Browsing by Subject "fecal immunochemical test"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Optimizing the Quality of Colorectal Cancer Screening Worldwide
    (Elsevier, 2020-01) Kaminski, Michael F.; Robertson, Donald J.; Senore, Carlo; Rex, Douglas K.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Screening, followed by colonoscopic polypectomy (or surgery for malignant lesions), prevents incident colorectal cancer and mortality. However, there are variations in effective application of nearly every aspect of the screening process. Screening is a multistep process, and failure in any single step could result in unnecessary morbidity and mortality. Awareness of variations in operator- and system-dependent performance has led to detailed, comprehensive recommendations in the United States and Europe on how colonoscopy screening should be performed and measured. Likewise, guidance has been provided on quality assurance for nonprimary colonoscopy-based screening programs, including strategies to maximize adherence. Quality improvement is now a validated science, and there is clear evidence that higher quality prevents incident cancer and cancer death. Quality must be addressed at the levels of the system, provider, and individuals, to maximize the benefits of screening for any population. We review the important aspects of measuring and improving the quality of colorectal cancer screening.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Performance Characteristics of Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Colorectal Cancer and Advanced Adenomatous Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    (ACP, 2019-03) Imperiale, Thomas F.; Gruber, Rachel N.; Stump, Timothy E.; Emmett, Thomas; Monahan, Patrick O.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Studies report inconsistent performance of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced adenomas. Purpose: To summarize performance characteristics of FITs for CRC and advanced adenomas in average-risk persons undergoing screening colonoscopy (reference standard) and to identify factors affecting these characteristics. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception through October 2018; reference lists of studies and reviews. Study Selection: Two reviewers independently screened records to identify published English-language prospective or retrospective observational studies that evaluated FIT sensitivity and specificity for colonoscopic findings in asymptomatic, average-risk adults. Data Extraction: Two authors independently extracted data and evaluated study quality. Data Synthesis: Thirty-one studies (120 255 participants; 18 FITs) were included; all were judged to have low to moderate risk of bias. Performance characteristics depended on the threshold for a positive result. A threshold of 10 µg/g resulted in sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.84 to 0.95) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.10 (CI, 0.06 to 0.19) for CRC, whereas a threshold of greater than 20 µg/g resulted in specificity of 0.95 (CI, 0.94 to 0.96) and a positive likelihood ratio of 15.49 (CI, 9.82 to 22.39). For advanced adenomas, sensitivity was 0.40 (CI, 0.33 to 0.47) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.67 (CI, 0.57 to 0.78) at 10 µg/g, and specificity was 0.95 (CI, 0.94 to 0.96) and the positive likelihood ratio was 5.86 (CI, 3.77 to 8.97) at greater than 20 µg/g. Studies had low to high heterogeneity, depending on the threshold. Although several FITs had adequate performance, sensitivity and specificity for CRC for 1 qualitative FIT were 0.90 and 0.91, respectively, at its single threshold of 10 µg/g; positive and negative likelihood ratios were 10.13 and 0.11, respectively. Comparison of 3 FITs at 3 thresholds was inconclusive: CIs overlapped, and the comparisons were across rather than within studies. Limitations: Only English-language studies were included. Incomplete reporting limited quality assessment of some evidence. Performance characteristics are for 1-time rather than serial testing. Conclusion: Single-application FITs have moderate to high sensitivity and specificity for CRC, depending on the positivity threshold. Sensitivity of 1-time testing for advanced adenomas is low, regardless of the threshold.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Stool Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening
    (AGA Institute, 2015-10) Robertson, Douglas J.; Imperiale, Thomas F.; Department of Medicine, IU School of Medicine
    Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been shown to reduce CRC incidence and mortality and is widely recommended. However, despite the demonstrated benefits of screening and ongoing efforts to improve screening rates, a large percentage of the population remains unscreened. Noninvasive stool based tests offer great opportunity to enhance screening uptake. The evidence supporting the use of both fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and stool DNA (sDNA) has been growing rapidly and both tests are now commercially available for use. Other stool biomarkers (eg, RNA and protein based) are also actively under study both for use independently and as adjuncts to the currently available tests. This mini review provides current, state of the art knowledge about noninvasive stool based screening. It includes a more detailed examination of those tests currently in use (ie, FIT and sDNA) but also provides an overview of stool testing options under development (ie, protein and RNA).
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening
    (Elsevier, 2019) Ladabaum, Uri; Dominitz, Jason A.; Kahi, Charles; Schoen, Robert E.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing worldwide. CRC has high mortality when detected at advanced stages, yet it is also highly preventable. Given the difficulties in implementing major lifestyle changes or widespread primary prevention strategies to decrease CRC risk, screening is the most powerful public health tool to reduce mortality. Screening methods are effective but have limitations. Furthermore, many screen-eligible persons remain unscreened. We discuss established and emerging screening methods, and potential strategies to address current limitations in CRC screening. A quantum step in CRC prevention might come with the development of new screening strategies, but great gains can be made by deploying the available CRC screening modalities in ways that optimize outcomes while making judicious use of resources.