Literature DB >> 24769265

Tests and investigations for colorectal cancer screening.

Magdalen R R Carroll1, Helen E Seaman2, Stephen P Halloran3.   

Abstract

Worldwide, colorectal (CRC) is the third most common form of cancer, after lung and breast cancer, and the fourth most common cause of cancer death, although in developed countries CRC incidence is higher and it accounts for an even higher proportion of cancer deaths. Successful treatment of early-stage CRC confers substantial survival advantage, and there is now overwhelming evidence that screening average-risk individuals for CRC reduces the incidence and disease-specific mortality. In spite of considerable research for new biomarkers for CRC, the detection of blood in faeces remains the most effective screening tool. The best evidence to date for population-based CRC screening comes from randomised-controlled trials that used a guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBt) as the first-line screening modality, whereby test-positive individuals are referred for follow-up investigations, usually colonoscopy. A major innovation in the last ten years or so has been the development of other more analytically sensitive and specific screening techniques for blood in faeces. The faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin (FIT) confers substantial benefits over gFOBt in terms of analytical sensitivity, specificity and practicality and FIT are now recommended for CRC screening by the European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. The challenge internationally is to develop high quality CRC screening programmes for which uptake is high. This is especially important for developing countries witnessing an increase in the incidence of CRC as populations adopt more westernised lifestyles. This review describes the tests available for CRC screening and how they are being used worldwide. The reader will gain an understanding of developments in CRC screening and issues that arise in choosing the most appropriate screening test (or tests) for organised population-based screening internationally and optimising the performance of the chosen test (or tests). Whilst a wide range of literature has been cited, this is not a systematic review. The authors provide FOBT CRC screening for a population of 14.6 million in the south of England and the senior author (SPH) was the lead author of the European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis and leads the World Endoscopy Organization Colorectal Cancer Committee's Expert Working Group on 'FIT for Screening'.
Copyright © 2014 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bowel; Cancer; Colorectal; FIT; FOBT; Faecal immunochemical test; Faecal occult blood; Screening

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24769265     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.04.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Biochem        ISSN: 0009-9120            Impact factor:   3.281


  25 in total

1.  Does Low Threshold Value Use Improve Proximal Neoplasia Detection by Fecal Immunochemical Test?

Authors:  Nam Hee Kim; Hyo-Joon Yang; Soo-Kyung Park; Jung Ho Park; Dong Il Park; Chong Il Sohn; Kyuyong Choi; Yoon Suk Jung
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2016-04-23       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Fecal Immunochemical Test in Patients at Increased Risk for Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Anastasia Katsoula; Paschalis Paschos; Anna-Bettina Haidich; Apostolos Tsapas; Olga Giouleme
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 3.  New era of colorectal cancer screening.

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

4.  Discovery of genes from feces correlated with colorectal cancer progression.

Authors:  Chia-Long Lee; Chi-Jung Huang; Shung-Haur Yang; Chun-Chao Chang; Chi-Cheng Huang; Chih-Cheng Chien; Ruey-Neng Yang
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 2.967

5.  Yield of Colonoscopy After a Positive Result From a Fecal Immunochemical Test OC-Light.

Authors:  Muhammad Alsayid; Maneesh H Singh; Rachel Issaka; Victoria Laleau; Lukejohn Day; Jeffrey Lee; James Allison; Ma Somsouk
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2018-04-13       Impact factor: 11.382

6.  Urinary MicroRNA Sensing Using Electrochemical Biosensor to Evaluate Colorectal Cancer Progression.

Authors:  Sow-Neng Pang; Yu-Lun Lin; Yueh-Er Chiou; Wai-Hung Leung; Wen-Hui Weng
Journal:  Biomedicines       Date:  2022-06-17

7.  Are Hemorrhoids Associated with False-Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test Results?

Authors:  Nam Hee Kim; Jung Ho Park; Dong Il Park; Chong Il Sohn; Kyuyong Choi; Yoon Suk Jung
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 2.759

8.  Clinical risk stratification model for advanced colorectal neoplasia in persons with negative fecal immunochemical test results.

Authors:  Yoon Suk Jung; Chan Hyuk Park; Nam Hee Kim; Jung Ho Park; Dong Il Park; Chong Il Sohn
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 3.240

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.  Long non-coding RNA AFAP1-AS1 facilitates tumor growth and promotes metastasis in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Xu Han; Lingling Wang; Yu Ning; Shuang Li; Zhenjun Wang
Journal:  Biol Res       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 5.612

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.