Jean A Shapiro1, Janet K Bobo2, Timothy R Church3, Douglas K Rex4, Gary Chovnick2, Trevor D Thompson1, Ann G Zauber5, David Lieberman6, Theodore R Levin7, Djenaba A Joseph1, Marion R Nadel1. 1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 2. Battelle Health and Analytics, Seattle, Washington, USA. 3. Environmental Health Sciences, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. 5. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA. 6. Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. 7. Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Annual testing using either a high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test (HS-gFOBT) or a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is recommended for screening average-risk people for colorectal cancer. We compared the performance characteristics of the HS-gFOBT Hemoccult II SENSA and two FITs (InSure FIT and OC FIT-CHEK) for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia. METHODS: The study included 1,006 asymptomatic patients, aged 50-75 years, who were scheduled to receive a screening colonoscopy at gastroenterology practices in the Minneapolis and Indianapolis metropolitan areas. Each participant was asked to complete all three stool tests before their colonoscopy. Each test's performance characteristics were evaluated using the screening colonoscopic results as the reference standard. RESULTS:Sensitivity for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia was highest for InSure FIT (26.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.9-40.7), followed by OC FIT-CHEK (15.1%, 95% CI 6.7-26.1) and Hemoccult II SENSA (7.4%, 95% CI 1.9-17.0). InSure FIT was statistically significantly more sensitive than both OC FIT-CHEK (absolute difference in sensitivity=11.2%, 95% CI 0.4-24.2) and Hemoccult II SENSA (difference in sensitivity=18.9%, 95% CI 10.2-32.6). Specificities were relatively high for all tests (between 96.8% and 98.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that some FITs are more sensitive than the HS-gFOBT Hemoccult II SENSA, but these results need to be confirmed in larger asymptomatic populations. Comparisons between the FITs examined in this study and other FITs are needed to determine the best tests for population screening.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Annual testing using either a high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test (HS-gFOBT) or a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is recommended for screening average-risk people for colorectal cancer. We compared the performance characteristics of the HS-gFOBT Hemoccult II SENSA and two FITs (InSure FIT and OC FIT-CHEK) for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia. METHODS: The study included 1,006 asymptomatic patients, aged 50-75 years, who were scheduled to receive a screening colonoscopy at gastroenterology practices in the Minneapolis and Indianapolis metropolitan areas. Each participant was asked to complete all three stool tests before their colonoscopy. Each test's performance characteristics were evaluated using the screening colonoscopic results as the reference standard. RESULTS: Sensitivity for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia was highest for InSure FIT (26.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.9-40.7), followed by OC FIT-CHEK (15.1%, 95% CI 6.7-26.1) and Hemoccult II SENSA (7.4%, 95% CI 1.9-17.0). InSure FIT was statistically significantly more sensitive than both OC FIT-CHEK (absolute difference in sensitivity=11.2%, 95% CI 0.4-24.2) and Hemoccult II SENSA (difference in sensitivity=18.9%, 95% CI 10.2-32.6). Specificities were relatively high for all tests (between 96.8% and 98.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that some FITs are more sensitive than the HS-gFOBT Hemoccult II SENSA, but these results need to be confirmed in larger asymptomatic populations. Comparisons between the FITs examined in this study and other FITs are needed to determine the best tests for population screening.
Authors: Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; David C Grossman; Susan J Curry; Karina W Davidson; John W Epling; Francisco A R García; Matthew W Gillman; Diane M Harper; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Ann E Kurth; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Douglas K Owens; William R Phillips; Maureen G Phipps; Michael P Pignone; Albert L Siu Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Ann C DeBourcy; Scott Lichtenberger; Susanne Felton; Kiel T Butterfield; Dennis J Ahnen; Thomas D Denberg Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-12-21 Impact factor: 5.128
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: David A Ahlquist; Daniel J Sargent; Charles L Loprinzi; Theodore R Levin; Douglas K Rex; Dennis J Ahnen; Kandice Knigge; M Peter Lance; Lawrence J Burgart; Stanley R Hamilton; James E Allison; Michael J Lawson; Mary E Devens; Jonathan J Harrington; Shauna L Hillman Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-10-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Russell I Heigh; Tracy C Yab; William R Taylor; Fareeda T N Hussain; Thomas C Smyrk; Douglas W Mahoney; Michael J Domanico; Barry M Berger; Graham P Lidgard; David A Ahlquist Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-20 Impact factor: 3.240
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
Authors: Andrew Wang; Carly Rachocki; Jean A Shapiro; Rachel B Issaka; Ma Somsouk Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Germaine Wong; Richard L Hope; Kirsten Howard; Jeremy R Chapman; Antoni Castells; Simon D Roger; Michael J Bourke; Petra Macaskill; Robin Turner; Gabrielle Williams; Wai H Lim; Charmaine E Lok; Fritz Diekman; Nicholas Cross; Shaundeep Sen; Richard D M Allen; Steven J Chadban; Carol A Pollock; Allison Tong; Armando Teixeira-Pinto; Jean Y H Yang; Narelle Williams; Eric Au; Anh Kieu; Laura James; Jonathan C Craig Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-10-09 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Balambal Bharti; Folasade Fola Popoola May; Jesse Nodora; María Elena Martínez; Karina Moyano; Shauntay L Davis; Christian B Ramers; Felipe Garcia-Bigley; Shawne O'Connell; Kevin Ronan; Melissa Barajas; Sheree Gordon; Giselle Diaz; Evelyn Ceja; Meghan Powers; Elva M Arredondo; Samir Gupta Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kevin Selby; Emma H Levine; Cecilia Doan; Anton Gies; Hermann Brenner; Charles Quesenberry; Jeffrey K Lee; Douglas A Corley Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Veronika Voronova; Peter Glybochko; Andrey Svistunov; Viktor Fomin; Philipp Kopylov; Peter Tzarkov; Alexey Egorov; Evgenij Gitel; Aligeydar Ragimov; Alexander Boroda; Elena Poddubskaya; Marina Sekacheva Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Brandilyn A Peters; Jean A Shapiro; Timothy R Church; George Miller; Chau Trinh-Shevrin; Elizabeth Yuen; Charles Friedlander; Richard B Hayes; Jiyoung Ahn Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-06-27 Impact factor: 4.379