Evaluation of the diagnostic value of YiDiXie™-SS and YiDiXie™-HS in esophageal cancer
==========================================================================================
* Xutai Li
* Zhenjian Ge
* Peng Liao
* Chen Sun
* Wenkang Chen
* Yingqi Li
* Shengjie Lin
* Pengwu Zhang
* Wuping Wang
* Siwei Chen
* Yutong Wu
* Huimei Zhou
* Wei Li
* Jing Du
* Fangting Zhang
* Yongqing Lai
## Abstract
**Background** Esophageal cancer is a serious threat to human health and causes a heavy economic burden. upper gastrointestinal imaging(UGI imaging), enhanced CT, Fecal occult blood Tumor markers such as test(FOBT) and CEA, CA125 and CA19-9 are widely used in the screening or preliminary diagnosis of esophageal cancer. However, false positive results such as UGI imaging will bring unnecessary mental pain, expensive examination costs, examination injuries and other adverse consequences. However, false negative results such as UGI imaging lead to delayed treatment, and patients will have to bear the adverse consequences of poor prognosis, high treatment costs, poor quality of life, and short survival time. It is urgent to find a convenient, economical and non-invasive diagnostic method to reduce the false negative rate and false positive rate of UGI imaging. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of YiDiXie™-SS and YiDiXie™-HS in esophageal cancer.
**Patients and methods** This study included 164 subjects (malignant group, n=105; Benign group, n=59 cases). The remaining serum samples of the subjects were collected and the sensitivity and specificity of the YiDiXi ™-SS and YiDiXie™-HS were evaluated using the YiDiXie™all-cancer detection kit.
**Results** The sensitivity of YiDiXie™-SS was 99.0% (95% CI: 94.8% - 100%) and its specificity was 62.7% (95% CI: 50.0% - 73.9%).
The sensitivity of YiDiXie™-HS was 92.3% (95% CI: 85.7% - 96.1%) and its specificity was 86.4% (95% CI: 75.5% - 93.0%). The sensitivity of YiDiXie™-SS in UGI imaging, enhanced CT, FOBT, CEA, CA125 and CA19-9 positive patients was 96.6% (95% CI: 82.8-99.8%) and 98.7% (95% CI: 93.1% - 99.9%), 100% (95% CI: 17.8% 100%), 100% (95% CI: 81.6% 100%), 100% (95% CI: 61.0% 100%), 100% (95%CI: 56.6%-100%); The specific degrees were 60.0% (95% CI: 23.1% 92.9%), 75.0% (95% CI: 30.1% 98.7%), 100% (95% CI: 5.1% 100%), 100% (95% CI: 43.9% - 100%), 100% (95% CI: 5.1% 100%), 50.0% (95% CI: 2.6% 97.4%). This means that the application of YiDiXie™-SS, without basically increasing the missed diagnosis of malignant tumors, reduced the false positive range of UGI imaging, enhanced CT, FOBT, CEA, CA125 and CA19-9 by 60.0% (95% CI: 23.1% - 92.9%), 75.0% (95% CI: 30.1% 98.7%), 100% (95% CI: 5.1% 100%), 100% (95% CI: 43.9% 100%), 100% (95% CI: 5.1% - 100%), 50.0% (95% CI: 2.6% 97.4%).
The sensitivity of YiDiXie™-HS in UGI imaging, enhanced CT, FOBT, CEA, CA125 and CA19-9 negative patients was 88.9% (95% CI: 56.5% - 99.4%), 92.6% (95% CI: 84.8% - 96.6%), 96.9% (95% CI: 84.3% - 99.8%), 92.6% (95% CI: 84.8% - 96.6%), 92.0% (95% CI: 84.5% - 96.1%), 91.3% (95% CI: 83.8% - 95.5%), respectively; The specific degrees were 60.0% (95% CI: 23.1% 92.9%), 87.3% (95% CI: 76.0% 93.7%), 80.0% (95% CI: 37.6% 99.0%), 89.1% (95% CI: 78.2% - 94.9%), 79.3% (95% CI: 61.6% 90.2%), 87.0% (95% CI: 75.6% 93.6%). This means that YiDiXie™-HS reduced false negatives for UGI imaging, enhanced CT, FOBT, CEA, CA125 and CA19-9 by 88.9% (95% CI: 56.5% - 99.4%), 92.6% (95% CI: 84.8% 96.6%), 96.9% (95% CI: 84.3% 99.8%), 92.6% (95% CI: 84.8% 96.6%), 92.0% (95% CI: 84.5% - 96.1%), 91.3% (95% CI: 83.8% 95.5%).
**Conclusion** YiDiXie™-SS significantly reduced the false-positive rate of UGI imaging, enhanced CT, FOBT, CEA, CA125 and CA19-9 without substantially increasing the delayed treatment of malignant tumors. YiDiXie™ -HS significantly reduced false negative rates for UGI imaging, enhanced CT, FOBT, CEA, CA125 and CA19-9. YiDiXie™-SS and YiDiXie™-HS have important diagnostic value in esophageal cancer, and are expected to solve the two problems of “too high false positive rate such as UGI imaging” and “too high false negative rate such as UGI imaging” in esophageal cancer.
