Superior diagnostic performance of faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin in a head-to-head comparison with guaiac based faecal occult blood test among 2235 participants of screening colonoscopy
TL;DR: FITs can detect much larger proportions of colorectal neoplasms even if their cut-offs are set to levels that ensure equally low positivity rates as gFOBT, according to a head-to-head comparison among participants of the German screening colonoscopy programme.
About: This article is published in European Journal of Cancer.The article was published on 2013-09-01. It has received 221 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Population.
Citations
More filters
University of Virginia1, Louisiana State University2, University of Minnesota3, Emory University4, University of Pennsylvania5, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center6, Durham University7, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center8, University of California, San Francisco9, American Cancer Society10
TL;DR: This guideline update used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence.
Abstract: In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
1,153 citations
TL;DR: This review highlights issues to consider when implementing a CRC screening programme and gives a worldwide overview of CRC burden and the current status of screening programmes, with focus on international differences.
Abstract: Colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks third among the most commonly diagnosed cancers worldwide, with wide geographical variation in incidence and mortality across the world. Despite proof that screening can decrease CRC incidence and mortality, CRC screening is only offered to a small proportion of the target population worldwide. Throughout the world there are widespread differences in CRC screening implementation status and strategy. Differences can be attributed to geographical variation in CRC incidence, economic resources, healthcare structure and infrastructure to support screening such as the ability to identify the target population at risk and cancer registry availability. This review highlights issues to consider when implementing a CRC screening programme and gives a worldwide overview of CRC burden and the current status of screening programmes, with focus on international differences.
887 citations
TL;DR: In randomized trials conducted among average-risk, asymptomatic women, ovarian cancer mortality did not significantly differ between screened women and those with no screening or in usual care; evidence on psychological harms was limited but nonsignificant.
Abstract: Importance Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Objective To systematically review the effectiveness, diagnostic accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC. Data Sources Searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2014, with surveillance through February 23, 2016. Study Selection English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting CRC or adenomas, and serious adverse events. Results Four pragmatic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating 1-time or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy (n = 458 002) were associated with decreased CRC-specific mortality compared with no screening (incidence rate ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.82). Five RCTs with multiple rounds of biennial screening with guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (n = 419 966) showed reduced CRC-specific mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98, at 19.5 years to RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93, at 30 years). Seven studies of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) with bowel preparation demonstrated per-person sensitivity and specificity to detect adenomas 6 mm and larger comparable with colonoscopy (sensitivity from 73% [95% CI, 58%-84%] to 98% [95% CI, 91%-100%]; specificity from 89% [95% CI, 84%-93%] to 91% [95% CI, 88%-93%]); variability and imprecision may be due to differences in study designs or CTC protocols. Sensitivity of colonoscopy to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger ranged from 75% (95% CI, 63%-84%) to 93% (95% CI, 88%-96%). On the basis of a single stool specimen, the most commonly evaluated families of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) demonstrated good sensitivity (range, 73%-88%) and specificity (range, 90%-96%). One study (n = 9989) found that FIT plus stool DNA test had better sensitivity in detecting CRC than FIT alone (92%) but lower specificity (84%). Serious adverse events from colonoscopy in asymptomatic persons included perforations (4/10 000 procedures, 95% CI, 2-5 in 10 000) and major bleeds (8/10 000 procedures, 95% CI, 5-14 in 10 000). Computed tomographic colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation exposure or identification of extracolonic findings. Conclusions and Relevance Colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, CTC, and stool tests have differing levels of evidence to support their use, ability to detect cancer and precursor lesions, and risk of serious adverse events in average-risk adults. Although CRC screening has a large body of supporting evidence, additional research is still needed.
821 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a quantitative meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of FITs for CRC was performed, where the authors explored potential sources of heterogeneity by analyzing subgroups classified by FIT sample number, cutoff value for a positive test result, FIT brand, and the reference standard.
Abstract: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States (1). Randomized, controlled trials have shown that annual or biennial fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) are associated with a 15% to 33% decrease in CRC mortality rates (2–4). However, FOBTs only detect approximately 13% to 50% of cancer with 1 round of screening in asymptomatic patients (5, 6). In addition, adherence to repeated rounds of FOBTs in real-world screening programs is low, raising concern about their effectiveness as screening tests (7, 8).
Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are more sensitive at detecting both CRC and adenomas than FOBTs (9, 10). Many FITs require only 1 or 2 stool samples, and none require dietary or medication restrictions, increasing ease of use. In 2008, several U.S. professional societies endorsed the use of FITs to replace FOBTs because of the former's improved performance characteristics and potential for higher participation rates (10, 11). Countries in Europe and Asia have also adopted widespread CRC screening programs using FITs (12, 13). However, the diagnostic characteristics of these tests have been difficult to estimate, with reported sensitivities ranging from 25% to 100% for CRC and specificities usually exceeding 90% (9, 14, 15). The lack of a precise estimate of sensitivity has resulted in confusion among health care providers about the sources of this variation, how best to apply FITs for CRC screening, the optimal number of stool samples for testing, optimal cutoff value for a positive test result, and whether any brand of FIT is superior to others. Our analysis provides a quantitative meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of FITs for CRC. In addition, we explored potential sources of heterogeneity by analyzing subgroups classified by FIT sample number, cutoff value for a positive test result, FIT brand, and the reference standard.
