Literature DB >> 21897207

Diagnostic performance of quantitative fecal immunochemical test and multivariate prediction model for colorectal neoplasms in asymptomatic individuals.

Fumio Omata1, Ayumi Shintani, Mitsuhiro Isozaki, Katsunori Masuda, Yoshiyuki Fujita, Tsuguya Fukui.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Quantitative fecal immunochemical test (QTFIT) has the advantage of being able to describe test characteristics on a scaled rather than binary system. The aims of this study were to decide the optimal cut-off points of QTFIT and to make a multivariate prediction model for colorectal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 1085 consecutive asymptomatic individuals who completed both full colonoscopy and QTFIT at a general health checkup clinic. Advanced adenomatous polyps (AP) were defined as APs of at least 1 cm in diameter; adenomas with villous component or high-grade dysplasia; and significant neoplasia (SN) including both advanced AP and colorectal cancer.
RESULTS: The ideal cut-off value of QTFIT was chosen based on a value that maximized the sum of both sensitivity and specificity, and clinical utility. For AP, 25 ng/ml was chosen as the optimal cut-off value and provided a sensitivity of 31% [95% confidence interval (CI): 27-36] and specificity of 79% (95% CI: 76-82). For SN, the ideal QTFIT cut-off value was 25 ng/ml, providing a sensitivity of 51% (95% CI: 39-62) and specificity of 77% (95% CI: 74-80). For colorectal cancer, the optimal cut-off point was 50 ng/ml, offering a sensitivity of 75% (95% CI: 41-93) and specificity of 86% (95% CI: 85-86). The multivariate prediction model was represented by nomogram and was validated by bootstrap method.
CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of QTFIT for CRC is promising, although its sensitivity for AP and SN is unsatisfactory. BMI, in addition to age and sex improves the accuracy of SN screening by QTFIT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21897207     DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e32834a2882

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 0954-691X            Impact factor:   2.566


  13 in total

Review 1.  Guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests versus faecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk individuals.

Authors:  Esmée J Grobbee; Pieter Ha Wisse; Eline H Schreuders; Aafke van Roon; Leonie van Dam; Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Wichor Bramer; Sarah Berhane; Jonathan J Deeks; Ewout W Steyerberg; Monique E van Leerdam; Manon Cw Spaander; Ernst J Kuipers
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-06-06

2.  Application of quantitative estimates of fecal hemoglobin concentration for risk prediction of colorectal neoplasia.

Authors:  Chao-Sheng Liao; Yu-Min Lin; Hung-Chuen Chang; Yu-Hung Chen; Lee-Won Chong; Chun-Hao Chen; Yueh-Shih Lin; Kuo-Ching Yang; Chia-Hui Shih
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-12-07       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Use of a low cut-off value for the fecal immunochemical test enables better detection of proximal neoplasia.

Authors:  Jae Myung Cha; Joung Il Lee; Kwang Ro Joo; Hyun Phil Shin; Jung Won Jeun; Jun Uk Lim
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-08-04       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  Nomograms for colorectal cancer: A systematic review.

Authors:  Kazushige Kawai; Eiji Sunami; Hironori Yamaguchi; Soichiro Ishihara; Shinsuke Kazama; Hiroaki Nozawa; Keisuke Hata; Tomomichi Kiyomatsu; Junichiro Tanaka; Toshiaki Tanaka; Takeshi Nishikawa; Joji Kitayama; Toshiaki Watanabe
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-11-07       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Cost-effectiveness of population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a comparison of guaiac-based faecal occult blood testing, faecal immunochemical testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Authors:  L Sharp; L Tilson; S Whyte; A O'Ceilleachair; C Walsh; C Usher; P Tappenden; J Chilcott; A Staines; M Barry; H Comber
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-02-16       Impact factor: 7.640

6.  A score to estimate the likelihood of detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia at colonoscopy.

Authors:  Michal F Kaminski; Marcin Polkowski; Ewa Kraszewska; Maciej Rupinski; Eugeniusz Butruk; Jaroslaw Regula
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2014-01-02       Impact factor: 23.059

7.  Risk-adjusted colorectal cancer screening using the FIT and routine screening data: development of a risk prediction model.

Authors:  Jennifer Anne Cooper; Nick Parsons; Chris Stinton; Christopher Mathews; Steve Smith; Stephen P Halloran; Sue Moss; Sian Taylor-Phillips
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2017-11-02       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  A Label-Free, Quantitative Fecal Hemoglobin Detection Platform for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Gita V Soraya; Thanh C Nguyen; Chathurika D Abeyrathne; Duc H Huynh; Jianxiong Chan; Phuong D Nguyen; Babak Nasr; Gursharan Chana; Patrick Kwan; Efstratios Skafidas
Journal:  Biosensors (Basel)       Date:  2017-05-05

Review 9.  Advances in Fecal Occult Blood Tests: the FIT revolution.

Authors:  Graeme P Young; Erin L Symonds; James E Allison; Stephen R Cole; Callum G Fraser; Stephen P Halloran; Ernst J Kuipers; Helen E Seaman
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 3.199

10.  Quality Metrics of a Fecal Immunochemical Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Korea.

Authors:  Dae Ho Kim; Jae Myung Cha; Min Seob Kwak; Jin Young Yoon; Young-Hak Cho; Jung Won Jeon; Hyun Phil Shin; Kwang Ro Joo; Joung Il Lee
Journal:  Gut Liver       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 4.519

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.