**Clinical trial number** ChiCTR2200066840.
Key words
* Esophageal cancer
* UGI imaging
* enhanced CT
* Fecal occult blood test
* CEA
* CA125
* CA15-3
* CA19-9
* False-positive
* False-negative
* YiDiXie™-SS
* YiDiXie™-HS
## INTRODUCTION
Esophageal carcinoma is among the most prevalent malignant tumors. According to the most recent data, 510,000 new instances of esophageal cancer would be diagnosed globally in 2022, with 440,000 additional fatalities1. Esophageal cancer is the seventh major cause of cancer-related death and the eleventh most frequent cancer globally. Patients with esophageal cancer had a lower survival rate when their tumor was aggressive, had a lymph node, or had distant metastases. The total 5-year survival rate is 15-25%, with early diagnosis yielding better results than late diagnosis2. Poor prognosis in individuals with esophageal cancer is frequently related with an advanced (metastatic) diagnosis and the cancer’s ability to metastasis, even if the tumor is merely superficial3. The prognosis for esophageal cancer is favorable only in the very early stages4, while esophagectomy remains the primary treatment for locally advanced cancer5. Therefore, esophageal cancer is a serious threat to human healt.
Upper gastrointestinal imaging (UGI) and enhanced CT are commonly used to screen for and diagnose esophageal cancer. On the one hand, UGI imaging and enhanced CT can generate a high percentage of false positives. The barium meal research had a positive predictive value of 42%6. Barium meal X-rays correctly diagnose esophageal cancer at 83.8% accuracy7. The false positive rate of enhanced CT in evaluating esophageal cancer is 5-10%8-10, with a positive predictive value of only 31.3%10. When UGI imaging and enhanced CT results are good, patients are frequently scheduled for esophagoscopy. False positive results from UGI imaging and enhanced CT mean that the patient has received an unnecessarily expensive and invasive esophagoscopy, and the patient will have to bear the adverse consequences of mental distress, expensive examination costs, and examination injuries. Therefore, it is urgent to find a convenient, economical and non-invasive diagnostic method to reduce the false positive rate of UGI imaging and enhanced CT.
On the other hand, Enhanced CT and UGI imaging can result in a significant percentage of false negatives. The false negative rate for esophageal cancer using X-ray barium meal was 15 – 55%7,11-12. The enhanced CT assessment of esophageal cancer has a 40% false-negative rate8. Up to 78% of enhanced CT scans for esophageal cancer were falsely negative10. Patients often have observation and routine follow-up when results from enhanced CT and UGI imaging are negative. False negative results from UGI imaging and enhanced CT mean that the malignant tumor is misdiagnosed as benign disease, which can lead to delayed treatment, progression of the malignant tumor, and possibly advanced stage development. Therefore, patients will have to bear the adverse consequences of poor prognosis, high treatment costs, poor quality of life, and short survival. Therefore, it is urgent to find a convenient, economical and non-invasive diagnostic method to reduce the false negative rate of UGI imaging and enhanced CT.
Furthermore, tumor markers like CEA, CA125 and CA19-9, as well as the fecal occult blood test (FOBT), are frequently employed in the screening process for esophageal cancer. On the one hand, a lot of false positive results can be obtained from procedures like UGI imaging, enhanced CT, FOBT, CEA, CA125 CA19-9, etc. 32.5% of CEA+CA199 combination detection cases resulted in false positives13. Patients often get an esophagoscopy if UGI imaging is positive. False positive results, like UGI imaging, indicate that the patient underwent an intrusive and costly esophagoscopy without necessity. As a result, the patient will suffer from psychological distress, high examination fees, and examination-related injuries. Therefore, it is urgent to find a convenient, economical and non-invasive diagnostic method to reduce the false positive rate of UGI imaging.
On the other side, a lot of false negative results can be obtained from procedures like FOBT, CEA, CA125 CA19-9, etc. 80% of FOBT false negative results are associated with esophageal cancer14-15 . The percentages of false negative results for CEA and CA19-9 in cases of esophageal cancer were 60-75% and 66-82%, respectively16-17. The negative predictive values were 61.72% and 54.94%, respectively16. Up to 90% of CA125 tests result in erroneous negative results18. In the event that UGI imaging is negative, patients are typically monitored and routinely checked on. False negative results such as UGI imaging mean that the malignant tumor is misdiagnosed as a benign disease, which may lead to delayed treatment, the progression of the malignant tumor, and possibly even the advanced stage. Therefore, patients will have to bear the adverse consequences of poor prognosis, high treatment costs, poor quality of life, and short survival. Therefore, it is urgent to find a convenient, economical and non-invasive diagnostic method to reduce the false negative rate of UGI imaging.
Based on the detection of novel tumor markers of miRNA in serum, Shenzhen Kerida Health Technology Co., Ltd. has developed an in vitro diagnostic test product: YiDiXie ™ all-cancer test (hereinafter referred to as “the YiDiXie™ test”). The YiDiXie ™ test, which can detect multiple cancer types with just 200 microliters of whole blood or 100 microliters of serum at a time19. The “YiDiXie ™ test” includes three products with different performance: YiDiXie™-HS, YiDiXie™-SS, and YiDiXie™-D19.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic value of YiDiXie™-SS and YiDiXie™-HS in esophageal cancer.
