4.6 Article

Faecal haemoglobin concentrations by gender and age: implications for population-based screening for colorectal cancer

Journal

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE
Volume 50, Issue 5, Pages 935-940

Publisher

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2011.815

Keywords

colorectal cancer; decision limits; faecal immunochemical test; reference values; screening

Funding

  1. Scottish Government Health Directorates

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) are becoming widely used in colorectal cancer screening. Estimation of faecal haemoglobin concentration in a large group prompted an observational study on gender and age. Methods: A single estimate of faecal haemoglobin concentration was made using quantitative automated immunoturbidimetry. Potential reference intervals were calculated for men and women and for age quintiles according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Approved Guideline. The percentages of positive results were calculated at a number of concentrations. The percentages of individuals who fell into different risk groups were assessed. Results: The 97.5 percentiles, potential upper reference limits, were 519 ng haemoglobin/mL (90% CI: 468-575) for men and 283 ng haemoglobin/mL (90% CI: 257-316) for women. Concentrations increased with age in both genders. Decision limits have advantages over reference intervals. At any cut-off concentration, more men are declared positive than women and more older people are declared positive than younger people. Future risk of neoplasia is higher in men than in women and in older people. Conclusions: Faecal haemoglobin concentrations vary with gender and age. More tailored strategies are needed in screening programmes. Faecal haemoglobin concentration could be included in individual risk assessment scores. These data should assist in screening programme design.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available