Cargando…
A comparison of an immunological faecal occult blood test Fecatwin sensitive/FECA EIA with Haemoccult in population screening for colorectal cancer.
Two faecal occult blood tests, a simple chemical test Haemoccult and an immunological test, Fecatwin Sensitive/Feca EIA, were offered to 3,225 asymptomatic individuals as screening for colorectal cancer. One thousand three hundred and four (44%) completed and returned the tests and of these 126 (9.7...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
1985
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1977091/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4005139 |
_version_ | 1782135188536426496 |
---|---|
author | Armitage, N. Hardcastle, J. D. Amar, S. S. Balfour, T. W. Haynes, J. James, P. D. |
author_facet | Armitage, N. Hardcastle, J. D. Amar, S. S. Balfour, T. W. Haynes, J. James, P. D. |
author_sort | Armitage, N. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Two faecal occult blood tests, a simple chemical test Haemoccult and an immunological test, Fecatwin Sensitive/Feca EIA, were offered to 3,225 asymptomatic individuals as screening for colorectal cancer. One thousand three hundred and four (44%) completed and returned the tests and of these 126 (9.7%) were found to be positive - Haemoccult 40 (3%) and Feca EIA 106 (8.1%). Five cancers (4 Dukes' Stage A, 1 Dukes' Stage C) and 23 adenomas greater than 1 cm were detected - rates of 3.8 per 1000 persons screened and 17.7 per 1000 persons screened respectively. Of the five cancers identified 5 were Feca EIA positive and 3 were Haemoccult positive. Of the 23 adenomas greater than 1 cm diameter identified, J1 were Feca EIA positive and 20 were Haemoccult positive. Seventy-eight Feca EIA positive subjects were investigated and no neoplastic disease was identified. Whilst this sensitive immunological test increases the yield of carcinomas, the high false positive rate makes it unsuitable for population screening for colorectal cancer in its present form. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-1977091 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 1985 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-19770912009-09-10 A comparison of an immunological faecal occult blood test Fecatwin sensitive/FECA EIA with Haemoccult in population screening for colorectal cancer. Armitage, N. Hardcastle, J. D. Amar, S. S. Balfour, T. W. Haynes, J. James, P. D. Br J Cancer Research Article Two faecal occult blood tests, a simple chemical test Haemoccult and an immunological test, Fecatwin Sensitive/Feca EIA, were offered to 3,225 asymptomatic individuals as screening for colorectal cancer. One thousand three hundred and four (44%) completed and returned the tests and of these 126 (9.7%) were found to be positive - Haemoccult 40 (3%) and Feca EIA 106 (8.1%). Five cancers (4 Dukes' Stage A, 1 Dukes' Stage C) and 23 adenomas greater than 1 cm were detected - rates of 3.8 per 1000 persons screened and 17.7 per 1000 persons screened respectively. Of the five cancers identified 5 were Feca EIA positive and 3 were Haemoccult positive. Of the 23 adenomas greater than 1 cm diameter identified, J1 were Feca EIA positive and 20 were Haemoccult positive. Seventy-eight Feca EIA positive subjects were investigated and no neoplastic disease was identified. Whilst this sensitive immunological test increases the yield of carcinomas, the high false positive rate makes it unsuitable for population screening for colorectal cancer in its present form. Nature Publishing Group 1985-06 /pmc/articles/PMC1977091/ /pubmed/4005139 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Armitage, N. Hardcastle, J. D. Amar, S. S. Balfour, T. W. Haynes, J. James, P. D. A comparison of an immunological faecal occult blood test Fecatwin sensitive/FECA EIA with Haemoccult in population screening for colorectal cancer. |
title | A comparison of an immunological faecal occult blood test Fecatwin sensitive/FECA EIA with Haemoccult in population screening for colorectal cancer. |
title_full | A comparison of an immunological faecal occult blood test Fecatwin sensitive/FECA EIA with Haemoccult in population screening for colorectal cancer. |
title_fullStr | A comparison of an immunological faecal occult blood test Fecatwin sensitive/FECA EIA with Haemoccult in population screening for colorectal cancer. |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of an immunological faecal occult blood test Fecatwin sensitive/FECA EIA with Haemoccult in population screening for colorectal cancer. |
title_short | A comparison of an immunological faecal occult blood test Fecatwin sensitive/FECA EIA with Haemoccult in population screening for colorectal cancer. |
title_sort | comparison of an immunological faecal occult blood test fecatwin sensitive/feca eia with haemoccult in population screening for colorectal cancer. |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1977091/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4005139 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT armitagen acomparisonofanimmunologicalfaecaloccultbloodtestfecatwinsensitivefecaeiawithhaemoccultinpopulationscreeningforcolorectalcancer AT hardcastlejd acomparisonofanimmunologicalfaecaloccultbloodtestfecatwinsensitivefecaeiawithhaemoccultinpopulationscreeningforcolorectalcancer AT amarss acomparisonofanimmunologicalfaecaloccultbloodtestfecatwinsensitivefecaeiawithhaemoccultinpopulationscreeningforcolorectalcancer AT balfourtw acomparisonofanimmunologicalfaecaloccultbloodtestfecatwinsensitivefecaeiawithhaemoccultinpopulationscreeningforcolorectalcancer AT haynesj acomparisonofanimmunologicalfaecaloccultbloodtestfecatwinsensitivefecaeiawithhaemoccultinpopulationscreeningforcolorectalcancer AT jamespd acomparisonofanimmunologicalfaecaloccultbloodtestfecatwinsensitivefecaeiawithhaemoccultinpopulationscreeningforcolorectalcancer AT armitagen comparisonofanimmunologicalfaecaloccultbloodtestfecatwinsensitivefecaeiawithhaemoccultinpopulationscreeningforcolorectalcancer AT hardcastlejd comparisonofanimmunologicalfaecaloccultbloodtestfecatwinsensitivefecaeiawithhaemoccultinpopulationscreeningforcolorectalcancer AT amarss comparisonofanimmunologicalfaecaloccultbloodtestfecatwinsensitivefecaeiawithhaemoccultinpopulationscreeningforcolorectalcancer AT balfourtw comparisonofanimmunologicalfaecaloccultbloodtestfecatwinsensitivefecaeiawithhaemoccultinpopulationscreeningforcolorectalcancer AT haynesj comparisonofanimmunologicalfaecaloccultbloodtestfecatwinsensitivefecaeiawithhaemoccultinpopulationscreeningforcolorectalcancer AT jamespd comparisonofanimmunologicalfaecaloccultbloodtestfecatwinsensitivefecaeiawithhaemoccultinpopulationscreeningforcolorectalcancer |