AIM: The diagnostic accuracy of the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) at a 100 ng/ml threshold for colorectal cancer (CRC) was compared with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) referral criteria. METHOD: A multicentre, prospective, blind study of diagnostic tests was carried out in two Spanish health areas. In 787 symptomatic patients referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy, we determined whether patients met NICE and SIGN referral criteria. All patients performed one FIT determination (OCsensor(™) ). The sensitivity and specificity for CRC detection were determined with McNemar's test. The diagnostic odds ratio as well as the number needed to scope (NNS) to detect a CRC were calculated. RESULTS: We detected CRC in 97 (12.3%) patients; 241 (30.6%) had an FIT ≥ 100 ng/ml and 300 (38.1%) and 473 (60.1%) met NICE and SIGN referral criteria. The FIT had a higher sensitivity for CRC detection than NICE criteria (87.6%, 61.9%; P < 0.001) and SIGN criteria (82.5%; P = 0.4). The specificity of FIT was also higher than NICE and SIGN criteria (77.4%, 65.2%, 42.7%; P < 0.001). The odds ratios of FIT, NICE and SIGN criteria for the diagnosis of CRC were 24.24 (95% CI 12.91-45.53), 3.04 (95% CI 1.96-4.71) and 3.51 (95% CI 2.03-6.06). The NNS to detect a CRC in individuals with an FIT ≥ 100 ng/ml was 2.83 (95% CI 2.4-3.41) and in individuals who met NICE and SIGN criteria it was 5 (95% CI 3.98-6.37) and 5.95 (95% CI 4.85-7.35). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that FIT is more accurate for the detection of CRC than the current NICE and SIGN referral criteria in symptomatic patients referred for colonoscopy. Colorectal Disease
AIM: The diagnostic accuracy of the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) at a 100 ng/ml threshold for colorectal cancer (CRC) was compared with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) referral criteria. METHOD: A multicentre, prospective, blind study of diagnostic tests was carried out in two Spanish health areas. In 787 symptomatic patients referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy, we determined whether patients met NICE and SIGN referral criteria. All patients performed one FIT determination (OCsensor(™) ). The sensitivity and specificity for CRC detection were determined with McNemar's test. The diagnostic odds ratio as well as the number needed to scope (NNS) to detect a CRC were calculated. RESULTS: We detected CRC in 97 (12.3%) patients; 241 (30.6%) had an FIT ≥ 100 ng/ml and 300 (38.1%) and 473 (60.1%) met NICE and SIGN referral criteria. The FIT had a higher sensitivity for CRC detection than NICE criteria (87.6%, 61.9%; P < 0.001) and SIGN criteria (82.5%; P = 0.4). The specificity of FIT was also higher than NICE and SIGN criteria (77.4%, 65.2%, 42.7%; P < 0.001). The odds ratios of FIT, NICE and SIGN criteria for the diagnosis of CRC were 24.24 (95% CI 12.91-45.53), 3.04 (95% CI 1.96-4.71) and 3.51 (95% CI 2.03-6.06). The NNS to detect a CRC in individuals with an FIT ≥ 100 ng/ml was 2.83 (95% CI 2.4-3.41) and in individuals who met NICE and SIGN criteria it was 5 (95% CI 3.98-6.37) and 5.95 (95% CI 4.85-7.35). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that FIT is more accurate for the detection of CRC than the current NICE and SIGN referral criteria in symptomatic patients referred for colonoscopy. Colorectal Disease
Authors: Inés Castro; Pamela Estevez; Joaquín Cubiella; Vicent Hernandez; Carmen González-Mao; Concepción Rivera; Felipe Iglesias; Lucía Cid; Santiago Soto; Luisa de-Castro; Pablo Vega; Jose Antonio Hermo; Ramiro Macenlle; Alfonso Martínez; Estela Cid; Inés Gil; Mikel Larzabal; Luis Bujanda; Antoni Castells Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Kevin J Monahan; Michael M Davies; Muti Abulafi; Ayan Banerjea; Brian D Nicholson; Ramesh Arasaradnam; Neil Barker; Sally Benton; Richard Booth; David Burling; Rachel Victoria Carten; Nigel D'Souza; James Edward East; Jos Kleijnen; Michael Machesney; Maria Pettman; Jenny Pipe; Lance Saker; Linda Sharp; James Stephenson; Robert Jc Steele Journal: Gut Date: 2022-07-12 Impact factor: 31.793
Authors: Marije van Melle; Samir I S Yep Manzano; Hugh Wilson; Willie Hamilton; Fiona M Walter; Sarah E R Bailey Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Luis Bujanda; Cristina Sarasqueta; Pablo Vega; María Salve; Enrique Quintero; Victoria Alvarez-Sánchez; Fernando Fernández-Bañares; Jaume Boadas; Rafel Campo; Ana Garayoa; Angel Ferrandez; Leyanira Torrealba; Daniel Rodríguez-Alcaide; Mauro D'Amato; Vicent Hernández; Joaquin Cubiella Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: James L Turvill; Daniel Turnock; Dan Cottingham; Monica Haritakis; Laura Jeffery; Annabelle Girdwood; Tom Hearfield; Alex Mitchell; Ada Keding Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 6.302
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