Evaluation of Fecal M2PK as a Diagnostic Marker in Colorectal Cancer

  • Hisham K. Dabbous
  • Yosry Abd El-Rahman Mohamed
  • Runia F. El-Folly
  • Mohamed D. El-Talkawy
  • Hani E. Seddik
  • Dina Johar
  • Mohammed A. Sarhan
Original Research



Invasive colonoscopy is the gold standard for patients at risk for colorectal cancer. However, the need for non-invasive and specific markers is required.


To evaluate the sensitivity of the glycolytic pyruvate kinase isoenzyme type M2 dimer (M2PK) as a diagnostic biomarker for colorectal cancer (CRC) and adenomatous colorectal polyps (CRP) screening.




Twenty patients with CRC, 20 patients with CRP (lack criteria for colonic cancer by biopsy), and 20 normal subjects.


Complete blood count (CBC), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), tumor markers: carcino embryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), fecal occult blood test (FOBT), and fecal M2PK. Pelvic and abdominal ultrasound (US), colonoscopy, and a histopathological examination.


Only weight loss and cachexia were significantly associated with CRC than CRP or control groups. M2PK was the most sensitive and specific test in differentiating CRC from CRP and the control subjects (sensitivity = 75%, specificity = 100%).


(1) The selection of cases for three well-matched groups, as to perform colonoscopy in well-prepared cases and conditions. (2) Replicates in more than 20 cases for confirmation at the expense of enrolling new patients. (3) The cost associated with tumor markers analysis.


Fecal M2PK can be used as a precolonoscopy screening test for CRC patients, and is superior to other tumor markers, and in indicating the progress of colorectal adenomas > 1 cm. Thus being cost-effective and easy-to-perform test, it is a feasible tool to preselect patients who require colonoscopy.


Fecal occult blood test Patients Colorectal cancer Colorectal polyp Marker Egypt 



analysis of variance


bleeding per rectum

CA 19-9

carbohydrate antigen 19-9


carcino embryonic antigen


colorectal (adenomatous) polyps


colorectal cancer


computerized tomography




diagnostic accuracy


diabetes mellitus


enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay


erythrocyte sedimentation rate


fecal occult blood test




international normalized ratio


likelihood ratio


National Cancer Institute


negative predictive value


partial thromboplastin time


prothrombin time


positive predictive value


pyruvate kinase isoenzyme type M2


receiver operating characteristic


Statistical Package for Social Sciences


area under the curve



All the authors contributed equally to conception, writing the manuscript, and the analysis of data included in this article. D.J. supported the Endnote X8 software required for this article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study ethics protocol was approved by the Tropical Medicine Department, Ain-Shams University and the Gastroenterology and Hepatology Department, Theodor Bilharz Research Institute, Cairo, Egypt.

Consent to participate

Written consent to participate was given by all patients who were enrolled in the study.


