Cargando…

Double sampling of a faecal immunochemical test is not superior to single sampling for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a colonoscopy controlled prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: A single sampled faecal immunochemical test (FIT) has moderate sensitivity for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas. Repeated FIT sampling could improve test sensitivity. The aim of the present study is to determine whether any of three different strategies of double FIT sampling has...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Oort, Frank A, van Turenhout, Sietze T, Coupé, Veerle MH, van der Hulst, René WM, Wesdorp, Eric IC, Terhaar sive Droste, Jochim S, Larbi, Ilhame Ben, Kanis, Shannon L, van Hengel, Edwin, Bouman, Anneke A, Meijer, Gerrit A, Mulder, Chris JJ
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3201938/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21985604
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-11-434
_version_ 1782214952104230912
author Oort, Frank A
van Turenhout, Sietze T
Coupé, Veerle MH
van der Hulst, René WM
Wesdorp, Eric IC
Terhaar sive Droste, Jochim S
Larbi, Ilhame Ben
Kanis, Shannon L
van Hengel, Edwin
Bouman, Anneke A
Meijer, Gerrit A
Mulder, Chris JJ
author_facet Oort, Frank A
van Turenhout, Sietze T
Coupé, Veerle MH
van der Hulst, René WM
Wesdorp, Eric IC
Terhaar sive Droste, Jochim S
Larbi, Ilhame Ben
Kanis, Shannon L
van Hengel, Edwin
Bouman, Anneke A
Meijer, Gerrit A
Mulder, Chris JJ
author_sort Oort, Frank A
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A single sampled faecal immunochemical test (FIT) has moderate sensitivity for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas. Repeated FIT sampling could improve test sensitivity. The aim of the present study is to determine whether any of three different strategies of double FIT sampling has a better combination of sensitivity and specificity than single FIT sampling. METHODS: Test performance of single FIT sampling in subjects scheduled for colonoscopy was compared to double FIT sampling intra-individually. Test positivity of double FIT sampling was evaluated in three different ways: 1) "one of two FITs+" when at least one out of two measurements exceeded the cut-off value, 2) "two of two FITs+" when both measurements exceeded the cut-off value, 3) "mean of two FITs+" when the geometric mean of two FITs exceeded the cut-off value. Receiver operator curves were calculated and sensitivity of single and the three strategies of double FIT sampling were compared at a fixed level of specificity. RESULTS: In 124 of 1096 subjects, screen relevant neoplasia (SRN) were found (i.e. early stage CRC or advanced adenomas). At any cut-off, "two of two FITs+" resulted in the lowest and "one of two FITs+" in the highest sensitivity for SRN (range 35-44% and 42%-54% respectively). ROC's of double FIT sampling were similar to single FIT sampling. At specificities of 85/90/95%, sensitivity of any double FIT sampling strategy did not differ significantly from single FIT (p-values 0.07-1). CONCLUSION: At any cut off, "one of two FITs+" is the most sensitive double FIT sampling strategy. However, at a given specificity level, sensitivity of any double FIT sampling strategy for SRN is comparable to single FIT sampling at a different cut-off value. None of the double FIT strategies has a superior combination of sensitivity and specificity over single FIT.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3201938
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32019382011-10-26 Double sampling of a faecal immunochemical test is not superior to single sampling for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a colonoscopy controlled prospective cohort study Oort, Frank A van Turenhout, Sietze T Coupé, Veerle MH van der Hulst, René WM Wesdorp, Eric IC Terhaar sive Droste, Jochim S Larbi, Ilhame Ben Kanis, Shannon L van Hengel, Edwin Bouman, Anneke A Meijer, Gerrit A Mulder, Chris JJ BMC Cancer Research Article BACKGROUND: A single sampled faecal immunochemical test (FIT) has moderate sensitivity for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas. Repeated FIT sampling could improve test sensitivity. The aim of the present study is to determine whether any of three different strategies of double FIT sampling has a better combination of sensitivity and specificity than single FIT sampling. METHODS: Test performance of single FIT sampling in subjects scheduled for colonoscopy was compared to double FIT sampling intra-individually. Test positivity of double FIT sampling was evaluated in three different ways: 1) "one of two FITs+" when at least one out of two measurements exceeded the cut-off value, 2) "two of two FITs+" when both measurements exceeded the cut-off value, 3) "mean of two FITs+" when the geometric mean of two FITs exceeded the cut-off value. Receiver operator curves were calculated and sensitivity of single and the three