## PATIENTS AND METHODS
### Study design
This study is part of the sub-study “Assessment of the YiDiXie ™ test as an adjunct diagnostic tool across various tumors” within the SZ-PILOT project (ChiCTR2200066840).
SZ-PILOT is a forward-looking, observational, single-center trial (ChiCTR2200066840). For this investigation, 0.5 ml of leftover serum from participants who had consented to donate residual samples during their physical exams or admissions were utilized.
The study was conducted with a blinded design. Laboratory technicians performed the YiDiXie ™ test without access to the participants’ clinical information. Results were then reviewed by KeRuiDa laboratory staff. Similarly, the clinical professionals assessing the participants’ clinical data were unaware of the YiDiXie™ test results.
The study received approval from the Ethics Committee of Shenzhen Hospital at Peking University and was conducted in adherence to the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) guidelines for the Quality Management of Pharmaceutical Clinical Trials and the Declaration of Helsinki.
### Participants
The study included patients with esophageal cancer and colorectal benign disease who had UGI imaging, enhanced CT, FOBT, CEA, CA125 and CA19-9 test results. Both groups were enrolled individually, and all participants who met the inclusion criteria were included indefinitely.
Patients with “suspected (solid or blood) malignancy” who completed the paninformed consent form to provide remaining samples were initially included in this study. Subjects having a postoperative pathological diagnosis of “malignancy” were placed in the malignant group, whereas those with a postoperative pathological diagnosis of “benign disease” were put in the benign group. This investigation omitted pathology outcomes that were benign or malignant. The benign group also included healthy exam patients with esophagoscopy results. Previous studies by our study group19 employed samples from both the malignant tumor group and the benign group of healthy medical examiners.
Participants who failed serum sample quality tests prior to the YiDiXie ™ test were eliminated from the study. Refer to our study group’s earlier studies for the precise enrollment and exclusion scenario19.
### Sample collection, processing
There was no need for additional blood sampling because the serum samples used in this inquiry were from serum left over from a normal consultation. For the YiDiXie ™ test, the Medical Laboratory removed approximately 0.5 cc of serum from each participant and stored it at -80°C.
### The YiDiXie test
Shenzhen KeRuiDa Health Technology Co. developed and manufactures the YiDiXie ™ all-cancer detection kit, an in vitro diagnostic kit for fluorescent quantitative PCR machines used to perform the YiDiXie™ test19. It detects cancer in the subject’s body by measuring the expression levels of several miRNA biomarkers in the serum19. It preserves specificity and boosts sensitivity for a wide range of malignancies by combining these independent assays in a real-time testing format and predefining appropriate parameters for each miRNA biomarker to ensure that each miRNA marker is highly specific19.
The YiDiXie™ test includes three unique tests: YiDiXie ™ -HS, YiDiXie ™ -SS, and YiDiXie ™ -D.
YiDiXie ™ -HS was developed with a focus on specificity and sensitivity19. YiDiXie™-SS significantly increased the number of miRNA assays, resulting in extremely high sensitivity for all clinical stages of malignant tumors19. YiDiXie™-D considerably raises the diagnostic threshold for individual miRNA testing, resulting in high specificity for all types of cancer19.
To perform the YiDiXie ™ test, follow the instructions provided. Refer to our prior work19 for comprehensive procedures.
Laboratory technicians at Shenzhen KeRuiDa Health Technology Co., Ltd. analyze raw test findings and determine if the YiDiXie ™ test is “positive” or “negative”19.
### Extraction of clinical data
The clinical, pathological, laboratory, and imaging data for this inquiry were sourced from the patients’ inpatient medical records or physical examination reports. Clinical staging was performed by trained physicians using the AJCC staging manual (7th or 8th edition)20-21.
### Statistical analyses
Descriptive statistics were used to record baseline and demographic data. For continuous variables, the mean, standard deviation (SD) or standard error (SE), median, first quartile (Q1), third quartile (Q3), minimum and maximum values were calculated. For categorical variables, the number and percentage of subjects in each category were calculated. For a number of metrics, the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Wilson (score) technique.
## RESULTS
### Participant disposition
There were 164 individuals total (105 malignant and 59 benign). The 164 research participants’ clinical and demographic details are listed in Table 1.
View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T1)
Table 1. Participants’ demographic and clinical manifestation
The clinical and demographic features of the two groups were similar (Table 1). Aged 61.6 (9.79) years on average (standard deviation), 23.8% (39/164) of the population was female.
### Diagnostic performance of YiDiXie™-SS
As shown in Table 2, the sensitivity of YiDiXie™ -SS was 99.0% (95% CI: 94.8% - 100%; 104/105) and its specificity was 62.7% (95% CI: 50.0% - 73.9%; 37/59).
View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T2)
Table 2. The performance of YiDiXie™-SS
### Diagnostic performance of YiDiXie™-HS
As shown in Table 3, the sensitivity of YiDiXie™ -HS was 92.3% (95% CI: 85.7% - 96.1%; 97/105) and its specificity was 86.4% (95% CI: 75.5% - 93.0%; 51/59).