543 citations
TL;DR: FIT-based screening programmes were associated with a significant reduction in CRC mortality, which took place much earlier than reported by gFOBT-based trials and observational studies.
Abstract: Objective Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes based on the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) reduce CRC-specific mortality. Several studies have shown higher sensitivity with the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) compared with gFOBT. We carried out an ecological study to evaluate the impact of FIT-based screening programmes on CRC mortality. Design In the Veneto Region (Italy), biennial FIT-based screening programmes that invited 50–69-year-old residents were introduced in different areas between 2002 and 2009. We compared CRC mortality rates from 1995 to 2011 between the areas where screening started in 2002–2004 (early screening areas (ESA)) and areas that introduced the screening in 2008–2009 (late screening areas (LSA)) using Poisson regression models. We also compared available data on CRC incidence rates (1995–2007) and surgical resection rates (2001–2012). Results Before the introduction of screening, CRC mortality and incidence rates in the two areas were similar. Compared with 1995–2000, 2006–2011 mortality rates were 22% lower in the ESA than in the LSA (rate ratio (RR)=0.78; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.89). The reduction was larger in women (RR=0.64; CI 0.51 to 0.80) than in men (RR=0.87; CI 0.73 to 1.04). In the ESA, incidence and surgery rates peaked during the introduction of the screening programme and then returned to the baseline (2006–2007 incidence) or dropped below initial values (surgery after 2007). Conclusions FIT-based screening programmes were associated with a significant reduction in CRC mortality. This effect took place much earlier than reported by gFOBT-based trials and observational studies.
232 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: Findings support the hypothesis that colonoscopic removal of adenomatous polyps prevents death from colorectal cancer.
Abstract: BACKGROUND In the National Polyp Study (NPS), colorectal cancer was prevented by colonoscopic removal of adenomatous polyps. We evaluated the long-term effect of colonoscopic polypectomy in a study on mortality from colorectal cancer. METHODS We included in this analysis all patients prospectively referred for initial colonoscopy (between 1980 and 1990) at NPS clinical centers who had polyps (adenomas and nonadenomas). The National Death Index was used to identify deaths and to determine the cause of death; follow-up time was as long as 23 years. Mortality from colorectal cancer among patients with adenomas removed was compared with the expected incidence-based mortality from colorectal cancer in the general population, as estimated from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program, and with the observed mortality from colorectal cancer among patients with nonadenomatous polyps (internal control group). RESULTS Among 2602 patients who had adenomas removed during participation in the study, after a median of 15.8 years, 1246 patients had died from any cause and 12 had died from colorectal cancer. Given an estimated 25.4 expected deaths from colorectal cancer in the general population, the standardized incidence-based mortality ratio was 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.80) with colonoscopic polypectomy, suggesting a 53% reduction in mortality. Mortality from colorectal cancer was similar among patients with adenomas and those with nonadenomatous polyps during the first 10 years after polypectomy (relative risk, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.1 to 10.6). CONCLUSIONS These findings support the hypothesis that colonoscopic removal of adenomatous polyps prevents death from colorectal cancer. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others.)
2,381 citations
TL;DR: Flexible sigmoidoscopy is a safe and practical test and, when offered only once between ages 55 and 64 years, confers a substantial and longlasting benefit.
1,536 citations
TL;DR: Colonoscopy rarely misses polyps ≥10 mm, but the miss rate increases significantly in smaller sized polyps.
1,249 citations
TL;DR: This review confirms previous research demonstrating that FOBT screening reduces the risk of CRC mortality and indicates that there is no difference in all-cause mortality between the screened and nonscreened populations.
958 citations
University of Pittsburgh1, National Institutes of Health2, University of Minnesota3, Howard University4, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center5, Washington University in St. Louis6, University of Utah7, University of Colorado Denver8, University of Alabama at Birmingham9, Georgetown University10, Henry Ford Health System11, Marshfield Clinic12, Westat13, University of Toronto14
TL;DR: Screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy was associated with a significant decrease in colorectal-cancer incidence (in both the distal and proximal colon) and mortality (distal colon only).
Abstract: BackgroundThe benefits of endoscopic testing for colorectal-cancer screening are uncertain. We evaluated the effect of screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy on colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality. MethodsFrom 1993 through 2001, we randomly assigned 154,900 men and women 55 to 74 years of age either to screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy, with a repeat screening at 3 or 5 years, or to usual care. Cases of colorectal cancer and deaths from the disease were ascertained. ResultsOf the 77,445 participants randomly assigned to screening (intervention group), 83.5% underwent baseline flexible sigmoidoscopy and 54.0% were screened at 3 or 5 years. The incidence of colorectal cancer after a median follow-up of 11.9 years was 11.9 cases per 10,000 person-years in the intervention group (1012 cases), as compared with 15.2 cases per 10,000 person-years in the usual-care group (1287 cases), which represents a 21% reduction (relative risk, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.85; P<0.001). Significant ...
869 citations