4.4 Article

Faecal haemoglobin concentration is related to severity of colorectal neoplasia

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
Volume 66, Issue 5, Pages 415-419

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2013-201445

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Chief Scientist Office [CZH/6/4]
  2. Chief Scientist Office [CZH/6/4] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims Guaiac faecal occult blood tests are being replaced by faecal immunochemical tests (FIT). We investigated whether faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb) was related to stage in progression of colorectal neoplasia, studying cancer and adenoma characteristics in an evaluation of quantitative FIT as a first-line screening test. Methods We invited 66 225 individuals aged 50-74 years to provide one sample of faeces. f-Hb was measured on samples from 38 720 responders. Colonoscopy findings and pathology data were collected on the 943 with f-Hb >= 400 ng Hb/ml (80 mu g Hb/g faeces). Results Of the 814 participants with outcome data (median age: 63 years, range 50-75, 56.4% male), 39 had cancer, 190 high-risk adenoma (HRA, defined as >= 3 or any >= 10 mm) and 119 low-risk adenoma (LRA). 74.4% of those with cancer had nf-Hb> 1000 ng Hb/ml compared with 58.4% with HRA, and 44.1% with no pathology. Median f-Hb concentration was higher in those with cancer than those with no (p<0.002) or non-neoplastic (p<0.002) pathology, and those with LRA (p=0.0001). Polyp cancers had lower concentrations than more advanced stage cancers (p<0.04). Higher f-Hb was also found in those with HRA than with LRA (p<0.006), large (>10 mm) compared with small adenoma (p<0.0001), and also an adenoma displaying high-grade dysplasia compared with low-grade dysplasia (p<0.009). Conclusions f-Hb is related to severity of colorectal neoplastic disease. This has ramifications for the selection of the appropriate cut-off concentration adopted for bowel screening programmes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available