View this table:
[Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T3)
Table 3. The performance of YiDiXie’“-HS
### Diagnostic performance of YiDiXie™-SS and YiDiXie™-HS in UGI imaging-positive or negative patients
As shown in Table 4, the UGI imaging sensitivity and specificity were 76.3% (95% CI: 60.8% -87.0%) and 50.0% (95% CI: 23.7% -76.3%), respectively.
View this table:
[Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T4)
Table 4. The performance of UGI imaging
YiDiXie™-SS was used on patients who had positive results from UGI imaging in order to solve the issue of the high false positive rate. YiDiXie™-SS’s sensitivity and specificity were 96.6% (95% CI: 82.8% -99.8%) and 60.0% (95% CI: 23.1% -92.9%), respectively, as indicated in Table 5. This indicates that using YiDiXie ™ -SS lowers the false positive rate of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) imaging by 60.0% (95% CI: 23.1% -92.9%) without significantly raising the risk of malignancy.
View this table:
[Table 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T5)
Table 5. The performance of YiDiXie™-SS in UGI imaging-positive patients
YiDiXie ™ -HS was used on patients who had negative results from UGI imaging in order to solve the issue of the high rate of false negative results. YiDiXie™-HS’s sensitivity and specificity were 88.9% (95% CI: 56.5% – 99.4%) and 60.0% (95% CI: 23.1% – 92.9%), respectively, as indicated in Table 6.This means that YiDiXie™-HS reduces the UGI imaging false negative rate by 88.9% (95%: 95% CI: 99.5%-99.4%).
View this table:
[Table 6.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T6)
Table 6. The performance of YiDiXie™-HS in UGI imaging-negative patients
### Diagnostic performance of YiDiXie™-SS and YiDiXie™-HS in enhanced CT-positive or negative patients
As shown in Table 7, the enhanced CT sensitivity and specificity were 78.0% (95% CI: 68.9% – 85.0%) and 60.0% (95% CI: 31.3% – 83.2%), respectively.
View this table:
[Table 7.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T7)
Table 7. The performance of enhanced CT
YiDiXie™-SS was used on patients who tested positive for enhanced CT to reduce false positives. Table 8 shows YiDiXie™-SS has a sensitivity of 98.7% (95% CI: 93.1% -99.9%) and a specificity of 75.0% (95% CI: 30.1% -98.7%) in enhanced CT positive patients. YiDiXie™-SS lowers false positives in enhanced CT by 75.0% (95% CI: 30.1% -98.7%) without increasing malignant tumor leaking.
View this table:
[Table 8.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T8)
Table 8. The performance of YiDiXie™-SS in enhanced CT-positive patients
YiDiXie™-HS was used on enhanced CT-negative patients to reduce false negative results. To address the problem of a high rate of false negative enhanced CT, YiDiXie™-HS was applied to enhanced CT-negative patients. As shown in Table 9, the sensitivity and specificity of YiDiXie™-HS in enhanced CT negative patients were 92.6% 9.6% (95% CI: 84.8% -96.6%) and 87.3% 95% CI: 76.0% -93.7%), respectively. This means that YiDiXie™-HS reduces the enhanced CT false negative rate by 92.6% (95% CI: 95%. 8% -96.6% -96.6%).
View this table:
[Table 9.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T9)
Table 9. The performance of YiDiXie™-HS in enhanced CT-negative patients
### Diagnostic performance of YiDiXie ™ -SS and YiDiXie ™ -HS in FOBT-positive or negative patients
As shown in Table 10, FOBT sensitivity and specificity were 5.9% (95% CI: 1.0% -19.1%) and 83.3% (95% CI: 43.6% -99.1%), respectively.
View this table:
[Table 10.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T10)
Table 10. The performance of FOBT
YiDiXie™-SS was used on patients with positive FOBT to reduce false positives. Table 11 shows YiDiXie™-SS had 100% sensitivity (95% CI: 17.8% -100%) and 100% specificity (95% CI: 5.1% -100%) in FOBT positive patients. YiDiXie™-SS significantly reduces false positive rates in FOBT by 100% (95% CI: 5.1% -100%) without increasing malignancy leakage.
View this table:
[Table 11.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T11)
Table 11. The performance of YiDiXie™-SS in FOBT-positive patients
YiDiXie™-HS was used on patients with negative FOBT to reduce the high false negative rate. Table 12 shows YiDiXie™-HS has a sensitivity of 96.9% (95% CI: 84.3% -99.8%) and specificity of 80.0% (95% CI: 37.6% -99.8% -99.0%).This means that YiDiXie™-HS reduces 96.9% (95% CI: 94.3% -99.8%).
View this table:
[Table 12.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T12)
Table 12. The performance of YiDiXie™-HS in FOBT-negative patients
### Diagnostic Performance of YiDiXie™-SS and YiDiXie™-HS in CEA-positive or negative patients
As shown in Table 13, the CEA sensitivity and specificity were 17.3% (95% CI: 11.1% - 26.0%) and 94.8% (95% CI: 85.9% - 98.6%), respectively.
View this table:
[Table 13.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T13)
Table 13. The performance of CEA
YiDiXie™-SS was used on CEA positive patients in order to address the issue of the high false positive rate of CEA. According to Table 14, YiDiXie™-SS had a 100% (95% CI: 81.6% -100%) sensitivity and a 100% (95% CI: 43.9% - 100%) specificity in CEA-positive individuals. Accordingly, using YiDiXie™-SS decreases false positive CEA rates by 100% (95% CI: 43.9% -100%) without significantly raising the miss of malignancy.
