4.1 Article

Delayed sample arrival at the laboratory does not lead to more false negatives in the Danish population screening for colorectal cancer

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00365513.2017.1379091

Keywords

Clinical laboratory services; early detection of cancer; colorectal neoplasms

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In Denmark, biennial population screening for colorectal cancer was introduced in 2014 for all aged 50-74 years. Five laboratories representative for the regional division of Denmark perform the immunochemical testing of faecal occult blood in the screening samples (iFOBT, OC-Sensor (Eiken Chemical, cut-off 100 mg/L)). In July 2016, a new agreement on the public post-delivery entailed an increased lag time (five days) from the screening participant drops the screening sample into a mail-box until sample arrival at the laboratories. Previous work had reported that a lag time above five days led to more false negative iFOBT tests. We investigated if this was true also under Danish conditions. We performed two stability tests; one with sample storage at 30 degrees C for 14 days (N = 60), and another with sample storage at room temperature for 13 days (N = 10). We extracted data from our laboratory information system (LABKA) on all iFOBT tests performed in the entire Central Denmark Region (N = 104,328 patients) during the last six months for each calendar year 2014-16. For each year, we computed the distribution of iFOBT tests below and above cut-off. Our stability tests showed no positive samples switching to false negative after storage; however, some negative samples turned false positive, especially at 30 degrees C. The data showed no change in the distribution of iFOBT tests below and above cut-off after July 2016. We found no evidence that an enhanced lag time increased the number of false negative iFOBT tests in the Danish screening program for colorectal cancer.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available