4.7 Article

Diagnostic Performance of Guaiac-Based Fecal Occult Blood Test in Routine Screening: State-Wide Analysis from Bavaria, Germany

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 109, 期 3, 页码 427-435

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2013.424

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: Randomized trials have shown that annual or biannual screening by guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests (gFOBTs) reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality. Few clinical studies have evaluated diagnostic performance of gFOBT through validation by colonoscopy in all participants. We aimed for a comprehensive evaluation of diagnostic performance of gFOBT by age and sex under routine screening conditions. METHODS: Our analysis is based on 20,884 colonoscopies following up a positive gFOBT and 182,956 primary screening colonoscopies documented in a state-wide quality assurance program in Bavaria, Germany, in 2007-2009. Positive likelihood ratios (LR+), which represent an integrative measure of diagnostic performance, were derived, by age groups (55-59, 60-64, 65-69, 70-74 years) and sex, from a joint and comparative analysis of prevalences of colorectal neoplasms in both groups. RESULTS: Overall LR+ (95% confidence intervals) were 1.11 (1.06-1.15), 1.80 (1.72-1.88), and 5.04 (4.64-5.47) for non-advanced adenoma, advanced adenoma, and cancer, respectively. Assuming a specificity of gFOBT of 95.2%, as recently observed in a German study among 2,235 participants of screening colonoscopy, these LR+ would translate to sensitivities of 5.3%, 8.6%, and 24.2% for the three outcomes, respectively. Diagnostic performance was similarly poor among women and men and across age groups. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of gFOBT under routine screening conditions is even worse than previously estimated from clinical studies. In routine screening application, gFOBTs are expected to miss more than 9 out of 10 advanced adenomas and 3 out of 4 cancers. These results underline the need and the potential for better noninvasive CRC screening tests.

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