Literature DB >> 16455476

Immunochemical testing of individuals positive for guaiac faecal occult blood test in a screening programme for colorectal cancer: an observational study.

Callum G Fraser1, Catriona M Matthew, N Ashley G Mowat, John A Wilson, Francis A Carey, Robert J C Steele.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Screening for colorectal cancer by use of guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests (FOBT) reduces disease-specific mortality. However, due to imperfect specificity, about half of individuals positive for guaiac FOBT are negative for neoplasia on colonoscopy. We aimed to assess whether the testing of individuals positive for guaiac FOBT in a screening programme for colorectal cancer by use of a sensitive immunochemical FOBT could select more appropriately those who should receive colonoscopy.
METHODS: We invited individuals who were guaiac FOBT positive in the second screening round of a pilot study in Scotland, UK, to give two samples, each from separate stools, for immunochemical FOBT while awaiting colonoscopy. Results were classed as: both samples negative (N/N), one sample negative and one positive (N/P), and both samples positive (P/P); data were assessed for sampling bias. We compared immunochemical findings with those from colonoscopy using odds ratios of positive samples (P/P) versus negative (N/N and N/P). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios for cancer, and for cancer and high-risk adenomatous polyps were also calculated.
FINDINGS: 1486 participants were invited and 801 (54%) sets of duplicate samples were returned. We found no evidence of sampling bias with regard to sex, age, or degree of positivity on guaiac FOBT. Of 800 sets returned with consent and analysed, 173 (22%) were N/N, 129 (16%) were N/P, and 498 (62%) were P/P. Chi2 test showed a highly significant positive correlation between degree of positivity on guaiac FOBT and on immunochemical FOBT (p<0.003). 795 individuals had data for colonoscopy: one (<1%) of 171 N/N participants and one (<1%) of 127 N/P participants had colorectal cancer, compared with 38 (8%) of 497 P/P participants; adenomatous polyps were found in 28 (16%) N/N individuals, 24 (19%) N/P individuals, and 193 (39%) P/P individuals. Normal colonoscopy was less common in the P/P group (85 [17%]) than in the N/N (67 [39%]) and N/P (49 [39%]) groups. The odds ratio for P/P being associated with cancer was 7.57 (95% CI 1.84-31.4) and with high-risk adenomatous polyps was 3.11 (1.86-5.18). Sensitivity of a P/P result for cancer was 95.0% (81.8-99.1), and for cancer and high-risk adenomatous polyps was 90.1% (84.4-94.0); specificity was 39.5% (36.0-43.1) and 47.8% (43.9-51.8), respectively.
INTERPRETATION: Immunochemical FOBT for individuals with positive guaiac FOBT could decrease substantially the number of false positives in a screening programme for colorectal cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16455476     DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70473-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Oncol        ISSN: 1470-2045            Impact factor:   41.316


  19 in total

1.  Detectability of colorectal neoplasia with fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT).

Authors:  Tomoko Hirakawa; Jun Kato; Yoshihiro Okumura; Keisuke Hori; Sakuma Takahashi; Hideyuki Suzuki; Mitsuhiro Akita; Reiji Higashi; Shunsuke Saito; Eisuke Kaji; Toshio Uraoka; Sakiko Hiraoka; Kazuhide Yamamoto
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-10-08       Impact factor: 7.527

2.  Perspectives of colorectal cancer screening in Germany 2009.

Authors:  Andreas Sieg; Kilian Friedrich
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2009-10-15

3.  Evaluation of a card collection-based faecal immunochemical test in screening for colorectal cancer using a two-tier reflex approach.

Authors:  Callum G Fraser; Catriona M Mathew; N Ashley G Mowat; John A Wilson; Francis A Carey; Robert J C Steele
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2007-02-19       Impact factor: 23.059

4.  Potential of soluble CD26 as a serum marker for colorectal cancer detection.

Authors:  Oscar J Cordero; Monica Imbernon; Loretta De Chiara; Vicenta S Martinez-Zorzano; Daniel Ayude; Maria Paez de la Cadena; F Javier Rodriguez-Berrocal
Journal:  World J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-06-10

5.  Serum miR-21 as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Yuji Toiyama; Masanobu Takahashi; Keun Hur; Takeshi Nagasaka; Koji Tanaka; Yasuhiro Inoue; Masato Kusunoki; C Richard Boland; Ajay Goel
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-05-23       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 6.  Use of blood-based biomarkers for early diagnosis and surveillance of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Ganepola Ap Ganepola; Joel Nizin; John R Rutledge; David H Chang
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2014-04-15

Review 7.  Colorectal cancer: from prevention to personalized medicine.

Authors:  Gemma Binefa; Francisco Rodríguez-Moranta; Alex Teule; Manuel Medina-Hayas
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Role of serum Metadherin mRNA expression in the diagnosis and prediction of survival in patients with colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Muhammad Tarek Abdel Ghafar; Fatma Gharib; Sherief Abdel-Salam; Reham Abdelkader Elkhouly; Ahmed Elshora; Khaled H Shalaby; Dina El-Guindy; Mohamed Ali El-Rashidy; Nema A Soliman; Mira Maged Abu-Elenin; Alzahraa A Allam
Journal:  Mol Biol Rep       Date:  2020-02-22       Impact factor: 2.316

9.  Double sampling of a faecal immunochemical test is not superior to single sampling for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a colonoscopy controlled prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Frank A Oort; Sietze T van Turenhout; Veerle M H Coupé; René W M van der Hulst; Eric I C Wesdorp; Jochim S Terhaar sive Droste; Ilhame Ben Larbi; Shannon L Kanis; Edwin van Hengel; Anneke A Bouman; Gerrit A Meijer; Chris J J Mulder
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2011-10-10       Impact factor: 4.430

10.  Using resource modelling to inform decision making and service planning: the case of colorectal cancer screening in Ireland.

Authors:  Linda Sharp; Lesley Tilson; Sophie Whyte; Alan O Ceilleachair; Cathal Walsh; Cara Usher; Paul Tappenden; James Chilcott; Anthony Staines; Michael Barry; Harry Comber
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.