4.1 Article

Gender-specific cut-offs in colorectal cancer screening with FIT: Increased compliance and equal positivity rate

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 92-97

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0969141318804843

关键词

Colorectal cancer; faecal haemoglobin; gender; faecal immunochemical test; faecal occult blood test; screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Using quantitative Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) in colorectal cancer screening enables adjustment of the cut-off for a positive test. As men have higher stool blood levels and higher prevalence of colorectal neoplasia, different cut-off levels can be chosen for men and women. We evaluated participation and positivity rates switching from guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) (Hemoccult (R)) to FIT (OC-Sensor), using gender-specific cut-offs. Methods The colorectal cancer screening programme of Stockholm-Gotland, Sweden, started in 2008 and invited individuals aged 60-69 to biennial testing using gFOBT. From 1 October 2015 the test was switched to FIT, with positivity cut-offs of 40 (200) and 80 (400) mu g Hb/g (ng/mL) faeces for women and men, respectively. The first year was evaluated for compliance and positivity, number of reminders and incorrect/inadequate tests, compared with gFOBT in the preceding 12-month period. Results There were 127,030 and 87,269 individuals invited to screening with gFOBT and FIT, respectively. The change of test increased overall participation by 11.9% (95% confidence interval 11.5%-12.3%) from 56.5% to 68.4% (p < 0.001). The increase was larger in men (14.3%) than women (9.7%), and in those aged 60-64 (14.2%) than those aged 65-69 (8.7%). The positivity rate was 2.6% in women and 2.5% in men. There was a lower rate of reminders and incorrect/inadequate tests with FIT. Conclusions Within a well-organised colorectal cancer screening programme, changing the test from gFOBT to FIT markedly increased participation, especially among men, and in the younger age group. With a lower cut-off in women than men, the positivity rate was similar.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据