  1. 1.
    National Cancer Institute, Egypt. Cancer epidemiology in Egypt, the real magnitude of the problem. 2002.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    El-Attar I. Colo-rectal cancer: magnitude of the problem. Annual Cancer Conference of the Egyptian Cancer Society, Danish Cancer Society & Aarhus University Hospital (9–11 February, 2005).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Waye JD, Kahn O, Auerbach ME. Complications of colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 1996;6:343–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim YC, Kim JH, Cheung DY, Kim TH, Jun EJ, Oh JW, et al. The usefulness of a novel screening kit for colorectal cancer using the immunochromatographic fecal tumor M2 pyruvate kinase test. Gut Liver. 2015;9:641–8. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kahi CJ, Rex DK. Screening and surveillance of colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 15:3.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rex DK. Maximizing detection of adenomas and cancers during colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:2866–77. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Macrae FA, St John DJ. Relationship between patterns of bleeding and Hemoccult sensitivity in patients with colorectal cancers or adenomas. Gastroenterology. 1982;82:891–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koss K, Maxton D, Jankowski JA. Faecal dimeric M2 pyruvate kinase in colorectal cancer and polyps correlates with tumour staging and surgical intervention. Color Dis. 2008;10:244–8. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ. Cancer screening in the United States, 2007: a review of current guidelines, practices, and prospects. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:90–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Quintero E, Castells A, Bujanda L, et al. Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:697–706.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goonetilleke KS, Mason JM, Siriwardana P, King NK, France MW, Siriwardena AK. Diagnostic and prognostic value of plasma tumor M2 pyruvate kinase in periampullary cancer: evidence for a novel biological marker of adverse prognosis. Pancreas. 2007;34:318–24. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Imperiale TF, Ransohoff DF, Itzkowitz SH, et al. Fecal DNA versus fecal occult blood for colorectal cancer screening in an average risk population. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2704–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meng W, Zhu HH, Xu ZF, Cai SR, Dong Q, Pan QR, et al. Serum M2-pyruvate kinase: a promising non-invasive biomarker for colorectal cancer mass screening. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2012;4:145–51. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hameed MA, & Waqas S. Physiological basis and clinical utility of erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Continuing Med Educ. 2006;22:214–18.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Amatuzio DS, Grande F, Wada S. The cyanmethemoglobin method for hemoglobin determination. Minn Med. 1962;45:378–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lewis, S., Barbara, B. & Imelda, B. Dacie and Lewis Practical Haematology, 10th Edition. Churchill Livingstone. 2006.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fletcher RH. The diagnosis of colorectal cancer in patients with symptoms: finding a needle in a haystack. BMC Med. 2009;7:18. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moslein G, et al. Analysis of the statistical value of various commercially available stool tests—a comparison of one stool sample in correlation to colonoscopy. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2010;135:557–62. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim HJ, Kang HJ, Lee H, Lee ST, Yu MH, Kim H, et al. Identification of S100A8 and S100A9 as serological markers for colorectal cancer. J Proteome Res. 2009;8:1368–79. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang YR, Yan JX, Wang LN. The diagnostic value of serum carcino-embryonic antigen, alpha fetoprotein and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 for colorectal cancer. J Cancer Res Ther. 2014;10(Suppl):307–9. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tonus C, Sellinger M, Koss K, Neupert G. Faecal pyruvate kinase isoenzyme type M2 for colorectal cancer screening: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:4004–11. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sithambaram S, Hilmi I, Goh KL. The diagnostic accuracy of the M2 pyruvate kinase quick stool test—a rapid office based assay test for the detection of colorectal cancer. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0131616. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bond AD, Burkitt MD, Sawbridge D, Corfe BM, Probert CS. Correlation between faecal tumour M2 pyruvate kinase and colonoscopy for the detection of adenomatous neoplasia in a secondary care cohort. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2016;25:71–7. Scholar
  24. 24.
    O’Brien MJ, Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, et al. The National Polyp Study: patient and polyp characteristics associated with high grade dysplasia in colorectal adenomas. Gastroenterology. 1990;98:371–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mroczko B, Groblewska M, Okulczyk B, Kedra B, Szmitkowski M. The diagnostic value of matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9) and tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases 1 (TIMP-1) determination in the sera of colorectal adenoma and cancer patients. Int J Color Dis. 2010;25:1177–84. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Macdonald JS. Carcinoembryonic antigen screening: pros and cons. Semin Oncol. 1999;26:556–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tropical Medicine Department, Faculty of MedicineAin Shams UniversityCairoEgypt
  2. 2.Hepatogastroenterology and Tropical Medicine DepartmentTheodor Bilharz Research InstituteCairoEgypt
  3. 3.Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, Faculty of Women for Arts, Sciences and EducationAin Shams UniversityCairoEgypt
  4. 4.Department of Physiology and Pathophysiology, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  5. 5.Center of Excellence of Gastrointestinal Inflammation and Immunology Research (CEGIIR), Gastroenterology, Department of MedicineUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  6. 6.National Liver Institute, Department of Medical Microbiology and ImmunologyMenofia UniversityShibin El-KomEgypt

Personalised recommendations