Alan S Rosman1, Mark A Korsten. 1. Section of Gastroenterology and Medicine Program, James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 130 W. Kingsbridge Road, Bronx, NY 10468, USA. Alan.Rosman@VA.Gov
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is controversy regarding the sensitivity of fecal occult blood tests (FOBT) for detecting colorectal cancer. Many of the published studies failed to correct for verification bias which may have increased the sensitivity. METHODS: A meta-analysis of published studies evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of chemical-based FOBT for colorectal cancer was performed. Studies were included if both cancer and control subjects underwent confirmatory testing. We also included studies that attempted to correct for verification bias by either performing colonoscopy on all subjects regardless of the FOBT result or by using longitudinal follow-up. We then compared the sensitivity, specificity, and other diagnostic characteristics of the studies that attempted to correct for verification (n=10) vs. those that did not correct for this bias (n=19). RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity of guaiac-based FOBT for colorectal cancer of studies without verification bias was significantly lower than those studies with this bias [0.36 (95% CI 0.25-0.47) vs. 0.70 (95% CI 0.60-0.80), p=0.001]. The pooled specificity of the studies without verification bias was higher [0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.97) vs. 0.88 (95% CI 0.84-0.91), p<0.005]. There was no significant difference in the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves. More sensitive chemical-based FOBT methods (e.g., Hemoccult® SENSA®) had a higher sensitivity but a lower specificity than standard guaiac methods. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of guaiac-based FOBT for colorectal cancer has been overestimated as a result of verification bias. This test may not be sensitive enough to serve as an effective screening option for colorectal cancer.
OBJECTIVES: There is controversy regarding the sensitivity of fecal occult blood tests (FOBT) for detecting colorectal cancer. Many of the published studies failed to correct for verification bias which may have increased the sensitivity. METHODS: A meta-analysis of published studies evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of chemical-based FOBT for colorectal cancer was performed. Studies were included if both cancer and control subjects underwent confirmatory testing. We also included studies that attempted to correct for verification bias by either performing colonoscopy on all subjects regardless of the FOBT result or by using longitudinal follow-up. We then compared the sensitivity, specificity, and other diagnostic characteristics of the studies that attempted to correct for verification (n=10) vs. those that did not correct for this bias (n=19). RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity of guaiac-based FOBT for colorectal cancer of studies without verification bias was significantly lower than those studies with this bias [0.36 (95% CI 0.25-0.47) vs. 0.70 (95% CI 0.60-0.80), p=0.001]. The pooled specificity of the studies without verification bias was higher [0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.97) vs. 0.88 (95% CI 0.84-0.91), p<0.005]. There was no significant difference in the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves. More sensitive chemical-based FOBT methods (e.g., Hemoccult® SENSA®) had a higher sensitivity but a lower specificity than standard guaiac methods. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of guaiac-based FOBT for colorectal cancer has been overestimated as a result of verification bias. This test may not be sensitive enough to serve as an effective screening option for colorectal cancer.
Authors: James E Allison; Lori C Sakoda; Theodore R Levin; Jo P Tucker; Irene S Tekawa; Thomas Cuff; Mary Pat Pauly; Lyle Shlager; Albert M Palitz; Wei K Zhao; J Sanford Schwartz; David F Ransohoff; Joseph V Selby Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-09-25 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David A Ahlquist; Daniel J Sargent; Charles L Loprinzi; Theodore R Levin; Douglas K Rex; Dennis J Ahnen; Kandice Knigge; M Peter Lance; Lawrence J Burgart; Stanley R Hamilton; James E Allison; Michael J Lawson; Mary E Devens; Jonathan J Harrington; Shauna L Hillman Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-10-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: B C-Y Wong; W M Wong; K L Cheung; T S M Tong; P Rozen; G P Young; K W Chu; J Ho; W L Law; H M Tung; K C Lai; W H C Hu; C K Chan; S K Lam Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2003-11-01 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: R Murakami; T Otani; K Nakanishi; Y Fudemoto; H Ishikawa; T Hiyama; H Tsukuma; I Fujimoto; N Miki; A Oshima Journal: Jpn J Cancer Res Date: 1992-02
Authors: Germaine Wong; Richard L Hope; Kirsten Howard; Jeremy R Chapman; Antoni Castells; Simon D Roger; Michael J Bourke; Petra Macaskill; Robin Turner; Gabrielle Williams; Wai Hon Lim; Charmaine E Lok; Fritz Diekmann; Nicholas B Cross; Shaundeep Sen; Richard D M Allen; Steven J Chadban; Carol A Pollock; Allison Tong; Armando Teixeira-Pinto; Jean Y H Yang; Narelle Williams; Eric Hoi Kit Au; Anh Kieu; Laura James; Jonathan C Craig Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Jessica Chubak; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; William E Barlow; Douglas A Corley; Jennifer M Croswell; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Anil Vachani; Michelle I Silver; Jasmin A Tiro; Aruna Kamineni Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2022-08-02 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Kevin Selby; Christopher D Jensen; Jeffrey K Lee; Chyke A Doubeni; Joanne E Schottinger; Wei K Zhao; Jessica Chubak; Ethan Halm; Nirupa R Ghai; Richard Contreras; Celette Skinner; Aruna Kamineni; Theodore R Levin; Douglas A Corley Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kevin Selby; Emma H Levine; Cecilia Doan; Anton Gies; Hermann Brenner; Charles Quesenberry; Jeffrey K Lee; Douglas A Corley Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Tobias Niedermaier; Korbinian Weigl; Michael Hoffmeister; Hermann Brenner Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2017-10-09 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Michael G Collins; Edward Teo; Stephen R Cole; Choy-Yoke Chan; Stephen P McDonald; Graeme R Russ; Graeme P Young; Peter A Bampton; P Toby Coates Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-07-25
Authors: Isabel A Hujoel; Claire L Jansson-Knodell; Philippe P Hujoel; Margaux L A Hujoel; Rok Seon Choung; Joseph A Murray; Alberto Rubio-Tapia Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 3.174