4.7 Article

Usefulness of risk stratification models for colorectal cancer based on fecal hemoglobin concentration and clinical risk factors

期刊

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
卷 89, 期 6, 页码 1204-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.02.023

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims: We aimed to develop risk stratification models for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN) and colorectal cancer (CRC) based on fecal hemoglobin (f-Hb) concentration and clinical risk factors. Methods: We reviewed screenees aged >= 50 years who underwent fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy and developed risk-scoring models for ACRN and CRC using logistic regression analysis. Participants were classified into low- (risk lower than that in FIT-negative individuals), intermediate- (risk higher than that in FIT-negative but lower than that in FIT-positive individuals), high- (risk similar to that in FIT-positive individuals), and very-high- (risk higher than that in FIT-positive individuals) risk groups. Results: Of 3733 participants, 367 (9.8%) and 70 (1.9%) had ACRN and CRC, respectively. On multivariable analysis, age (beta = .043/y), former smoker (beta = .401), current smoker (beta = .841), diabetes (beta = .097), and square root of f-Hb concentration (beta = .071) were significantly associated with ACRN. In terms of CRC, age (beta = .035/y) and square root of f-Hb concentration (beta = .004) were associated factors. After point assignments based on the regression coefficient, we could classify screenees as low-, intermediate-, high-, and very-high-risk groups. ACRN was identified in 2.9%, 5.3%, 16.2%, and 35.7% of screenees in the low-, intermediate-, high-, and very-high-risk groups, respectively. CRC was identified in .1%,.5%, 3.9%, and 11.1% of screenees in the low-, intermediate-, high-, and very-high-risk groups, respectively. Conclusions: The proposed models can effectively stratify the risk for ACRN and CRC and provide accurate information on this risk in individuals who undergo FIT.

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

4.7
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