Literature DB >> 21185397

Diagnostic yield improves with collection of 2 samples in fecal immunochemical test screening without affecting attendance.

Aafke H C van Roon1, Janneke A Wilschut, Lieke Hol, Marjolein van Ballegooijen, Jacqueline C I Y Reijerink, Hans 't Mannetje, Laura J C Kranenburg, Katharina Biermann, Anneke J van Vuuren, Jan Francke, Alexandra C M van der Togt, Dik J F Habbema, Monique E van Leerdam, Ernst J Kuipers.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is superior to the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test in detecting neoplasia. There are not much data on the optimal number of FITs to perform. We conducted a population-based trial to determine attendance and diagnostic yield of 1- and 2-sample FIT screening.
METHODS: The study included 2 randomly selected groups of subjects aged 50-74 years (1-sample FIT, n=5007; 2-sample FIT, n=3197). The 2-sample group was instructed to collect fecal samples on 2 consecutive days. Subjects were referred for colonoscopy when at least 1 sample tested positive (≥50 ng hemoglobin/mL).
RESULTS: Attendance was 61.5% in the 1-sample group (2979 of 4845; 95% confidence interval, 60.1%-62.9%) and 61.3% in the 2-sample group (1875 of 3061; 95% confidence interval, 59.6%-63.0%; P=.84). In the 1-sample group 8.1% tested positive, and in the 2-sample group 12.8% had at least 1 positive test outcome and 5.0% had 2 positive test outcomes (P<.05). When the mean from both test results in the 2-sample group was used, 10.1% had a positive test outcome (P<.05). The detection rates for advanced neoplasia were 3.1% in the 1-sample group, 4.1% in the 2-sample group with at least 1 positive test outcome, 2.5% when both test results were positive, and 3.7% among subjects with the mean from both test results being positive.
CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in attendance for subjects offered 1- or 2-sample FIT screening. The results allow for the development of efficient FIT screening strategies that can be adapted for local colonoscopy capacities, rather than varying the cut-off value in a 1-sample strategy.
Copyright © 2011 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21185397     DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2010.12.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 1542-3565            Impact factor:   11.382


  30 in total

1.  Uptake and positive predictive value of fecal occult blood tests: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jessica Chubak; Andy Bogart; Sharon Fuller; Sharon S Laing; Beverly B Green
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2013-09-09       Impact factor: 4.018

2.  Does Low Threshold Value Use Improve Proximal Neoplasia Detection by Fecal Immunochemical Test?

Authors:  Nam Hee Kim; Hyo-Joon Yang; Soo-Kyung Park; Jung Ho Park; Dong Il Park; Chong Il Sohn; Kyuyong Choi; Yoon Suk Jung
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2016-04-23       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 3.  Faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening: the past or the future.

Authors:  Sally C Benton; Helen E Seaman; Stephen P Halloran
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2015-02

4.  Tackling colorectal cancer as a public health issue: what can the gastroenterologist do?

Authors:  Catherine Dubé
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 3.522

5.  Fecal-based colorectal cancer screening among the uninsured in northern Manhattan.

Authors:  Grace Clarke Hillyer; Karen M Schmitt; Daniel E Freedberg; Rachel A Kramer; Yin Su; Richard M Rosenberg; Alfred I Neugut
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2014-06-17       Impact factor: 5.043

6.  Fecal immunochemical test accuracy in average-risk colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Vicent Hernandez; Joaquin Cubiella; M Carmen Gonzalez-Mao; Felipe Iglesias; Concepción Rivera; M Begoña Iglesias; Lucía Cid; Ines Castro; Luisa de Castro; Pablo Vega; Jose Antonio Hermo; Ramiro Macenlle; Alfonso Martínez-Turnes; David Martínez-Ares; Pamela Estevez; Estela Cid; M Carmen Vidal; Angeles López-Martínez; Elisabeth Hijona; Marta Herreros-Villanueva; Luis Bujanda; Jose Ignacio Rodriguez-Prada
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  Faecal calprotectin in patients with suspected colorectal cancer: a diagnostic accuracy study.

Authors:  James Turvill; Assad Aghahoseini; Nala Sivarajasingham; Kazim Abbas; Murtaza Choudhry; Kostantinos Polyzois; Kostantinos Lasithiotakis; Dimitra Volanaki; Baek Kim; Fiona Langlands; Helen Andrew; Jesper Roos; Samantha Mellen; Daniel Turnock; Alison Jones
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2016-06-06       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 8.  Colorectal cancer screening--optimizing current strategies and new directions.

Authors:  Ernst J Kuipers; Thomas Rösch; Michael Bretthauer
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 9.  Recommendations on Fecal Immunochemical Testing to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia: A Consensus Statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Douglas J Robertson; Jeffrey K Lee; C Richard Boland; Jason A Dominitz; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Tonya Kaltenbach; David Lieberman; Theodore R Levin; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 10.  Colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Ernst J Kuipers; William M Grady; David Lieberman; Thomas Seufferlein; Joseph J Sung; Petra G Boelens; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Toshiaki Watanabe
Journal:  Nat Rev Dis Primers       Date:  2015-11-05       Impact factor: 52.329

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.