BACKGROUND: Performance characteristics of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC) have been inconsistent. PURPOSE: To synthesize data about the diagnostic accuracy of FITs for CRC and identify factors affecting its performance characteristics. DATA SOURCES: Online databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, and bibliographies of included studies from 1996 to 2013. STUDY SELECTION: All studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of FITs for CRC in asymptomatic, average-risk adults. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data and critiqued study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nineteen eligible studies were included and meta-analyzed. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of FITs for CRC were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.86), 0.94 (CI, 0.92 to 0.95), 13.10 (CI, 10.49 to 16.35), 0.23 (CI, 0.15 to 0.33), respectively, with an overall diagnostic accuracy of 95% (CI, 93% to 97%). There was substantial heterogeneity between studies in both the pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates. Stratifying by cutoff value for a positive test result or removal of discontinued FIT brands resulted in homogeneous sensitivity estimates. Sensitivity for CRC improved with lower assay cutoff values for a positive test result (for example, 0.89 [CI, 0.80 to 0.95] at a cutoff value less than 20 µg/g vs. 0.70 [CI, 0.55 to 0.81] at cutoff values of 20 to 50 µg/g) but with a corresponding decrease in specificity. A single-sample FIT had similar sensitivity and specificity as several samples, independent of FIT brand. LIMITATIONS: Only English-language articles were included. Lack of data prevented complete subgroup analyses by FIT brand. CONCLUSION: Fecal immunochemical tests are moderately sensitive, are highly specific, and have high overall diagnostic accuracy for detecting CRC. Diagnostic performance of FITs depends on the cutoff value for a positive test result. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and National Cancer Institute.
BACKGROUND: Performance characteristics of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC) have been inconsistent. PURPOSE: To synthesize data about the diagnostic accuracy of FITs for CRC and identify factors affecting its performance characteristics. DATA SOURCES: Online databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, and bibliographies of included studies from 1996 to 2013. STUDY SELECTION: All studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of FITs for CRC in asymptomatic, average-risk adults. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data and critiqued study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nineteen eligible studies were included and meta-analyzed. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of FITs for CRC were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.86), 0.94 (CI, 0.92 to 0.95), 13.10 (CI, 10.49 to 16.35), 0.23 (CI, 0.15 to 0.33), respectively, with an overall diagnostic accuracy of 95% (CI, 93% to 97%). There was substantial heterogeneity between studies in both the pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates. Stratifying by cutoff value for a positive test result or removal of discontinued FIT brands resulted in homogeneous sensitivity estimates. Sensitivity for CRC improved with lower assay cutoff values for a positive test result (for example, 0.89 [CI, 0.80 to 0.95] at a cutoff value less than 20 µg/g vs. 0.70 [CI, 0.55 to 0.81] at cutoff values of 20 to 50 µg/g) but with a corresponding decrease in specificity. A single-sample FIT had similar sensitivity and specificity as several samples, independent of FIT brand. LIMITATIONS: Only English-language articles were included. Lack of data prevented complete subgroup analyses by FIT brand. CONCLUSION: Fecal immunochemical tests are moderately sensitive, are highly specific, and have high overall diagnostic accuracy for detecting CRC. Diagnostic performance of FITs depends on the cutoff value for a positive test result. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and National Cancer Institute.
Authors: Linda Rabeneck; R Bryan Rumble; Frank Thompson; Michael Mills; Curtis Oleschuk; Alexandra Whibley; Hans Messersmith; Nancy Lewis Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: Andra Morrison; Julie Polisena; Don Husereau; Kristen Moulton; Michelle Clark; Michelle Fiander; Monika Mierzwinski-Urban; Tammy Clifford; Brian Hutton; Danielle Rabb Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Zohar Levi; Paul Rozen; Rachel Hazazi; Alex Vilkin; Amal Waked; Eran Maoz; Shlomo Birkenfeld; Moshe Leshno; Yaron Niv Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-02-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: J D Hardcastle; J O Chamberlain; M H Robinson; S M Moss; S S Amar; T W Balfour; P D James; C M Mangham Journal: Lancet Date: 1996-11-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: James E Allison; Lori C Sakoda; Theodore R Levin; Jo P Tucker; Irene S Tekawa; Thomas Cuff; Mary Pat Pauly; Lyle Shlager; Albert M Palitz; Wei K Zhao; J Sanford Schwartz; David F Ransohoff; Joseph V Selby Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-09-25 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Benjamin Avidan; Amnon Sonnenberg; Thomas G Schnell; Jack Leya; Adrienne Metz; Stephen J Sontag Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Ethna McFerran; James F O'Mahony; Richard Fallis; Duncan McVicar; Ann G Zauber; Frank Kee Journal: Epidemiol Rev Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Theodore R Levin; Douglas A Corley; Christopher D Jensen; Amy R Marks; Wei K Zhao; Alexis M Zebrowski; Virginia P Quinn; Lawrence W Browne; William R Taylor; David A Ahlquist; Graham P Lidgard; Barry M Berger Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2017-01-02 Impact factor: 3.199
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
Authors: Uri Ladabaum; Ajitha Mannalithara; Joel V Brill; Zachary Levin; Kate M Bundorf Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 10.864