TY - JOUR
T1 - Random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer in a screening population
AU - van Rossum, Leo G.
AU - van Rijn, Anne F.
AU - Laheij, Robert J.
AU - van Oijen, Martijn G.
AU - Fockens, Paul
AU - van Krieken, Han H.
AU - Verbeek, Andre L.
AU - Jansen, Jan B.
AU - Dekker, Evelien
PY - 2008
Y1 - 2008
N2 - 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 >or=10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, or >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 1 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
AB - 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 >or=10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, or >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 1 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
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2008.03.040
DO - https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2008.03.040
M3 - Article
C2 - 18482589
SN - 0016-5085
VL - 135
SP - 82
EP - 90
JO - Gastroenterology
JF - Gastroenterology
IS - 1
ER -