Background: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is commonly used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Despite demographic variations in stool hemoglobin concentrations, few data exist regarding optimal positivity thresholds by age and sex. Objective: To identify programmatic (multitest) FIT performance characteristics and optimal FIT quantitative hemoglobin positivity thresholds in a large, population-based, screening program. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California. Participants: Adults aged 50 to 75 years who were eligible for screening and had baseline quantitative FIT results (2013 to 2014) and 2 years of follow-up. Nearly two thirds (411 241) had FIT screening in the previous 2 years. Measurements: FIT programmatic sensitivity for CRC and number of positive test results per cancer case detected, overall and by age and sex. Results: Of 640 859 persons who completed a baseline FIT and were followed for 2 years, 481 817 (75%) had at least 1 additional FIT and 1245 (0.19%) received a CRC diagnosis. Cancer detection (programmatic sensitivity) increased at lower positivity thresholds, from 822 in 1245 (66.0%) at 30 µg/g to 925 (74.3%) at 20 µg/g and 987 (79.3%) at 10 µg/g; the number of positive test results per cancer case detected increased from 43 at 30 µg/g to 52 at 20 µg/g and 85 at 10 µg/g. Reducing the positivity threshold from 20 to 15 µg/g would detect 3% more cancer cases and require 23% more colonoscopies. At the conventional FIT threshold of 20 µg/g, programmatic sensitivity decreased with increasing age (79.0%, 73.4%, and 68.9% for ages 50 to 59, 60 to 69, and 70 to 75 years, respectively; P = 0.009) and was higher in men than women (77.0% vs. 70.6%; P = 0.011). Limitation: Information on advanced adenoma was lacking. Conclusion: Increased cancer detection at lower positivity thresholds is counterbalanced by substantial increases in positive tests. Tailored thresholds may provide screening benefits that are more equal among different demographic groups, depending on local resources. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.
Background: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is commonly used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Despite demographic variations in stool hemoglobin concentrations, few data exist regarding optimal positivity thresholds by age and sex. Objective: To identify programmatic (multitest) FIT performance characteristics and optimal FIT quantitative hemoglobin positivity thresholds in a large, population-based, screening program. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California. Participants: Adults aged 50 to 75 years who were eligible for screening and had baseline quantitative FIT results (2013 to 2014) and 2 years of follow-up. Nearly two thirds (411 241) had FIT screening in the previous 2 years. Measurements: FIT programmatic sensitivity for CRC and number of positive test results per cancer case detected, overall and by age and sex. Results: Of 640 859 persons who completed a baseline FIT and were followed for 2 years, 481 817 (75%) had at least 1 additional FIT and 1245 (0.19%) received a CRC diagnosis. Cancer detection (programmatic sensitivity) increased at lower positivity thresholds, from 822 in 1245 (66.0%) at 30 µg/g to 925 (74.3%) at 20 µg/g and 987 (79.3%) at 10 µg/g; the number of positive test results per cancer case detected increased from 43 at 30 µg/g to 52 at 20 µg/g and 85 at 10 µg/g. Reducing the positivity threshold from 20 to 15 µg/g would detect 3% more cancer cases and require 23% more colonoscopies. At the conventional FIT threshold of 20 µg/g, programmatic sensitivity decreased with increasing age (79.0%, 73.4%, and 68.9% for ages 50 to 59, 60 to 69, and 70 to 75 years, respectively; P = 0.009) and was higher in men than women (77.0% vs. 70.6%; P = 0.011). Limitation: Information on advanced adenoma was lacking. Conclusion: Increased cancer detection at lower positivity thresholds is counterbalanced by substantial increases in positive tests. Tailored thresholds may provide screening benefits that are more equal among different demographic groups, depending on local resources. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.
Authors: Esmée J Grobbee; Els Wieten; Bettina E Hansen; Esther M Stoop; Thomas R de Wijkerslooth; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Patrick M Bossuyt; Evelien Dekker; Ernst J Kuipers; Manon Cw Spaander Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Sietze T van Turenhout; Leo G M van Rossum; Frank A Oort; Robert J F Laheij; Anne F van Rijn; Jochim S Terhaar sive Droste; Paul Fockens; René W M van der Hulst; Anneke A Bouman; Jan B M J Jansen; Gerrit A Meijer; Evelien Dekker; Chris J J Mulder Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-10-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Esther Toes-Zoutendijk; Monique E van Leerdam; Evelien Dekker; Frank van Hees; Corine Penning; Iris Nagtegaal; Miriam P van der Meulen; Anneke J van Vuuren; Ernst J Kuipers; Johannes M G Bonfrer; Katharina Biermann; Maarten G J Thomeer; Harriët van Veldhuizen; Sonja Kroep; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Gerrit A Meijer; Harry J de Koning; Manon C W Spaander; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 22.682
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: 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: Thomas F Imperiale; David F Ransohoff; Steven H Itzkowitz; Theodore R Levin; Philip Lavin; Graham P Lidgard; David A Ahlquist; Barry M Berger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Amit G Singal; Douglas A Corley; Aruna Kamineni; Michael Garcia; Yingye Zheng; Paul V Doria-Rose; Virginia P Quinn; Christopher D Jensen; Jessica Chubak; Jasmin Tiro; Chyke A Doubeni; Nirupa R Ghai; Celette Sugg Skinner; Karen Wernli; Ethan A Halm Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Deborah E Barnes; Jing Zhou; Rod L Walker; Eric B Larson; Sei J Lee; W John Boscardin; Zachary A Marcum; Sascha Dublin Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 5.562
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: Chloe Thomas; Olena Mandrik; Catherine L Saunders; Deborah Thompson; Sophie Whyte; Simon Griffin; Juliet A Usher-Smith Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2021-05-26
Authors: Natalie Hunt; Christopher Rao; Robert Logan; Vishnu Chandrabalan; Jane Oakey; Claire Ainsworth; Neil Smith; Saswata Banerjee; Martin Myers Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Thuy Ngan Tran; Marc Peeters; Sarah Hoeck; Guido Van Hal; Sharon Janssens; Harlinde De Schutter Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 9.075