 47.↵
    Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH). Norwegian Prescription Database (NorPD) [cited 2020 Nov 5]. https://www.fhi.no/en/hn/health-registries/norpd/
  48. 48.↵
    Cancer Registry of Norway. Cancer in Norway 2019 - Cancer incidence, mortality, survival and prevalence in Norway. Oslo; 2020.
  49. 49.↵
    Vandenbroucke JP, Von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, Poole C, Schlesselman JJ, Egger M. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4:1628–54.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  50. 50.
    Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, Poole C, Schlesselman JJ, Egger M, Blettner M, et al. S1,trengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. Int J Surg Elsevier Ltd; 2014;12:1500–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.014
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.↵
    Bharucha T, Oeser C, Balloux F, Brown JR, Carbo EC, Charlett A, Chiu CY, Claas ECJ, de Goffau MC, de Vries JJC, et al. STROBE-metagenomics: a STROBE extension statement to guide the reporting of metagenomics studies. Lancet Infect Dis Elsevier Ltd; 2020;3099:1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30199-7
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.↵
    University of Oslo (UiO). About TSD [cited 2020 Dec 14]. https://www.uio.no/english/services/it/research/sensitive-data/about/index.html
  53. 53.↵
    Köster J, Rahmann S. Snakemake - A scalable bioinformatics workflow engine. Bioinformatics. 2018;34:3600.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: A flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2114–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  55. 55.↵
    Langmead B, Salzberg SL. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods. 2012;9:357–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. 56.↵
    Ewels P, Magnusson M, Lundin S, Käller M. MultiQC: Summarize analysis results for multiple tools and samples in a single report. Bioinformatics. 2016;32:3047–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    Andersen LF, Solvoll K, Johansson LRK, Salminen I, Aro A, Drevon CA. Evaluation of a food frequency questionnaire with weighed records, fatty acids, and alpha- tocopherol in adipose tissue and serum. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;150:75–87.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  58. 58.
    Andersen LF, Tomten H, Haggarty P, Løvø A, Hustvedt BE. Validation of energy intake estimated from a food frequency questionnaire: A doubly labelled water study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2003;57:279–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  59. 59.↵
    Carlsen MH, Lillegaard IT, Karlsen A, Blomhoff R, Drevon CA, Andersen LF. Evaluation of energy and dietary intake estimates from a food frequency questionnaire using independent energy expenditure measurement and weighed food records. Nutr J. 2010;9:1–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.
    Andersen LF, Veierød MB, Johansson L, Sakhi A, Solvoll K, Drevon CA. Evaluation of three dietary assessment methods and serum biomarkers as measures of fruit and vegetable intake, using the method of triads. Br J Nutr. 2005;93:519–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  61. 61.↵
    Carlsen MH, Karlsen A, Lillegaard ITL, Gran JM, Drevon CA, Blomhoff R, Andersen LF. Relative validity of fruit and vegetable intake estimated from an FFQ, using carotenoid and flavonoid biomarkers and the method of triads. Br J Nutr. 2011;105:1530–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    Brunvoll SH, Thune I, Frydenberg H, Flote VG, Bertheussen GF, Schlichting E, Bjerve KS, Hjartå ker A. Validation of repeated self-reported n-3 PUFA intake using serum phospholipid fatty acids as a biomarker in breast cancer patients during treatment. Nutr J. Nutrition Journal; 2018;17:1–12.
    OpenUrl
  63. 63.↵
    Norwegian Food Safety Authority. Norwegian Food Composition Database 2019 [cited 2020 Jun 16]. www.matvaretabellen.no
  64. 64.↵
    Johansson I, Hallmans G, Wikman Å, Biessy C, Riboli E, Kaaks R. Validation and calibration of food-frequency questionnaire measurements in the Northern Sweden Health and Disease cohort. Public Health Nutr. 2002;5:487–96.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  65. 65.↵
    Holmberg L, Ohlander EM, Byers T, Zack M, Wolk A, Bruce Å, Bergstrom R, Bergkvist L, Adami HO. A Search for Recall Bias in a Case-Control Study of Diet and Breast Cancer. Int J Epidemiol. 1996;25:235–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  66. 66.↵
    Willett W. Nutritional epidemiology. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press; 2013.
  67. 67.↵
    World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research. Diet, nutrition, physical activity and colorectal cancer Continuous Update Project. 2018. https://www.wcrf.org/sites/default/files/Colorectal-cancer-report.pdf%0A https://www.wcrf.org/sites/default/files/Oesophageal-cancer-report.pdf
  68. 68.↵
    Shams-White MM, Brockton NT, Mitrou P, Romaguera D, Brown S, Bender A, Kahle LL, Reedy J. Operationalizing the 2018 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) Cancer Prevention Recommendations: A Standardized Scoring System. Nutrients. 2019;11:1572.
    OpenUrl
  69. 69.↵
    Markussen MS, Veierod MB., Kristiansen AL, Ursin G, Andersen LF. Dietary patterns of women aged 50-69 years and associations with nutrient intake, sociodemographic factors and key risk factors for non-communicable diseases. Public Health Nutr. 2016;19:2024–32.
    OpenUrl
  70. 70.↵
    Knudsen MD, Berstad P, Hjartå ker A, Gulichsen EH, Hoff G, De Lange T, Bernklev T, Botteri E. Lifestyle predictors for non-participation and outcome in the second round of faecal immunochemical test in colorectal cancer screening. Br J Cancer. 2017;117:461–9.
