BACKGROUND & AIMS: Despite poor performance, guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests (G-FOBT) are most frequently implemented for colorectal cancer screening. Immunochemical fecal occult blood tests (I-FOBT) are claimed to perform better, without randomized comparison in screening populations. Our aim was to randomly compare G-FOBT with I-FOBT in a screening population. METHODS: We conducted a population-based study on a random sample of 20,623 individuals 50-75 years of age, randomized to either G-FOBT (Hemoccult-II) or I-FOBT (OC-Sensor). Tests and invitations were sent together. For I-FOBT, the standard cutoff of 100 ng/ml was used. Positive FOBTs were verified with colonoscopy. Advanced adenomas were defined as >or=10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, or >or=20% villous component. RESULTS: There were 10,993 tests returned: 4836 (46.9%) G-FOBTs and 6157 (59.6%) I-FOBTs. The participation rate difference was 12.7% (P < .01). Of G-FOBTs, 117 (2.4%) were positive versus 339 (5.5%) of I-FOBTs. The positivity rate difference was 3.1% (P < .01). Cancer and advanced adenomas were found, respectively, in 11 and 48 of G-FOBTs and in 24 and 121 of I-FOBTs. Differences in positive predictive value for cancer and advanced adenomas and cancer were, respectively, 2.1% (P = .4) and -3.6% (P = .5). Differences in specificities favor G-FOBT and were, respectively, 2.3% (P < .01) and -1.3% (P < .01). Differences in intention-to-screen detection rates favor I-FOBT and were, respectively, 0.1% (P < .05) and 0.9% (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The number-to-scope to find 1 cancer was comparable between the tests. However, participation and detection rates for advanced adenomas and cancer were significantly higher for I-FOBT. G-FOBT significantly underestimates the prevalence of advanced adenomas and cancer in the screening population compared with I-FOBT.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Despite poor performance, guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests (G-FOBT) are most frequently implemented for colorectal cancer screening. Immunochemical fecal occult blood tests (I-FOBT) are claimed to perform better, without randomized comparison in screening populations. Our aim was to randomly compare G-FOBT with I-FOBT in a screening population. METHODS: We conducted a population-based study on a random sample of 20,623 individuals 50-75 years of age, randomized to either G-FOBT (Hemoccult-II) or I-FOBT (OC-Sensor). Tests and invitations were sent together. For I-FOBT, the standard cutoff of 100 ng/ml was used. Positive FOBTs were verified with colonoscopy. Advanced adenomas were defined as >or=10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, or >or=20% villous component. RESULTS: There were 10,993 tests returned: 4836 (46.9%) G-FOBTs and 6157 (59.6%) I-FOBTs. The participation rate difference was 12.7% (P < .01). Of G-FOBTs, 117 (2.4%) were positive versus 339 (5.5%) of I-FOBTs. The positivity rate difference was 3.1% (P < .01). Cancer and advanced adenomas were found, respectively, in 11 and 48 of G-FOBTs and in 24 and 121 of I-FOBTs. Differences in positive predictive value for cancer and advanced adenomas and cancer were, respectively, 2.1% (P = .4) and -3.6% (P = .5). Differences in specificities favor G-FOBT and were, respectively, 2.3% (P < .01) and -1.3% (P < .01). Differences in intention-to-screen detection rates favor I-FOBT and were, respectively, 0.1% (P < .05) and 0.9% (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The number-to-scope to find 1 cancer was comparable between the tests. However, participation and detection rates for advanced adenomas and cancer were significantly higher for I-FOBT. G-FOBT significantly underestimates the prevalence of advanced adenomas and cancer in the screening population compared with I-FOBT.
Authors: Linda Rabeneck; R Bryan Rumble; Frank Thompson; Michael Mills; Curtis Oleschuk; Alexandra Whibley; Hans Messersmith; Nancy Lewis Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: L Sali; M Falchini; P Della Monica; D Regge; A G Bonanomi; G Castiglione; G Grazzini; M Zappa; F Mungai; C Volpe; M Mascalchi Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2010-07-31 Impact factor: 3.469