Stage-Specific Sensitivity of Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Detecting Colorectal Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

被引:64
|
作者
Niedermaier, Tobias [1 ,2 ]
Balavarca, Yesilda [3 ,4 ,5 ]
Brenner, Hermann [1 ,3 ,4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] German Canc Res Ctr, Div Clin Epidemiol & Aging Res, Heidelberg, Germany
[2] Heidelberg Univ, Med Fac Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
[3] German Canc Res Ctr, Div Prevent Oncol, Heidelberg, Germany
[4] Natl Ctr Tumor Dis NCT, Heidelberg, Germany
[5] German Canc Res Ctr, German Canc Consortium DKTK, Heidelberg, Germany
来源
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY | 2020年 / 115卷 / 01期
关键词
OCCULT BLOOD-TEST; DIAGNOSTIC-TEST ACCURACY; SOCIETY TASK-FORCE; AVERAGE-RISK; SCREENING RECOMMENDATIONS; PUBLICATION BIAS; ADVANCED ADENOMA; COLONOSCOPY; PERFORMANCE; COMBINATION;
D O I
10.14309/ajg.0000000000000465
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
OBJECTIVE: Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) detect the majority of colorectal cancers (CRCs), but evidence for variation in sensitivity according to the CRC stage is sparse and has not yet been systematically synthesized. Thus, our objective was to systematically review and summarize evidence on the stage-specific sensitivity of FITs. METHODS: We screened PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to June 14, 2019, for English-language articles reporting on the stage-specific sensitivity of FIT for CRC detection using colonoscopy as a reference standard. Studies reporting stage-specific sensitivities and the specificity of FIT for CRC detection were included. Summary estimates of sensitivity according to the CRC stage and study setting (screening cohorts, symptomatic/diagnostic cohorts, and case-control studies) were derived from bivariate meta-analysis. RESULTS: Forty-four studies (92,447 participants including 3,034 CRC cases) were included. Pooled stage-specific sensitivities were overall very similar but suffered from high levels of imprecision because of small case numbers when calculated separately for screening cohorts, symptomatic/diagnostic cohorts, and case-control studies. Pooled sensitivities (95% confidence intervals) for all studies combined were 73% (65%-79%) for stage-I-CRCs and 80% (74%-84%), 82% (77%-87%), and 79% (70%-86%) for the detection of CRC stages II, III, and IV, respectively. Even substantially larger variation was seen in sensitivity by T-stage, with summary estimates ranging from 40% (21%-64%) for T1 to 83% (68%-91%) for T3-CRC. DISCUSSION: Although FITs detect 4 of 5 CRCs at stages II-IV, the substantially lower sensitivity for stage-I-CRC and, in particular, T1 CRC indicates both need and potential for further improvement in performance for the early detection of CRC.
引用
收藏
页码:56 / 69
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Effect of fecal immunochemical test cut-off levels on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zarandi-Nowroozi, Melissa
    Taghiakbari, Mahsa
    Barkun, Alan
    Pohl, Heiko
    Nauche, Benedicte
    Chagnon, Miguel
    von Renteln, Daniel
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2024, 59 (08) : 882 - 892
  • [32] Value of symptoms and additional diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis
    Jellema, Petra
    Van der Windt, Danielle A. W. M.
    Bruinvels, David J.
    Mallen, Christian D.
    van Weyenberg, Stijn J. B.
    Mulder, Chris J.
    de Vet, Henrica C. W.
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2010, 340 : 795
  • [33] Faecal immunochemical tests safely enhance rational use of resources during the assessment of suspected symptomatic colorectal cancer in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis
    Pin-Vieito, Noel
    Tejido-Sandoval, Coral
    de Vicente-Bielza, Natalia
    Sanchez-Gomez, Cristina
    Cubiella, Joaquin
    GUT, 2022, 71 (05) : 950 - +
  • [34] Faecal immunochemical tests for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer: An updated systematic review and multiple-threshold meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies
    Harnan, Sue
    Hamilton, Jean
    Simpson, Emma
    Clowes, Mark
    Biz, Aline Navega
    Whyte, Sophie
    Ren, Shijie
    Cooper, Katy
    Abulafi, Muti
    Ball, Alex
    Benton, Sally
    Booth, Richard
    Carten, Rachel
    Edgar, Stephanie
    Hamilton, Willie
    Kurien, Matthew
    Merriman, Louise
    Monahan, Kevin
    Heathcote, Laura
    Jones, Hayley E.
    Stevenson, Matt
    COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2025, 27 (01)
  • [35] A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Convolutional Neural Network in the Diagnosis of Colorectal Polyps and Cancer
    Keshtkar, Kamyab
    Safarpour, Ali Reza
    Heshmat, Ramin
    Sotoudehmanesh, Rasoul
    Keshtkar, Abbas
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2023, 34 (10): : 985 - +
  • [36] Diagnostic Accuracy of FOBT and Colorectal Cancer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
    Ramdzan, Abdul Rahman
    Abd Rahim, Muhammad Aklil
    Zaki, Aznida Mohamad
    Zaidun, Zuraidah
    Nawi, Azmawati Mohammed
    ANNALS OF GLOBAL HEALTH, 2019, 85 (01):
  • [37] Mucin Expression in Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Niv, Yaron
    Rokkas, Theodore
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2019, 53 (06) : 434 - 440
  • [38] Optimal cut-off value for detecting colorectal cancer with fecal immunochemical tests according to age and sex
    Vanaclocha-Espi, Mercedes
    Ibanez, Josefa
    Molina-Barcelo, Ana
    Jose Valverde-Roig, Maria
    Nolasco, Andreu
    Perez-Riquelme, Francisco
    de la Vega, Mariola
    Portillo, Isabel
    Salas, Dolores
    PLOS ONE, 2021, 16 (07):
  • [39] Negative predictive value of fecal immunochemical testing in significant bowel disease screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zhen, Junhai
    Liao, Fei
    Zhang, Jixiang
    Xie, Huabing
    Tan, Cheng
    Dong, Weiguo
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2025, 111 (01) : 1182 - 1190
  • [40] Faecal immunochemical test to triage patients with possible colorectal cancer symptoms: meta-analysis
    Saw, Kai Sheng
    Liu, Chen
    Xu, William
    Varghese, Chris
    Parry, Susan
    Bissett, Ian
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2022, 109 (02) : 182 - 190