Attendance and diagnostic yield of repeated two-sample faecal immunochemical test screening for colorectal cancer
| Autor: | Anneke J van Vuuren, Aafke H. van Roon, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Lieke Hol, Ernst J. Kuipers, Kirsten Izelaar, Atija Kapidzic, Monique E. van Leerdam, Wolfert Spijker, Marjolein van Ballegooijen |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Public Health |
| Rok vydání: | 2014 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Colorectal cancer Population 03 medical and health sciences Feces Hemoglobins 0302 clinical medicine SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being Predictive Value of Tests Internal medicine medicine Humans Two sample education Early Detection of Cancer Aged education.field_of_study Attendance rate business.industry Immunochemistry Gastroenterology Attendance Middle Aged medicine.disease Predictive value Colorectal cancer screening 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis Predictive value of tests Patient Compliance 030211 gastroenterology & hepatology business Colorectal Neoplasms |
| Zdroj: | Gut, 66(1), 118-123. BMJ Publishing Group |
| ISSN: | 1468-3288 0017-5749 |
| Popis: | Objective Limited data exist on attendance and additional yield of 2-sample faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) screening during multiple rounds. We therefore conducted a population-based colorectal cancer screening trial comparing attendance and yield of repeated 1-sample and 2-sample FIT screenings. Design Two randomly selected groups of average-risk subjects aged 50–74 years were invited for two rounds of either 1-sample (n=5007) or 2-sample (n=3197) FIT (OC-sensor Micro) screening. The test was considered positive if at least one sample was positive (cut-off 50 ng/mL; 10 µg haemoglobin/g). Results The cumulative attendance rate was similar for repeated 1-sample and 2-sample FIT screenings (1-sample FIT: 68.1%; 2-sample FIT: 67.1%, p=0.368). The positivity rate in the second round was lower for 1-sample FIT (6.2%, 95% CI 5.4% to 7.2%) than for 2-sample FIT (8.4%, 95% CI 7.1% to 9.8%, p=0.007), whereas the detection rate of advanced neoplasia (AN, 1-sample FIT: 1.9%, 95% CI 1.2% to 2.2%; 2-sample FIT: 1.7%, 95% CI 1.2% to 2.5%, p=0.861) and the positive predictive value (1-sample FIT: 32%, 95% CI 24% to 40%; 2-sample FIT: 21%, 95% CI 15% to 29%, p=0.075) did not differ. After two rounds of screening, the cumulative diagnostic yield of AN for 1-sample FIT was 29.3 per 1000 invitees, compared with 34.0 for 2-sample FIT (p=0.241). Conclusions Using 2-sample FIT instead of 1-sample FIT does not result in a higher detection rate of AN in the second round of repeated FIT screening. Furthermore, both strategies lead to a similar yield of AN over two rounds. These findings imply that 1-sample FIT screening is preferred over 2-sample FIT screening. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|