strategies of double FIT sampling were compared at a fixed level of specificity. RESULTS: In 124 of 1096 subjects, screen relevant neoplasia (SRN) were found (i.e. early stage CRC or advanced adenomas). At any cut-off, "two of two FITs+" resulted in the lowest and "one of two FITs+" in the highest sensitivity for SRN (range 35-44% and 42%-54% respectively). ROC's of double FIT sampling were similar to single FIT sampling. At specificities of 85/90/95%, sensitivity of any double FIT sampling strategy did not differ significantly from single FIT (p-values 0.07-1). CONCLUSION: At any cut off, "one of two FITs+" is the most sensitive double FIT sampling strategy. However, at a given specificity level, sensitivity of any double FIT sampling strategy for SRN is comparable to single FIT sampling at a different cut-off value. None of the double FIT strategies has a superior combination of sensitivity and specificity over single FIT. BioMed Central 2011-10-10 /pmc/articles/PMC3201938/ /pubmed/21985604 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-11-434 Text en Copyright ©2011 Oort et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Oort, Frank A
van Turenhout, Sietze T
Coupé, Veerle MH
van der Hulst, René WM
Wesdorp, Eric IC
Terhaar sive Droste, Jochim S
Larbi, Ilhame Ben
Kanis, Shannon L
van Hengel, Edwin
Bouman, Anneke A
Meijer, Gerrit A
Mulder, Chris JJ
Double sampling of a faecal immunochemical test is not superior to single sampling for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a colonoscopy controlled prospective cohort study
title Double sampling of a faecal immunochemical test is not superior to single sampling for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a colonoscopy controlled prospective cohort study
title_full Double sampling of a faecal immunochemical test is not superior to single sampling for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a colonoscopy controlled prospective cohort study
title_fullStr Double sampling of a faecal immunochemical test is not superior to single sampling for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a colonoscopy controlled prospective cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Double sampling of a faecal immunochemical test is not superior to single sampling for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a colonoscopy controlled prospective cohort study
title_short Double sampling of a faecal immunochemical test is not superior to single sampling for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a colonoscopy controlled prospective cohort study
title_sort double sampling of a faecal immunochemical test is not superior to single sampling for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a colonoscopy controlled prospective cohort study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3201938/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21985604
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-11-434
work_keys_str_mv AT oortfranka doublesamplingofafaecalimmunochemicaltestisnotsuperiortosinglesamplingfordetectionofcolorectalneoplasiaacolonoscopycontrolledprospectivecohortstudy
AT vanturenhoutsietzet doublesamplingofafaecalimmunochemicaltestisnotsuperiortosinglesamplingfordetectionofcolorectalneoplasiaacolonoscopycontrolledprospectivecohortstudy
AT coupeveerlemh doublesamplingofafaecalimmunochemicaltestisnotsuperiortosinglesamplingfordetectionofcolorectalneoplasiaacolonoscopycontrolledprospectivecohortstudy
AT vanderhulstrenewm doublesamplingofafaecalimmunochemicaltestisnotsuperiortosinglesamplingfordetectionofcolorectalneoplasiaacolonoscopycontrolledprospectivecohortstudy
AT wesdorpericic doublesamplingofafaecalimmunochemicaltestisnotsuperiortosinglesamplingfordetectionofcolorectalneoplasiaacolonoscopycontrolledprospectivecohortstudy
AT terhaarsivedrostejochims doublesamplingofafaecalimmunochemicaltestisnotsuperiortosinglesamplingfordetectionofcolorectalneoplasiaacolonoscopycontrolledprospectivecohortstudy
AT larbiilhameben doublesamplingofafaecalimmunochemicaltestisnotsuperiortosinglesamplingfordetectionofcolorectalneoplasiaacolonoscopycontrolledprospectivecohortstudy
AT kanisshannonl doublesamplingofafaecalimmunochemicaltestisnotsuperiortosinglesamplingfordetectionofcolorectalneoplasiaacolonoscopycontrolledprospectivecohortstudy
AT vanhengeledwin doublesamplingofafaecalimmunochemicaltestisnotsuperiortosinglesamplingfordetectionofcolorectalneoplasiaacolonoscopycontrolledprospectivecohortstudy
AT boumanannekea doublesamplingofafaecalimmunochemicaltestisnotsuperiortosinglesamplingfordetectionofcolorectalneoplasiaacolonoscopycontrolledprospectivecohortstudy
AT meijergerrita doublesamplingofafaecalimmunochemicaltestisnotsuperiortosinglesamplingfordetectionofcolorectalneoplasiaacolonoscopycontrolledprospectivecohortstudy
AT mulderchrisjj doublesamplingofafaecalimmunochemicaltestisnotsuperiortosinglesamplingfordetectionofcolorectalneoplasiaacolonoscopycontrolledprospectivecohortstudy