Literature DB >> 16454847

Does fecal occult blood testing really reduce mortality? A reanalysis of systematic review data.

Paul Moayyedi1, Edgar Achkar.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common cause of cancer mortality. A variety of CRC screening strategies are being adopted in many developed countries. Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) is one option for screening that has the most evidence for efficacy and is also the cheapest approach. Systematic reviews suggest that FOBT is effective in reducing CRC mortality but the data on overall mortality from any cause has rarely been synthesized.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials identified by a Cochrane review of the efficacy of FOBT were reanalyzed. Trials that reported on biennial FOBT with all cause mortality assessed at similar follow-up periods were analyzed. CRC, non-CRC, and all cause mortality were evaluated using a random effects model.
RESULTS: Three trials were analyzed, involving 245,217 subjects with 2,148 CRC deaths after almost 3 million patient-years follow-up. The relative risk (RR) of CRC death in the FOBT arm was 0.87 (95% CI = 0.8-0.95). The RR of non-CRC death in the FOBT group was 1.02 (95% CI = 1.00-1.04, p = 0.015). The increase in non-CRC in the FOBT group balanced the decrease in CRC mortality with no overall impact on mortality (RR of dying in the FOBT arm = 1.002, 95% CI = 0.989-1.015).
CONCLUSION: The impact of FOBT in reducing mortality from any cause is uncertain and efficacy of this strategy for CRC screening needs reevaluation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16454847     DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00537.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  14 in total

Review 1.  Population-based screening for colorectal cancer with faecal occult blood test--do we really have enough evidence?

Authors:  Göran Ekelund; Jonas Manjer; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2010-07-30       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  The NordICC Study: rationale and design of a randomized trial on colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  M F Kaminski; M Bretthauer; A G Zauber; E J Kuipers; H-O Adami; M van Ballegooijen; J Regula; M van Leerdam; T Stefansson; L Påhlman; E Dekker; M A Hernán; K Garborg; G Hoff
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 10.093

Review 3.  Cecal stampede: the headlong rush for screening colonoscopy: a position paper.

Authors:  Michael J Lawson; Martin Tobi
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2007-10-13       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  User's perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing quality colonoscopy services in Canada: a study protocol.

Authors:  Gilles Jobin; Marie Pierre Gagnon; Bernard Candas; Catherine Dubé; Anis Ben Abdeljelil; Sonya Grenier
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 7.327

5.  An evaluation of colonoscopy use: implications for health education.

Authors:  Chia-Ching Chen; Charles E Basch; Tetsuji Yamada
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.037

6.  Attitude of the Italian general population towards prevention and screening of the most common tumors, with special emphasis on colorectal malignancies.

Authors:  Federica Domati; Estratios Travlos; Claudia Cirilli; Giuseppina Rossi; Piero Benatti; Massimiliano Marino; Giovanni Ponti; Maria Vandelli; Simone Valmori; Amal Oursana; Annalisa Pezzi; Maurizio Ponz de Leon
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2008-09-20       Impact factor: 3.397

7.  Too much of a good thing: cancer screening in the old and infirm.

Authors:  Douglas J Robertson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  The utility and predictive value of combinations of low penetrance genes for screening and risk prediction of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Steven J Hawken; Celia M T Greenwood; Thomas J Hudson; Rafal Kustra; John McLaughlin; Quanhe Yang; Brent W Zanke; Julian Little
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2010-05-01       Impact factor: 4.132

9.  Estimation of the potential antitumor activity of microencapsulated Lactobacillus acidophilus yogurt formulation in the attenuation of tumorigenesis in Apc(Min/+) mice.

Authors:  Aleksandra Malgorzata Urbanska; Jasmine Bhathena; Christopher Martoni; Satya Prakash
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2008-07-17       Impact factor: 3.199

10.  Number needed to sacrifice: statistical taboo or decision-making tool?

Authors:  Peter Trewby
Journal:  JRSM Short Rep       Date:  2013-03-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.