• The lancet oncology · Feb 2006

    Immunochemical testing of individuals positive for guaiac faecal occult blood test in a screening programme for colorectal cancer: an observational study.

    • Callum G Fraser, Catriona M Matthew, N Ashley G Mowat, John A Wilson, Francis A Carey, and Robert J C Steele.
    • Department of Biochemical Medicine, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland, UK. callum.fraser@tuht.scot.nhs.uk
    • Lancet Oncol. 2006 Feb 1; 7 (2): 127-31.

    BackgroundScreening for colorectal cancer by use of guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests (FOBT) reduces disease-specific mortality. However, due to imperfect specificity, about half of individuals positive for guaiac FOBT are negative for neoplasia on colonoscopy. We aimed to assess whether the testing of individuals positive for guaiac FOBT in a screening programme for colorectal cancer by use of a sensitive immunochemical FOBT could select more appropriately those who should receive colonoscopy.MethodsWe invited individuals who were guaiac FOBT positive in the second screening round of a pilot study in Scotland, UK, to give two samples, each from separate stools, for immunochemical FOBT while awaiting colonoscopy. Results were classed as: both samples negative (N/N), one sample negative and one positive (N/P), and both samples positive (P/P); data were assessed for sampling bias. We compared immunochemical findings with those from colonoscopy using odds ratios of positive samples (P/P) versus negative (N/N and N/P). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios for cancer, and for cancer and high-risk adenomatous polyps were also calculated.Findings1486 participants were invited and 801 (54%) sets of duplicate samples were returned. We found no evidence of sampling bias with regard to sex, age, or degree of positivity on guaiac FOBT. Of 800 sets returned with consent and analysed, 173 (22%) were N/N, 129 (16%) were N/P, and 498 (62%) were P/P. Chi2 test showed a highly significant positive correlation between degree of positivity on guaiac FOBT and on immunochemical FOBT (p<0.003). 795 individuals had data for colonoscopy: one (<1%) of 171 N/N participants and one (<1%) of 127 N/P participants had colorectal cancer, compared with 38 (8%) of 497 P/P participants; adenomatous polyps were found in 28 (16%) N/N individuals, 24 (19%) N/P individuals, and 193 (39%) P/P individuals. Normal colonoscopy was less common in the P/P group (85 [17%]) than in the N/N (67 [39%]) and N/P (49 [39%]) groups. The odds ratio for P/P being associated with cancer was 7.57 (95% CI 1.84-31.4) and with high-risk adenomatous polyps was 3.11 (1.86-5.18). Sensitivity of a P/P result for cancer was 95.0% (81.8-99.1), and for cancer and high-risk adenomatous polyps was 90.1% (84.4-94.0); specificity was 39.5% (36.0-43.1) and 47.8% (43.9-51.8), respectively.InterpretationImmunochemical FOBT for individuals with positive guaiac FOBT could decrease substantially the number of false positives in a screening programme for colorectal cancer.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…