Literature DB >> 23376426

A population-based comparison of immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer screening.

Thibaut Raginel1, Josette Puvinel, Olivier Ferrand, Veronique Bouvier, Romuald Levillain, Angela Ruiz, Olivier Lantieri, Guy Launoy, Lydia Guittet.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Quantitative fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) identify individuals with colorectal cancer with greater levels of accuracy than guaiac tests. We compared the performances of 2 FITs in a population undergoing screening for colorectal cancer.
METHODS: We collected fecal samples from 19,797 individuals in France (age, 50-74 y) who participated in a colorectal cancer screening program, from June 2009 through May 2011. Samples were analyzed using the Magstream (Fujirebio Inc, Tokyo, Japan) and OC Sensor (Eiken Chemical Co, Tokyo, Japan) (2 samples each) FITs, as well as the Hemoccult II guaiac test (SKD, Villepinte, France) (3 samples each). Colonoscopies were performed for patients with positive results from all 3 tests. The cut-off values for levels of hemoglobin in buffer and stools were 55 ng/mL and 180 μg/g for the Magstream and 150 ng/mL and 30 μg/g for the OC Sensor, respectively. Results from the FITs were compared with those from the guaiac test for cut-off values for stool samples, positivity rates, and the receiver operating characteristic curve values. The numbers needed to screen and the numbers needed to scope to detect an advanced neoplasia (cancer, adenoma ≥10 mm, or high-grade dysplasia) were calculated.
RESULTS: A positive test result was found in 1224 participants (6.2%); 1075 (87.8%) underwent a colonoscopy examination. Of these, 334 were found to have advanced neoplasia. Considering the cut-off values associated with the positivity rate of Hemoccult II (1.6%), the numbers needed to screen were 239 for Hemoccult II, 166 for a 1-sample Magstream FIT, and 129 for a 1-sample OC Sensor FIT; the numbers needed to scope were 3.3, 2.3, and 1.8, respectively. For the same false-positive rate as Hemoccult II (0.98%), the true-positive rates for Magstream and OC Sensor FITs were 0.65% and 0.90% respectively, compared with 0.42% for Hemoccult II. The OC Sensor FIT had a greater area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value than the Magstream FIT.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on results from a large, population-based study, the OC Sensor FIT identifies patients with colorectal cancer with greater accuracy than the Magstream FIT. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01251666.
Copyright © 2013 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23376426     DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.01.042

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastroenterology        ISSN: 0016-5085            Impact factor:   22.682


  18 in total

Review 1.  New era of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Maysaa El Zoghbi; Linda C Cummings
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-03-10

2.  Performance of a quantitative fecal immunochemical test in a colorectal cancer screening pilot program: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Jennifer Telford; Laura Gentile; Lovedeep Gondara; Colleen McGahan; Andrew Coldman
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2016-11-04

3.  The First Screening Program for Colorectal Cancer in the North of Iran.

Authors:  Hossein-Ali Nikbakht; Javad Shokri-Shirvani; Hassan Ashrafian-Amiri; Haleh Ghaem; Ali Jafarnia; Sedigheh Alijanpour; Seyed-Mostaffa Mirzad; Soheil Hassanipour
Journal:  J Gastrointest Cancer       Date:  2020-03

Review 4.  Which bacterial toxins are worthy of validation as markers in colorectal cancer screening? A critical review.

Authors:  Kristyna Mezerova; Vladislav Raclavsky; Lubomir Stary
Journal:  Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub       Date:  2021-11-05       Impact factor: 1.245

Review 5.  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

6.  Impact of Screening Program on Incidence of Colorectal Cancer: A Cohort Study in Italy.

Authors:  Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Massimo Vicentini; Claudio Sacchettini; Enza Di Felice; Stefania Caroli; Francesca Ferrari; Lucia Mangone; Annamaria Pezzarossi; Francesca Roncaglia; Cinzia Campari; Romano Sassatelli; Roberto Sacchero; Giuliana Sereni; Luisa Paterlini; Marco Zappa
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-08-25       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Evaluation of serum CEA, CYFRA21-1 and CA125 for the early detection of colorectal cancer using longitudinal preclinical samples.

Authors:  D S Thomas; E-O Fourkala; S Apostolidou; R Gunu; A Ryan; I Jacobs; U Menon; W Alderton; A Gentry-Maharaj; J F Timms
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2015-06-02       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 8.  Population screening for colorectal cancer means getting FIT: the past, present, and future of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin (FIT).

Authors:  James E Allison; Callum G Fraser; Stephen P Halloran; Graeme P Young
Journal:  Gut Liver       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 4.519

9.  The performance of three-sample qualitative immunochemical fecal test to detect colorectal adenoma and cancer in gastrointestinal outpatients: an observational study.

Authors:  Dong Wu; Han-Qing Luo; Wei-Xun Zhou; Jia-Ming Qian; Jing-Nan Li
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-08       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.