View this table:
[Table 14.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T14)
Table 14. The performance of YiDiXie™-SS in CEA-positive patients
YiDiXie™-HS was used on CEA negative patients in order to solve the issue of the high false negative rate of CEA. YiDiXie™-HS’s sensitivity and specificity in CEA-negative patients were 92.6% (95% CI: 84.8% - 96.6%) and 89.1% (95% CI: 78.2% - 94.9%), respectively, as indicated in Table 15. This means that the application of YiDiXie™-HS reduces the CEA false negative rate by 92.6% (95% CI: 84%.8% - 96.6%).
View this table:
[Table 15.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T15)
Table 15. The performance of YiDiXie™-HS in CEA-negative patients
### Diagnostic Performance of YiDiXie™-SS and YiDiXie™-HS in CA125-positive or negative patients
As shown in Table 16, CA125 sensitivity and - specificity were 6.4% (95% CI: 3.0% - 13.2%) and 96.7% (95% CI: 83.3% – 99.8%), respectively.
View this table:
[Table 16.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T16)
Table 16. The performance of CA125
YiDiXie ™ -SS was used on CA125-positive patients in order to address the issue of a high false-positive rate. YiDiXie ™ -SS’s sensitivity and specificity in CA125 positive patients were 100% (95% CI: 61.0% -100%) and 100% (95% CI: 5.1% -100% 10), respectively, as indicated in Table 17. This indicates that using YiDiXie ™ -SS decreases the false positive rate of CA125 by 100% (95% CI: 5.1% 100%) without actually causing a rise in the spread of cancer.
View this table:
[Table 17.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T17)
Table 17. The performance of YiDiXie™-SS in CA125-positive patients
YiDiXie ™ -HS was used on CA125 negative patients in order to address the issue of the high false negative rate of CA125. YiDiXie ™ -HS’s sensitivity and specificity were 92.0% (95% CI: 84.5%-96.1%) and 79.3% (95% CI: 91.6% -90.2%), respectively, as indicated in Table 18. This means reducing the CA125 false negative rate by 92.0% (945% CI: 84.5% -96.1%).
View this table:
[Table 18.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T18)
Table 18. The performance of YiDiXie™-HS in CA125-negative patients
### Diagnostic performance of YiDiXie™-SS and YiDiXie™-HS in CA19-9-positive or negative patients
As shown in Table 19, CA19-9 sensitivity and specificity were 5.2% (95% CI: 2.2% – 11.5%) and 96.4% (95% CI: 87.9% – 99.4%), respectively.
View this table:
[Table 19.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T19)
Table 19. The performance of CA19-9
To address the high false-positive rate of CA19-9, YiDiXie ™ -SS was used for patients with positive CA19-9 results. As indicated in Table 20, YiDiXie ™ -SS demonstrated a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 56.6% -100%) and a specificity of 50.0% (95% CI: 9.6% -97.4%). This application of YiDiXie ™ -SS effectively reduced the CA19-9 false-positive rate by 50.0% (95% CI: 2.6% -97.4%) while maintaining a similar level of malignancy detection.
View this table:
[Table 20.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T20)
Table 20. The performance of YiDiXie™-SS in CA19-9-positive patients
Conversely, to combat the high false-negative rate of CA19-9, YiDiXie ™ -HS was applied to patients with negative CA19-9 results. According to Table 21, YiDiXie ™ -HS achieved a sensitivity of 91.3% (95% CI: 83.8% -95.5%) and a specificity of 87.0% (95% CI: 95.6% -93.6%). This approach significantly reduced the CA19-9 false-negative rate by 91.3% (95% CI: 83.8% -95.5%).
View this table:
[Table 21.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/T21)
Table 21. The performance of YiDiXie™-HS in CA19-9-negative patients
## DISCUSSION
### Clinical significance of YiDiXie™-SS in patients with positive UGI imaging and other indicators
For positive patients, such as those with UGI imaging, the sensitivity and specificity of subsequent diagnostic procedures are critical. evaluating the contradiction between sensitivity and specificity entails evaluating “the harm of missing diagnosis of malignant tumors” against “the harm of misdiagnosis of benign tumors.” In general, when UGI imaging is positive, esophagoscopy is used instead of aggressive surgery. False positives, such as UGI imaging, do not result in catastrophic repercussions such as substantial surgical trauma, organ removal, or loss of function. In this method, for positive patients, such as UGI imaging, the “harm of missed diagnosis of malignant tumor” is significantly more than the “harm of misdiagnosis of benign tumor.” Therefore, YiDiXie ™ -SS with extremely high sensitivity but slightly low specificity was selected to reduce false positive rates such as UGI imaging.
