Random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer in a screening population

被引:607
作者
van Rossum, Leo G. [1 ]
van Rijn, Anne F. [2 ]
Laheij, Robert J. [1 ]
van Oijen, Martijn G. [1 ]
Fockens, Paul [2 ]
van Krieken, Han H. [3 ]
Verbeek, Andre L. [4 ]
Jansen, Jan B. [1 ]
Dekker, Evelien [2 ]
机构
[1] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Med Ctr, Dept Gastroenterol & Hepatol, NL-6500 HB Nijmegen, Netherlands
[2] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Dept Gastroenterol & Hepatol, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
[3] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Med Ctr, Dept Pathol, NL-6525 ED Nijmegen, Netherlands
[4] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Med Ctr, Dept Epidemiol Biostat & HTA, NL-6525 ED Nijmegen, Netherlands
关键词
D O I
10.1053/j.gastro.2008.03.040
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background & Aims: Despite poor performance, guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests (G-FOBT) are most frequently implemented for colorectal. cancer screening. Immunochemical fecal occult blood tests (I-FOBT) are claimed to perform better, without randomized comparison in screening populations. Our aim was to randomly compare G-FOBT with I-FOBT in a screening population. Methods: We conducted a population-based study on a random sample of 20,623 individuals 50-75 years of age, randomized to either G-FOBT (Hemoccult-II) or I-FOBT (OC-Sensor). Tests and invitations were sent together. For I-FOBT, the standard cutoff of 100 ng/ml was used. Positive FOBTs were verified with colonoscopy. Advanced adenomas were defined as >= 10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, or >= 20% villous component. Results: There were 10,993 tests returned. 4836 (46.9%) G-FOBTs and 6157 (59.6%) I-FOBTs. The participation rate difference was 12.7% (P < .01). Of G-FOBTs, 117 (2.4%) were positive versus 339 (5.5%) of I-FOBTs. The positivity rate difference was 3.1% (P < .01). Cancer and advanced adenomas were found, respectively, in 11 and 48 of G-FOBTs and in 24 and 121 of I-FOBTs. Differences in positive predictive value for cancer and advanced adenomas and cancer were, respectively, 2.1% (P = .4) and -3.6% (P = .5). Differences in specificities favor G-FOBT and were, respectively, 2.3% (P < .01) and -1.3% (P < .01). Differences in intention-to-screen detection rates favor I-FOBT and were, respectively, 0.1% (P < .05) and 0.9% (P < .01). Conclusions: The number-to-scope to find I cancer was comparable between the tests. However, participation and detection rates for advanced adenomas and cancer were significantly higher for I-FOBT. G-FOBT significantly underestimates the prevalence of advanced adenomas and cancer in the screening population compared with I-FOBT.
引用
收藏
页码:82 / 90
页数:9
相关论文
共 49 条
  • [1] Effect of diet, life style, and other environmental/chemopreventive factors on colorectal cancer development, and assessment of the risks
    Ahmed, FE
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND HEALTH PART C-ENVIRONMENTAL CARCINOGENESIS & ECOTOXICOLOGY REVIEWS, 2004, 22 (02) : 91 - 147
  • [2] Allison JE, 1998, ALIMENT PHARM THERAP, V12, P1
  • [3] Use of colonoscopy as a primary screening test for colorectal cancer in average risk people
    Betés, M
    Muñoz-Navas, MA
    Duque, JM
    Angós, R
    Macías, E
    Súbtil, JC
    Herraiz, M
    De La Riva, S
    Delgado-Rodríguez, M
    Martínez-González, MA
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2003, 98 (12) : 2648 - 2654
  • [4] BRECHT JG, 1987, METHOD INFORM MED, V26, P53
  • [5] Immunochemical vs guaiac faecal occult blood tests in a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer
    Castiglione, G
    Zappa, M
    Grazzini, G
    Mazzotta, A
    Biagini, M
    Salvadori, P
    Ciatto, S
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 1996, 74 (01) : 141 - 144
  • [6] Basic variables at different positivity thresholds of a quantitative immunochemical test for faecal occult blood
    Castiglione, G
    Grazzini, G
    Miccinesi, G
    Rubeca, T
    Sani, C
    Turco, P
    Zappa, M
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 2002, 9 (03) : 99 - 103
  • [7] Chiang Chien-Hua, 2006, Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, V22, P223
  • [8] CUMMINGS KM, 1984, CANCER, V53, P2201, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19840515)53:10<2201::AID-CNCR2820531033>3.0.CO
  • [9] 2-0
  • [10] Faivre J, 1991, Eur J Cancer Prev, V1, P49