Next Article in Journal
Multi-Output Machine Learning for Prediction of Postoperative Outcomes After Cardiac Surgery Using Patient Blood Management Biomarkers
Previous Article in Journal
Outcomes of Indication-Based Reconstruction Strategies in a Retrospective Observational Cohort of Patients with Paprosky Type IIC Acetabular Defects
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/jcm15114219
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Review

Fecal Immunochemical Test and Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Real-World Practice: A Literature Review

by
Ashish Sharma
1,
Angad Tiwari
2,
Ishita Ray
3,
Ruchir Paladiya
4,
Harendra Kumar
5,
Sukhmani Sidhu
4,
Saloni Haldule
4,
Hareesha Rishab Bharadwaj
6,
Saqr Alsakarneh
5,
Manesh Kumar Gangwani
7,
Hassam Ali
8 and
Dushyant Singh Dahiya
9,*
1
Department of Internal Medicine, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT 06510, USA
2
Department of Internal Medicine, Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi 284128, Uttar Pradesh, India
3
Department of Internal Medicine, Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Indore 452001, Madhya Pradesh, India
4
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Hartford, CT 06106, USA
5
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
6
Department of Internal Medicine, Royal Stoke University Hospital, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS, Stoke-on-Trent ST4 6QG, UK
7
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA
8
Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27834, USA
9
Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Motility, The University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS 66160, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2026, 15(11), 4219; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15114219
Submission received: 26 February 2026 / Revised: 29 April 2026 / Accepted: 26 May 2026 / Published: 29 May 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Gastroenterology & Hepatopancreatobiliary Medicine)
Versions Notes

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is responsible for a high cancer burden and a high number of deaths all over the world, although effective screening can make it preventable to a significant extent. Stool-based tests, such as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) testing, are gaining considerable popularity as non-invasive procedures that can be a replacement for colonoscopies for people at an average risk for colon cancer. Despite evidence from several randomized controlled trials supporting the use of these tests for colorectal cancer screening, their external validity in a real-world setting is influenced by many factors such as adherence, timely follow-up post testing, the healthcare cost burden, accessibility and the capacity of the health system. In this article, we have performed an extensive narrative literature review of research published between 2020 and 2025 comparing FIT and the mt-sDNA test with reference to diagnostic accuracy, cost-effectiveness, adherence and outcomes of implementation. We discuss the issues of sensitivity and specificity, look at post-test requirements for colonoscopy and check if there is any discrimination in healthcare. These findings suggest that FIT and mt-sDNA tests should not be considered competing technologies but rather complementary screening methods, with their overall effectiveness contingent upon appropriate patient selection and widespread system-level implementation. It is crucial to combine strategic test selection with a robust follow-up infrastructure to ensure that the entire population benefits from the CRC prevention program.
Keywords: colorectal cancer; fecal immunochemical test (FIT); multitarget stool DNA test (mt-sDNA); preventive oncology colorectal cancer; fecal immunochemical test (FIT); multitarget stool DNA test (mt-sDNA); preventive oncology

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sharma, A.; Tiwari, A.; Ray, I.; Paladiya, R.; Kumar, H.; Sidhu, S.; Haldule, S.; Bharadwaj, H.R.; Alsakarneh, S.; Gangwani, M.K.; et al. Fecal Immunochemical Test and Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Real-World Practice: A Literature Review. J. Clin. Med. 2026, 15, 4219. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15114219

AMA Style

Sharma A, Tiwari A, Ray I, Paladiya R, Kumar H, Sidhu S, Haldule S, Bharadwaj HR, Alsakarneh S, Gangwani MK, et al. Fecal Immunochemical Test and Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Real-World Practice: A Literature Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2026; 15(11):4219. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15114219

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sharma, Ashish, Angad Tiwari, Ishita Ray, Ruchir Paladiya, Harendra Kumar, Sukhmani Sidhu, Saloni Haldule, Hareesha Rishab Bharadwaj, Saqr Alsakarneh, Manesh Kumar Gangwani, and et al. 2026. "Fecal Immunochemical Test and Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Real-World Practice: A Literature Review" Journal of Clinical Medicine 15, no. 11: 4219. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15114219

APA Style

Sharma, A., Tiwari, A., Ray, I., Paladiya, R., Kumar, H., Sidhu, S., Haldule, S., Bharadwaj, H. R., Alsakarneh, S., Gangwani, M. K., Ali, H., & Dahiya, D. S. (2026). Fecal Immunochemical Test and Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Real-World Practice: A Literature Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 15(11), 4219. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15114219

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop