Robert Jc Steele1, Paula J McDonald2, Jayne Digby2, Linda Brownlee2, Judith A Strachan2, Gillian Libby2, Paula L McClements3, Janice Birrell4, Francis A Carey5, Robert H Diament6, Margaret Balsitis7, Callum G Fraser8. 1. Department of Surgery, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK. 2. Scottish Bowel Screening Centre, NHS Tayside, Dundee, UK. 3. Information Services Division, NHS National Services Scotland, Edinburgh, UK. 4. National Services Division, NHS National Services Scotland, Edinburgh, UK. 5. Department of Pathology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK. 6. Department of Surgery, Crosshouse Hospital, Kilmarnock, UK. 7. Department of Pathology, Crosshouse Hospital, Kilmarnock UK. 8. Centre for Research into Cancer Prevention & Screening, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Because of their many advantages, faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) are superseding traditional guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests in bowel screening programmes. METHODS: A quantitative FIT was adopted for use in two evaluation National Health Service (NHS) Boards in Scotland using a cut-off faecal haemoglobin concentration chosen to give a positivity rate equivalent to that achieved in the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme. Uptake and clinical outcomes were compared with results obtained contemporaneously in two other similar NHS Boards and before and after the evaluation in the two evaluation NHS Boards. RESULTS: During the evaluation, uptake was 58.5%. This was higher than in the same NHS Boards both before and after the evaluation, higher than in the other two NHS Boards and higher than the 53.7% achieved overall in Scotland. The overall positivity rate was higher in men than in women and increased with age in both genders. Positive predictive values for cancer (4.8%), high-risk adenoma (23.3%), all adenoma (38.2%) and all neoplasia (43.0%) in the two test NHS Boards were similar in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, this evaluation of the FIT supports the introduction of FIT as a first-line test, even when colonoscopy capacity is limited.
INTRODUCTION: Because of their many advantages, faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) are superseding traditional guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests in bowel screening programmes. METHODS: A quantitative FIT was adopted for use in two evaluation National Health Service (NHS) Boards in Scotland using a cut-off faecal haemoglobin concentration chosen to give a positivity rate equivalent to that achieved in the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme. Uptake and clinical outcomes were compared with results obtained contemporaneously in two other similar NHS Boards and before and after the evaluation in the two evaluation NHS Boards. RESULTS: During the evaluation, uptake was 58.5%. This was higher than in the same NHS Boards both before and after the evaluation, higher than in the other two NHS Boards and higher than the 53.7% achieved overall in Scotland. The overall positivity rate was higher in men than in women and increased with age in both genders. Positive predictive values for cancer (4.8%), high-risk adenoma (23.3%), all adenoma (38.2%) and all neoplasia (43.0%) in the two test NHS Boards were similar in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, this evaluation of the FIT supports the introduction of FIT as a first-line test, even when colonoscopy capacity is limited.
Authors: Paula J McDonald; Judith A Strachan; Jayne Digby; Robert J C Steele; Callum G Fraser Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Callum G Fraser; Jayne Digby; Paula J McDonald; Judith A Strachan; Francis A Carey; Robert J C Steele Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: R J C Steele; I Kostourou; P McClements; C Watling; G Libby; D Weller; D H Brewster; R Black; F A Carey; C Fraser Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2010 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: R J C Steele; P L McClements; G Libby; R Black; C Morton; J Birrell; N A G Mowat; J A Wilson; M Kenicer; F A Carey; C G Fraser Journal: Gut Date: 2008-11-26 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: L Hol; M E van Leerdam; M van Ballegooijen; A J van Vuuren; H van Dekken; J C I Y Reijerink; A C M van der Togt; J D F Habbema; E J Kuipers Journal: Gut Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; Jeroen G Lijmer; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: L Hol; J A Wilschut; M van Ballegooijen; A J van Vuuren; H van der Valk; J C I Y Reijerink; A C M van der Togt; E J Kuipers; J D F Habbema; M E van Leerdam Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-04-07 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Caitlin C Murphy; Ahana Sen; Bianca Watson; Samir Gupta; Helen Mayo; Amit G Singal Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 4.254
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: Thomas F Imperiale; Patrick O Monahan; Timothy E Stump; Elizabeth A Glowinski; David F Ransohoff Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 25.391
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: Mette Kielsholm Thomsen; Lars Pedersen; Rune Erichsen; Timothy L Lash; Henrik T Sørensen; Ellen M Mikkelsen Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 9.075
Authors: J Geraghty; P Butler; H Seaman; J Snowball; S Sarkar; R Blanks; S Halloran; K Bodger; C J Rees Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 7.640