Comparison of a guaiac based and an immunochemical faecal occult blood test in screening for colorectal cancer in a general average risk population

被引:203
作者
Guittet, L. [1 ]
Bouvier, V. [1 ]
Mariotte, N. [1 ]
Vallee, J. P. [1 ]
Arsene, D. [1 ]
Boutreux, S. [1 ]
Tichet, J. [1 ]
Launoy, G. [1 ]
机构
[1] CHU Caen, Canc & Populat, ERI 3 INSERM, UFR Med, F-14000 Caen, France
关键词
D O I
10.1136/gut.2006.101428
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The guaiac faecal occult blood test (G-FOBT) is recommended as a screening test for colorectal cancer but its low sensitivity has prevented its use throughout the world. Methods: We compared the performances of the reference G-FOBT (non-rehydrated Hemoccult II test) and the immunochemical faecal occult blood test (I-FOBT) using different positivity cut-off values in an average risk population sample of 10 673 patients who completed the two tests. Patients with at least one test positive were asked to undergo colonoscopy. Results: Using the usual cut-off point of 20 ng/ml haemoglobin, the gain in sensitivity associated with the use of I-FOBT (50% increase for cancer and 256% increase for high risk adenoma) was balanced by a decrease in specificity. The number of extra false positive results associated with the detection of one extra advanced neoplasia (cancer or high risk adenoma) was 2.17 (95% confidence interval 1.65-2.85). With a threshold of 50 ng/ml, I-FOBT detected more than twice as many advanced neoplasias as the G-FOBT (ratio of sensitivity = 2.33) without any loss in specificity (ratio of false positive rate = 0.99). With a threshold of 75 ng/ml, associated with a similar positivity rate to G-FOBT (2.4%), the use of I-FOBT allowed a gain in sensitivity of 90% and a decrease in the false positive rate of 33% for advanced neoplasia. Conclusions: Evidence in favour of the substitution of G-FOBT by I-FOBT is increasing, the gain being more important for high risk adenomas than for cancers. The automated reading technology allows choice of the positivity rate associated with an ideal balance between sensitivity and specificity.
引用
收藏
页码:210 / 214
页数:5
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]   Colorectal cancer screening with fecal occult blood testing (FOBT): An international perspective [J].
Achkar, E ;
Moayyedi, P .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2006, 101 (02) :212-212
[2]   Colon cancer screening guidelines 2005: The fecal occult blood test option has become a better FIT [J].
Allison, JE .
GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2005, 129 (02) :745-748
[3]   A comparison of fecal occult-blood tests for colorectal-cancer screening [J].
Allison, JE ;
Tekawa, IS ;
Ransom, LJ ;
Adrain, AL .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1996, 334 (03) :155-159
[4]   Cost-effectiveness analysis of two strategies for mass screening for colorectal cancer in France [J].
Berchi, C ;
Bouvier, V ;
Réaud, JM ;
Launoy, G .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2004, 13 (03) :227-238
[5]   The place of fecal occult blood test in colorectal cancer screening in 2006: The US perspective [J].
Bond, JH .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2006, 101 (02) :219-221
[6]   Basic variables at different positivity thresholds of a quantitative immunochemical test for faecal occult blood [J].
Castiglione, G ;
Grazzini, G ;
Miccinesi, G ;
Rubeca, T ;
Sani, C ;
Turco, P ;
Zappa, M .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 2002, 9 (03) :99-103
[7]   Validity and coverage of estimates of relative accuracy [J].
Cheng, H ;
Macaluso, M ;
Hardin, JM .
ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2000, 10 (04) :251-260
[8]   Comparison of the accuracy of two tests with a confirmatory procedure limited to positive results [J].
Cheng, H ;
Macaluso, M .
EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 8 (01) :104-106
[9]   Comparing dichotomous screening tests when individuals negative on both tests are not verified [J].
Chock, C ;
Irwig, L ;
Berry, G ;
Glasziou, P .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 50 (11) :1211-1217
[10]   A randomised trial of the impact of new faecal haemoglobin test technologies on population participation in screening for colorectal cancer [J].
Cole, SR ;
Young, GP ;
Esterman, A ;
Cadd, B ;
Morcom, J .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 2003, 10 (03) :117-122