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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Armitage, N., Hardcastle, J. D., Amar, S. S., Balfour, T. W., Haynes, J., James, P. D.
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