[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This study evaluated the relationship between hyperuricemia and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) by comparing the incidence rates of NAFLD in relation to serum uric acid levels in apparently healthy subjects during a 5-year period.
Among 15,638 healthy Korean subjects who participated in a health-screening program in 2003 and 2008, respectively, 4954 subjects without other risk factors were enrolled in this study. We compared the incidence rates of NAFLD in 2008 with respect to baseline uric acid levels.
In 2003, serum uric acid levels were categorized into the following quartiles: 0.6-3.9, 3.9-4.8, 4.8-5.9, and 5.9-12.6 mg/dL. The incidence of NAFLD in 2008 increased with the level of baseline uric acid (5.6%, 9.8%, 16.2%, and 20.9%, respectively; p<0.05). Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that hyperuricemia was associated with the development of NAFLD. When compared to the subjects in quartile 1, the odds ratio (OR) for the incidence of NAFLD for quartiles 2, 3, and 4 were 1.53 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-2.16; p=0.014], 1.69 (95% CI, 1.17-2.44; p=0.005), and 1.84 (95% CI, 1.25-2.71; p=0.002), respectively.
High serum uric acid levels appear to be associated with an increased risk of the development of NAFLD.
Gut and liver 09/2010; 4(3):378-83. · 1.31 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using stool DNA has yielded a greater detection rate than conventional fecal occult blood testing. The aim of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of this detection method for colorectal adenomas and carcinomas using ITGA4, SFRP2 and p16 promoter methylation.
The methylation status of ITGA4, SFRP2 and p16 promoters in bisulfite-modified stool DNA was investigated in a blinded manner with methylation specific PCR (MSP) from 31 endoscopically diagnosed healthy controls, 25 patients with adenomas and 30 patients with CRC.
Methylated ITGA4, SFRP2 and p16 promoters were detected in 36.7%, 60.0%, and 40.0% of the CRC samples and in 16.0%, 44.0%, and 24.0% of the colorectal adenomas, respectively. The sensitivity of the combined study using the three markers for CRC and colorectal adenoma detection was 70.0% and 72.0%. The specificity of this method was 96.8%.
Our results demonstrate that ITGA4, SFRP2 and p16 promoter methylation in stool samples had high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of colorectal adenomas and CRC. This newly developed screening may be a useful non-invasive alternative screening for CRC detection.
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To investigate the feasibility of detecting hypermethylation in stool samples as a noninvasive screening tool for colorectal cancer and precancerous lesions, we evaluated the hypermethylation of three genes in the stool samples of patients with colorectal cancer, patients with colorectal adenomas, and healthy control subjects.
Stool samples were obtained from 37 endoscopically diagnosed healthy controls, 52 patients with adenomas, and 60 patients with colorectal cancer. The methylation status of the methylguanine DNA methyltransferase, human Mut L homolog-1, and vimentin promoter in bisulfite-modified DNA was investigated in a blinded manner by methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction with primer pairs designed to amplify specifically the methylated or unmethylated alleles.
The methylated methylguanine DNA methyltransferase, human Mut L homolog-1, and vimentin were detected in 51.7%, 30.0%, and 38.3% of colorectal cancer, and in 36.5%, 11.%, and 15.4% of colorectal adenomas, respectively. The sensitivities of the combined study, using three markers for the detection of colorectal cancer and colorectal adenomas, were 75.0% and 59.6%. The specificity was 86.5%.
Our results have demonstrated that the promoter hypermethylation for methylguanine DNA methyltransferase, human Mut L homolog-1, and vimentin in stool samples is a feasible epigenetic marker that is a sensitive, specific, and noninvasive alternative for colorectal cancer screening. This method of screening for colorectal cancer may be useful for patients that decline screening because of fear or inconvenience.
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 09/2009; 52(8):1452-9; discussion 1459-63. · 3.34 Impact Factor