    OpenUrl
  71. 71.↵
    Folkehelseinstituttet. Reseptregisteret 2012-2016. 2017.
  72. 72.↵
    WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Structure and principles [cited 2020 Sep 28]. https://www.whocc.no/atc/structure_and_principles/
  73. 73.↵
    WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC/DDD Index 2020 [cited 2020 Sep 28]. https://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_index/
  74. 74.↵
    Cancer Registry of Norway. Cancer in Norway 2018 - Cancer incidence, mortality, survival and prevalence in Norway. Oslo; 2019.
  75. 75.↵
    Larsen IK, Smastuen M, Johannesen TB, Langmark F, Parkin DM, Bray F, Moller B. Data quality at the Cancer Registry of Norway: an overview of comparability, completeness, validity and timeliness. Eur J Cancer. England; 2009;45:1218–31.
    OpenUrl
  76. 76.↵
    Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH). Access to data from the Norwegian Prescription Database [cited 2020 Jun 19]. https://www.fhi.no/en/hn/health-registries/norpd/Access-data-norpd/#legal-requirements-for-the-disclosure-of-data-from-the-norpd
  77. 77.↵
    Cancer Registry of Norway. The microbiome as a colorectal cancer screening biomarker [cited 2020 Sep 29]. https://www.kreftregisteret.no/en/Research/Projects/microbiota-and-lifestyle-in-colorectal-cancer-screeing/
  78. 78.↵
    Tibshirani R. atRegression Shrinkage and Selection Via the Lasso.. doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1996;58:267–88.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  79. 79.↵
    Cortes C, Vapnik V. Support-vector networks. Mach Learn. 1995;
  80. 80.↵
    Breiman L. Random forests. Mach Learn. 2001;1–122.
  81. 81.↵
    Haykin S. Neural Networks and Learning Machines. Third Edit. Pearson Prentice Hall; 2009.
  82. 82.↵
    Chen T, Guestrin C. XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. Proc 22nd ACM SIGKDD Int Conf Knowl Discov Data Min. 2016;
  83. 83.↵
    Stark M, Zapf A. Sample size calculation and re-estimation based on the prevalence in a single-arm confirmatory diagnostic accuracy study. Stat Methods Med Res. 2020;
  84. 84.↵
    Nagata N, Tohya M, Fukuda S, Suda W, Nishijima S, Takeuchi F, Ohsugi M, Tsujimoto T, Nakamura T, Shimomura A, et al. Effects of bowel preparation on the human gut microbiome and metabolome. Sci Rep. 2019;9:1–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. 85.↵
    Ahlquist DA, McGill DB, Fleming JL, Schwartz S, Wieand HS, Rubin J, Moertel CG. Patterns of occult bleeding in asymptomatic colorectal cancer. Cancer. 1989;63:1826–30.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  86. 86.↵
    Hannelore D. Diet and the gut microbiome: from hype to hypothesis. Br J Nutr. 2020;1–24.
  87. 87.↵
    Berstad P, Løberg M, Larsen IK, Kalager M, Holme Ø, Botteri E, Bretthauer M, Hoff G. Long-term lifestyle changes after colorectal cancer screening: Randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2015;64:1268–76.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  88. 88.↵
    Knudsen MD, Hjartåker A, Olsen MKE, Hoff G, De Lange T, Bernklev T, Berstad P. Changes in health behavior 1 year after testing negative at a colorectal cancer screening: A randomized-controlled study. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2018;27:316–22.
    OpenUrl
  89. 89.
    Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau JM, Regula J, Brandão C, Chaussade S, Dekker E, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Ferlitsch M, Gimeno-García A, et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2013;45:842–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted December 24, 2020.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The CRCbiome study: a large prospective cohort study examining the role of lifestyle and the gut microbiome in colorectal cancer screening participants
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
The CRCbiome study: a large prospective cohort study examining the role of lifestyle and the gut microbiome in colorectal cancer screening participants
Ane Sørlie Kværner, Einar Birkeland, Cecilie Bucher-Johannessen, Elina Vinberg, Jan Inge Nordby, Harri Kangas, Vahid Bemanian, Pekka Ellonen, Edoardo Botteri, Erik Natvig, Torbjørn Rognes, Eivind Hovig, Robert Lyle, Ole Herman Ambur, Willem M. de Vos, Scott Bultman, Anette Hjartåker, Rikard Landberg, Mingyang Song, Giske Ursin, Kristin Ranheim Randel, Thomas de Lange, Geir Hoff, Øyvind Holme, Paula Berstad, Trine B. Rounge
medRxiv 2020.12.22.20248658; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.22.20248658
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
The CRCbiome study: a large prospective cohort study examining the role of lifestyle and the gut microbiome in colorectal cancer screening participants
Ane Sørlie Kværner, Einar Birkeland, Cecilie Bucher-Johannessen, Elina Vinberg, Jan Inge Nordby, Harri Kangas, Vahid Bemanian, Pekka Ellonen, Edoardo Botteri, Erik Natvig, Torbjørn Rognes, Eivind Hovig, Robert Lyle, Ole Herman Ambur, Willem M. de Vos, Scott Bultman, Anette Hjartåker, Rikard Landberg, Mingyang Song, Giske Ursin, Kristin Ranheim Randel, Thomas de Lange, Geir Hoff, Øyvind Holme, Paula Berstad, Trine B. Rounge
medRxiv 2020.12.22.20248658; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.22.20248658

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Epidemiology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)