Introduction: Only a minority of patients with a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) undergo a follow-up second diagnostic procedure, thus minimizing its contribution for colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. We aimed to obtain a precise estimation of this problem and also assess the diagnostic yield of CRC and adenomas by colonoscopy in these patients. Methods: Literature searches were conducted for "compliance" OR "adherence" AND "fecal occult blood test" OR "fecal immunohistochemical test" AND "colonoscopy." Comprehensive meta-analysis software was used. Results: The search resulted in 42 studies (512,496 patients with positive FOBT), published through December 31, 2017. A funnel plot demonstrates a moderate publication bias. Compliance with any second procedure, colonoscopy, or combination of double-contrast barium enema with or without sigmoidoscopy in patients with a positive FOBT was 0.725 with 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.649-0.790 (p = 0.000), 0.804 with 95% CI 0.740-0.856 (p = 0.000) and 0.197 with 95% CI 0.096-0.361 (p = 0.000), respectively. The diagnostic yield for CRC, advanced adenoma and simple adenoma was 0.058 with 95% CI 0.050-0.068 (p = 0.000), 0.242 with 95% CI 0.188-0.306 (p = 0.000) and 0.147 with 95% CI 0.116-0.184 (p < 0.001), respectively. Discussion: Compliance with diagnostic evaluation after a positive FOBT is still suboptimal. Therefore, measures to increase compliance need to be taken given the increased risk of CRC in these patients.
Introduction: Only a minority of patients with a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) undergo a follow-up second diagnostic procedure, thus minimizing its contribution for colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. We aimed to obtain a precise estimation of this problem and also assess the diagnostic yield of CRC and adenomas by colonoscopy in these patients. Methods: Literature searches were conducted for "compliance" OR "adherence" AND "fecal occult blood test" OR "fecal immunohistochemical test" AND "colonoscopy." Comprehensive meta-analysis software was used. Results: The search resulted in 42 studies (512,496 patients with positive FOBT), published through December 31, 2017. A funnel plot demonstrates a moderate publication bias. Compliance with any second procedure, colonoscopy, or combination of double-contrast barium enema with or without sigmoidoscopy in patients with a positive FOBT was 0.725 with 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.649-0.790 (p = 0.000), 0.804 with 95% CI 0.740-0.856 (p = 0.000) and 0.197 with 95% CI 0.096-0.361 (p = 0.000), respectively. The diagnostic yield for CRC, advanced adenoma and simple adenoma was 0.058 with 95% CI 0.050-0.068 (p = 0.000), 0.242 with 95% CI 0.188-0.306 (p = 0.000) and 0.147 with 95% CI 0.116-0.184 (p < 0.001), respectively. Discussion: Compliance with diagnostic evaluation after a positive FOBT is still suboptimal. Therefore, measures to increase compliance need to be taken given the increased risk of CRC in these patients.
Authors: M Ferrari Bravo; V De Conca; G L Devoto; M Sironi; R Mele; A Fumagalli; P Rimassa; G Rossi; A Zampogna; C Sticchi; G Gabutti Journal: J Prev Med Hyg Date: 2012-03
Authors: Linda Rabeneck; Jill M Tinmouth; Lawrence F Paszat; Nancy N Baxter; Loraine D Marrett; Arlinda Ruco; Nancy Lewis; Julia Gao Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: David A Etzioni; Elizabeth M Yano; Lisa V Rubenstein; Martin L Lee; Clifford Y Ko; Robert H Brook; Patricia H Parkerton; Steven M Asch Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: John M Inadomi; Sandeep Vijan; Nancy K Janz; Angela Fagerlin; Jennifer P Thomas; Yunghui V Lin; Roxana Muñoz; Chim Lau; Ma Somsouk; Najwa El-Nachef; Rodney A Hayward Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-04-09
Authors: Enrique Quintero; Antoni Castells; Luis Bujanda; Joaquín Cubiella; Dolores Salas; Ángel Lanas; Montserrat Andreu; Fernando Carballo; Juan Diego Morillas; Cristina Hernández; Rodrigo Jover; Isabel Montalvo; Juan Arenas; Eva Laredo; Vicent Hernández; Felipe Iglesias; Estela Cid; Raquel Zubizarreta; Teresa Sala; Marta Ponce; Mercedes Andrés; Gloria Teruel; Antonio Peris; María-Pilar Roncales; Mónica Polo-Tomás; Xavier Bessa; Olga Ferrer-Armengou; Jaume Grau; Anna Serradesanferm; Akiko Ono; José Cruzado; Francisco Pérez-Riquelme; Inmaculada Alonso-Abreu; Mariola de la Vega-Prieto; Juana Maria Reyes-Melian; Guillermo Cacho; José Díaz-Tasende; Alberto Herreros-de-Tejada; Carmen Poves; Cecilio Santander; Andrés González-Navarro Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christopher D Jensen; Douglas A Corley; Virginia P Quinn; Chyke A Doubeni; Ann G Zauber; Jeffrey K Lee; Wei K Zhao; Amy R Marks; Joanne E Schottinger; Nirupa R Ghai; Alexander T Lee; Richard Contreras; Carrie N Klabunde; Charles P Quesenberry; Theodore R Levin; Pauline A Mysliwiec Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: James J Ross; Clive H Wasserfall; Rhonda Bacher; Daniel J Perry; Kieran McGrail; Amanda L Posgai; Xiaoru Dong; Andrew Muir; Xia Li; Martha Campbell-Thompson; Todd M Brusko; Desmond A Schatz; Michael J Haller; Mark A Atkinson Journal: Diabetes Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Andreea M Rawlings; Amanda F Petrik; Matthew Slaughter; Eric S Johnson; Peggy A Hannon; Allison Cole; Thuy Vu; Rajasekhara R Mummadi Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 4.090