4.7 Article

Risk-adjusted colorectal cancer screening using the FIT and routine screening data: development of a risk prediction model

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 118, Issue 2, Pages 285-293

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2017.375

Keywords

colorectal cancer screening; faecal immunochemical test; prediction model; test performance; risk-based screening

Categories

Funding

  1. NIHR CLAHRC West Midlands initiative

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is replacing the guaiac faecal occult blood test in colorectal cancer screening. Increased uptake and FIT positivity will challenge colonoscopy services. We developed a risk prediction model combining routine screening data with FIT concentration to improve the accuracy of screening referrals. Methods: Multivariate analysis used complete cases of those with a positive FIT (>= 20 mu g g(-1)) and diagnostic outcome (n = 1810; 549 cancers and advanced adenomas). Logistic regression was used to develop a risk prediction model using the FIT result and screening data: age, sex and previous screening history. The model was developed further using a feedforward neural network. Model performance was assessed by discrimination and calibration, and test accuracy was investigated using clinical sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristic curves. Results: Discrimination improved from 0.628 with just FIT to 0.659 with the risk-adjusted model (P = 0.01). Calibration using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test was 0.90 for the risk-adjusted model. The sensitivity improved from 30.78% to 33.15% at similar specificity (FIT threshold of 160 mu g g(-1)). The neural network further improved model performance and test accuracy. Conclusions: Combining routinely available risk predictors with the FIT improves the clinical sensitivity of the FIT with an increase in the diagnostic yield of high-risk adenomas.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available