As shown in the results, the sensitivity of YiDiXie™-SS in UGI imaging, enhanced CT, FOBT, CEA, CA125 and CA19-9 positive patients was 96.6% (95% CI: 82.8% - 99.8%), 98.7% (95% CI: 93.1% - 99.9%), 100% (95% CI: 17.8% - 100%), 100% (95% CI: 81.6% - 100%), 100% (95% CI: 61.0% - 100%), 100%(95% CI: 56.6% - 100%)(Table 5,Table 8,Table 11, Table 14,Table 17,Table 20); The specific degrees were 60.0% (95% CI: 23.1% - 92.9%), 75.0% (95% CI: 30.1% - 98.7%), 100% (95% CI: 5.1% - 100%), 100% (95% CI: 43.9% - 100%), 100% (95% CI: 5.1% - 100%), 50.0% (95% CI: 2.6 - 97.4%)(Table 5,Table 8,Table 11, Table 14,Table 17,Table 20). The above results show that: While maintaining sensitivity close to 100%, YiDiXie™-SS reduced false positives for UGI imaging, enhanced CT, FOBT, CEA, CA125 and CA19-9 by 60.0% (95% CI: 23.1% - 92.9%), 75.0% (95% CI: 30.1% - 98.7%), 100% (95% CI: 5.1% - 100%), 100% (95% CI: 43.9% - 100%), 100% (95% CI: 5.1% - 100%), 50.0% (95% CI: 2.6% - 97.4%).
YiDiXie ™ -SS minimizes erroneous colonoscopy for benign colorectal disease while without increasing the likelihood of missed malignant cancers. In other findings, YiDiXie ™-SS considerably reduced mental discomfort, expensive examination costs, and examination injuries in false positive patients with UGI imaging, enhanced CT, FOBT, CEA, CA125 and CA19-9 without significantly increasing the delayed treatment of malignant tumors. YiDiXie ™ -SS is clinically significant and has a wide range of applications.
### Clinical significance of YiDiXie™-HS in patients with negative UGI imaging and other indicators
The sensitivity and specificity of additional diagnostic techniques are critical for patients with negative UGI imaging and other signs. Weighing the conflict between the “harm of malignant tumor underdiagnosis” and the “harm of benign disease misdiagnosis” is the equivalent of weighing the conflict between sensitivity and specificity. Increased false-negative rates translate into an increased number of malignant tumors being underdiagnosed, which delays treatment, causes the tumor to develop, and can even reach advanced stages. Patients will consequently have to deal with the negative effects of a bad prognosis, a brief surviving time, a low quality of life, and expensive therapy. A higher false-positive rate translates into more benign diseases being misdiagnosed, which will needlessly result in an invasive and costly colonoscopy. Patients must therefore deal with the effects of psychological distress, costly testing, and injury. Therefore, YiDiXie™-HS, with its high sensitivity and specificity, was chosen to reduce the false negative rate of UGI imaging and other indicators.
As shown in the results, the sensitivities of YiDiXie™-HS in UGI imaging, enhanced CT, FOBT, CEA, CA125, CA19-9 negative patients were 88.9% (95% CI: 56.5% - 99.4%), 92.6% (95% CI: 84.8% - 96.6%), 96.9% (95% CI: 84.3% - 99.8%), 92.6% (95% CI: 84.8% - 96.6%), 92.0% (95% CI: 84.5% - 96.1%), and 91.3% (95% CI: 83.8% - 95.5%) (Tables 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 21); and their specificities were 60.0% (95% CI: 23.1% - 92.9%), 87.3% (95% CI: 76.0% - 93.7%), 80.0% (95% CI:37.6% - 99.0%), 89.1% (95% CI: 78.2% - 94.9%), 79.3% (95% CI: 61.6% - 90.2%), 87.0% (95% CI : 75.6% - 93.6%) (Table 6, Table 9, Table 12, Table 15, Table 18, Table 21). The above results showed that YiDiXie™-HS reduced false-negative UGI imaging, enhanced CT, FOBT, CEA, CA125, CA19-9 by 88.9% (95% CI: 56.5% - 99.4%), 92.6% (95% CI: 84.8% - 96.6%), 96.9% (95% CI: 84.3% - 99.8%), 92.6% (95% CI: 84.8% -96.6%), 92.0% (95% CI: 84.5% - 96.1%), 91.3% (95% CI: 83.8% - 95.5%).
YiDiXie™-HS minimizes false negative missed cancers, including UGI imaging. YiDiXie ™ -HS dramatically improves bad outcomes for patients with false negative misdiagnoses, including poor prognosis, high treatment costs, poor quality of life, and short survival due to UGI imaging. YiDiXie ™-HS is clinically significant and has a wide range of application opportunities.
### YiDiXie™-SS and YiDiXie™-HS are expected to solve two challenges of esophageal cancer
First of all, YiDiXie™-SS reduces work pressure for digestive endoscopy physicians and promotes rapid diagnosis and treatment of malignant tumors that were previously postponed. When UGI imaging is positive, the patient is often evaluated via esophagoscopy. The amount of digestive endoscopists determines whether or not these esophagoscopies can be finished on schedule. In many regions of the world, bookings might take months or even years. This unavoidably delays the treatment of malignant tumors among them, therefore it is not uncommon for positive patients with UGI imaging who are awaiting colonoscopy to experience malignant tumor progression or even distant metastases. As shown in the results, YiDiXie ™ -SS, without basically increasing the missed diagnosis of malignant tumors, reduced the amplitude of false positive in UGI imaging, enhanced CT, FOBT, CEA, CA125 and CA19-9 by 60.0% (95% CI: 23.1% - 92.9%), 75.0% (95% CI: 30.1% - 98.7%), 100% (95% CI: 5.1% - 100%), 100% (95% CI: 43.9% - 100%), 100% (95% CI: 5.1% - 100%), 50.0% (95% CI: 2.6% - 97.4%). Therefore, YiDiXie ™ -SS can greatly relieve the unnecessary work pressure of digestive endoscopists, and facilitate the timely diagnosis and treatment of esophageal cancer or other diseases that have been delayed.
