BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (G-FOBT), with that of three immunochemical faecal occult blood tests (I-FOBT) which allow automatic interpretation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Under the French organised screening programme, 85,149 average-risk individuals aged 50-74 participating in the third screening round, performed both the G-FOBT (Hemoccult-II test) and one of the I-FOBTs: FOB-Gold, Magstream and OC-Sensor. RESULTS: Given the chosen threshold, the positivity ratio between the different I-FOBTs and the G-FOBT was 2.4 for FOB-Gold, 2.0 for Magstream and 2.2 for OC-Sensor (P=0.17). The three I-FOBTs were superior to the G-FOBT for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection. The ratios for detection rates were 1.6 (FOB-Gold), 1.7 (Magstream) and 2.1 (OC-Sensor) (P=0.74). For non-invasive CRC they were, respectively, 2.5, 3.0 and 4.0 (P=0.83) and for advanced adenomas 3.6, 3.1 and 4.0 (P=0.39). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides further evidence that I-FOBT is superior to G-FOBT. None of the three I-FOBTs studied appeared to be significantly better than the others.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (G-FOBT), with that of three immunochemical faecal occult blood tests (I-FOBT) which allow automatic interpretation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Under the French organised screening programme, 85,149 average-risk individuals aged 50-74 participating in the third screening round, performed both the G-FOBT (Hemoccult-II test) and one of the I-FOBTs: FOB-Gold, Magstream and OC-Sensor. RESULTS: Given the chosen threshold, the positivity ratio between the different I-FOBTs and the G-FOBT was 2.4 for FOB-Gold, 2.0 for Magstream and 2.2 for OC-Sensor (P=0.17). The three I-FOBTs were superior to the G-FOBT for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection. The ratios for detection rates were 1.6 (FOB-Gold), 1.7 (Magstream) and 2.1 (OC-Sensor) (P=0.74). For non-invasive CRC they were, respectively, 2.5, 3.0 and 4.0 (P=0.83) and for advanced adenomas 3.6, 3.1 and 4.0 (P=0.39). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides further evidence that I-FOBT is superior to G-FOBT. None of the three I-FOBTs studied appeared to be significantly better than the others.
Authors: Hermann Brenner; Silvia Calderazzo; Thomas Seufferlein; Leopold Ludwig; Nektarios Dikopoulos; Jörg Mangold; Wolfgang Böck; Thomas Stolz; Thomas Eisenbach; Thomas Block; Annette Kopp-Schneider; David Czock; Kaja Tikk Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Brian D Nicholson; Matthew Thompson; Christopher P Price; Carl Heneghan; Annette Plüddemann Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 5.386
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
Authors: Barcey T Levy; Jeanette M Daly; Yinghui Xu; Seth D Crockett; Richard M Hoffman; Jeffrey D Dawson; Kim Parang; Navkiran K Shokar; Daniel S Reuland; Marc J Zuckerman; Avraham Levin Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-05-08 Impact factor: 2.261