Second, YiDiXie ™-HS dramatically lowers the chance of missing esophageal cancer. When UGI imaging yields negative results, esophageal cancer is usually temporarily ruled out. Because of the significant false negative rate of UGI imaging, many patients with esophageal cancer have postponed therapy. YiDiXie ™ -HS reduced false negatives in UGI imaging, enhanced CT, FOBT, CEA, CA125 and CA19-9 by 88.9% (95% CI: 56.5% - 99.4%), 92.6% (95% CI: 84.8% - 96.6%), 96.9% (95% CI: 84.3% - 99.8%), 92.6% (95% CI: 84.8% - 96.6%), 92.0% (95% CI: 84.5% - 96.1%), 91.3% (95%CI: 83.8% - 95.5%). As a result,
YiDiXie™-HS significantly reduces the probability of false-negative missed malignancies such as UGI imaging, facilitating timely diagnosis and treatment for patients with esophageal cancer who would otherwise have been delayed.
Final, the YiDiXie™ test enables “just-in-time diagnosis” for patients with esophageal cancer. On the one hand, the YiDiXie™ test requires only a tiny amount of blood, allowing patients to complete the diagnostic process without leaving their homes. The YiDiXie ™ test requires only 20 microliters of serum to complete, which is about the same amount as a drop of whole blood (a drop of whole blood is about 50 microliters and produces 20-25 microliters of serum)19. Taking into account the sample quality assessment test prior to testing and 2-3 repetitions, 0.2 ml of whole blood is sufficient to complete the YiDiXie™ test19. Ordinary subjects can use the finger blood collection needle to complete 0.2 ml finger blood collection at home, without the need for intravenous blood collection by medical personnel, and patients can complete the diagnosis process without leaving the house19.
The YiDiXie ™ test offers practically infinite diagnostic capabilities. Figure 1 depicts the fundamental flow diagram of the YiDiXie ™ test, which does not require a doctor, medical equipment, or blood collection. The YiDiXie™ test is independent of medical staff and institutions, allowing for practically unlimited testing capacity. The YiDiXie ™ test offers “just-in-time diagnosis” for patients with esophageal cancer, eliminating the anxiety of waiting for appointments.
[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/16/2024.09.15.24313696/F1)
Figure 1. Basic flowchart of the YiDiXie™ test.
In short, the YiDiXie ™ test has important diagnostic value in esophageal cancer, and is expected to solve the two problems of “too high false positive rate such as UGI imaging” and “too high false negative rate such as UGI imaging” in esophageal cancer.
### Limitations of the study
First, the number of cases in this investigation was modest, necessitating future clinical trials with bigger sample sizes for further evaluation.
Second, this is a malignant tumor case-benign tumor control research in inpatients, therefore further cohort studies of the natural population of esophageal tumors are required for further evaluation.
Final, this was a single-center trial, which may have resulted in some bias. Additional multicenter studies are required for further evaluation.
## CONCLUSION
YiDiXie™-SS effectively reduced false-positive rates in UGI imaging, enhanced CT, FOBT, CEA, CA125 and CA19-9 without causing significant delays in treatment of malignant tumors. YiDiXie™-HS dramatically lowers false negative rates for UGI imaging, enhanced CT, FOBT, CEA, CA125 and CA19-9. YiDiXie ™ -SS and YiDiXie ™ -HS offer significant diagnostic value in esophageal cancer and are predicted to address the issues of “too high false positive rate such as UGI imaging” and “too high false negative rate such as UGI imaging”.
## Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are contained in the manuscript.
## FUNDING
This study was supported by Shenzhen High-level Hospital Construction Fund, Clinical Research Project of Peking University Shenzhen Hospital (LCYJ2020002, LCYJ2020015, LCYJ2020020, LCYJ2017001).
* Received September 15, 2024.
* Revision received September 15, 2024.
* Accepted September 16, 2024.
* © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/)
## REFERENCES
1. 1.Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I and Jemal A: Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 74: 229–263, 2024.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3322/CAAC.21834&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=38572751&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F16%2F2024.09.15.24313696.atom)
2. 2.Pennathur A, Gibson MK, Jobe BA and Luketich JD: Oesophageal carcinoma. Lancet. 381: 400–12, 2013.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60643-6&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23374478&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F16%2F2024.09.15.24313696.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000314578900037&link_type=ISI)
3. 3.Pennathur A, Farkas A, Krasinskas AM, Ferson PF, Gooding WE, Gibson MK, Schuchert MJ, Landreneau RJ and Luketich JD: Esophagectomy for T1 esophageal cancer: outcomes in 100 patients and implications for endoscopic therapy. Ann Thorac Surg. 87: 1048–54; discussion 1054-5, 2009.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.12.060&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19324126&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F16%2F2024.09.15.24313696.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000264506000008&link_type=ISI)
4. 4.Ono S, Fujishiro M, Niimi K, Goto O, Kodashima S, Yamamichi N and Omata M: Long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell neoplasms. Gastrointest Endosc. 70: 860–6, 2009.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.gie.2009.04.044&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19577748&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F16%2F2024.09.15.24313696.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000271893900007&link_type=ISI)
5. 5.Lordick F, Hölscher AH, Haustermans K and Wittekind C: Multimodal treatment of esophageal cancer. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 398: 177–87, 2013.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00423-012-1001-1&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22971784&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F16%2F2024.09.15.24313696.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000314900100001&link_type=ISI)
6. 6.Levine MS, Chu P, Furth EE, Rubesin SE, Laufer I and Herlinger H: Carcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction: sensitivity of radiographic diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 168: 1423–6, 1997.
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9168701&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F16%2F2024.09.15.24313696.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1997XA55300006&link_type=ISI)
7. 7.Hong-sheng YU and Liu-zhou JI: Diagnosis of Esophageal Cancer by X-ray Barium Meal and CT Scan. CT Theory and Applications. 18: 102–109, 2009.
8. 8.Okada M, Murakami T, Kumano S, Kuwabara M, Shimono T, Hosono M and Shiozaki H: Integrated FDG-PET/CT compared with intravenous contrast-enhanced CT for evaluation of metastatic regional lymph nodes in patients with resectable early stage esophageal cancer. Annals of Nuclear Medicine. 23: 73–80, 2009.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s12149-008-0209-1&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19205841&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F16%2F2024.09.15.24313696.atom)
9. 9.Gamal GH: Does PET/CT give incremental staging information in cancer oesophagus compared to CECT? Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 50, 2019.
10. 10.Wang F, Guo R, Zhang Y, Yu B, Meng X, Kong H, Yang Y, Yang Z and Li N: Value of (18)F-FDG PET/MRI in the Preoperative Assessment of Resectable Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Comparison With (18)F-FDG PET/CT, MRI, and Contrast-Enhanced CT. Front Oncol. 12: 844702, 2022.
11. 11.Freeny PC and Marks WM: Adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction: barium and CT examination. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 138: 1077–84, 1982.
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=6979207&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F16%2F2024.09.15.24313696.atom)
12. 12.Gupta S, Levine MS, Rubesin SE, Katzka DA and Laufer I: Usefulness of barium studies for differentiating benign and malignant strictures of the esophagus. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 180: 737–44, 2003.
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12591686&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F16%2F2024.09.15.24313696.atom)
13. 13.Jing JX, Wang Y, Xu XQ, Sun T, Tian BG, D. Ll, Zhao XW and Han CZ: Tumor markers for diagnosis, monitoring of recurrence and prognosis in patients with upper gastrointestinal tract cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 15: 10267–72, 2014.
14. 14.Nakama H, Kamijo N, Fattah AS and Zhang B: Immunologic detection of fecal occult blood from upper digestive tract diseases. Hepatogastroenterology. 45: 752–4, 1998.
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9684127&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F16%2F2024.09.15.24313696.atom)
15. 15.Gerson LB and Triadafilopoulos G: Screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma: an evidence-based approach. Am J Med. 113: 499–505, 2002.
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12427500&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F16%2F2024.09.15.24313696.atom)
16. 16.Bagaria B, Sood S, Sharma R and Lalwani S: Comparative study of CEA and CA19-9 in esophageal, gastric and colon cancers individually and in combination (ROC curve analysis). Cancer Biol Med. 10: 148–57, 2013.
[Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiY2JtIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjEwLzMvMTQ4IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDkvMTYvMjAyNC4wOS4xNS4yNDMxMzY5Ni5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=)
17. 17.Mao YS, Zhang DC, Zhao XH, Wang LJ, Qi J and Li XX: [Significance of CEA, SCC and Cyfra21-1 serum test in esophageal cancer]. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 25: 457–60, 2003.
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=14575569&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F16%2F2024.09.15.24313696.atom)
18. 18.Mealy K, Feely J, Reid I, McSweeney J, Walsh T and Hennessy TP: Tumour marker detection in oesophageal carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 22: 505–7, 1996.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0748-7983(96)92998-4&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8903494&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F16%2F2024.09.15.24313696.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996VQ21700010&link_type=ISI)
19. 19. Chen Sun, Shengjie Lin, Yongjian Zhang, et al. Evaluation of the Multi-Cancer Early Detection (MCED) value of YiDiXie™-HS and YiDiXie™-SS. medRxiv, 2024: doi: 10.1101/2024.03.11.24303683.
[Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyNC4wMy4xMS4yNDMwMzY4M3YyIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDkvMTYvMjAyNC4wOS4xNS4yNDMxMzY5Ni5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=)
20. 20.Edge SB, Compton CC: The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 2010, 17(6):1471–1474.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1245/s10434-010-0985-4&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20180029&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F16%2F2024.09.15.24313696.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000277594300001&link_type=ISI)
21. 21.Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB, Compton CC, Gershenwald JE, Brookland RK, Meyer L, Gress DM, Byrd DR, Winchester DP: The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more “personalized” approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin 2017, 67(2):93–99.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3322/caac.21388&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28094848&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F16%2F2024.09.15.24313696.atom)