Article

A prospective multicenter evaluation of new fecal occult blood tests in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

University of California, San Francisco, USA.
The American Journal of Gastroenterology (Impact Factor: 9.21). 06/2000; 95(5):1331-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2000.02032.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Guaiac-based fecal occult blood (FOB) tests, in particular, Hemoccult II (HO), are commonly used to detect colorectal neoplasia. Because the sensitivity and specificity of these tests are critical to cost-effective screening programs, we aimed to investigate the improved performance characteristics of new FOB tests for known colonic lesions.
Nine centers worldwide performed FOB testing with guaiac-based tests (Hemoccult II [HO] and Hemoccult II SENSA [SENSA]) and immunochemical tests (HemeSelect [HS] and FlexSure OBT [FS]) on 554 patients referred for colonoscopy for predetermined indications. A combination testing strategy consisting of SENSA followed by HS or FS (which was considered positive only when both tests were positive) was also evaluated. Results of FOB tests were compared to findings on colonoscopy.
Cancers were identified in 2.9% of subjects, whereas adenomas > or =10 mm were found in 39 patients. Small adenomas, colitis, and other lesions were identified in 141 patients. The positivity rate of HO for adenomas > or =10 mm was less than for SENSA (20.5% vs 35.9%, p < 0.05), whereas the positivity rate of HO, SENSA, FS, HS, or the combination tests for cancers was not statistically different. The overall positivity rates were significantly greater for FS (15.9%, p = 0.0002) and significantly lower using the combination tests (SENSA/FS 6.0%, p = 0.01; SENSA/HS 6.2%, p = 0.02) compared to HO (9.4%). In this study population, the relative specificity (i.e., true-negative tests/true-negatives + false-positives in patients without adenomas > or =10 mm or cancers) of HO (93.9%; 95% CI, 91.7-96.1) was similar to that of SENSA (92.8%; 95% CI, 90.4-95.2) and HS (90.1%; 95% CI, 87.4-92.8), and greater than FS (88.0%; 95% CI, 85.1-90.9, p < 0.001). When considering adenomas > or =10 mm, cancers alone or cancers and adenomas combined, the combination test using SENSA/FS was associated with significantly fewer false-positive tests than any of the individual tests.
Compared to single tests, the combination test with the highly sensitive SENSA and an immunochemical test had slightly reduced sensitivity but significantly fewer false-positive tests than any single test. These data raise the possibility that a combination test (i.e., highly sensitive guaiac plus immunochemical) could reduce the costs of screening for colon cancer, and suggest that further study of combination test strategies is warranted.

0 Followers
 · 
63 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Given the current increase in colorectal cancer screening, information on performance of screening tests is needed, especially in groups with a presumed lower test performance. We compared test performance of immunologic fecal occult blood testing (FIT) and pseudosigmoidoscopy with colonoscopy for detection of advanced adenomas in an average risk screening population. In addition, we explored the influence of gender, age, and location on test performance. FIT was collected prior to colonoscopy with a 50 ng/mL cutoff point. FIT results and complete colonoscopy findings were available from 329 subjects (mean age: 54.6 ± 3.7 years, 58.4% women). Advanced adenomas were detected in 38 (11.6%) of 329 subjects. Sensitivity for advanced adenomas of FIT and sigmoidoscopy were 15.8% (95% CI: 6.0-31.3) and 73.7% (95% CI: 56.9-86.6), respectively. No sensitivity improvement was obtained using the combination of sigmoidoscopy and FIT. Mean fecal hemoglobin in FIT positives was significantly lower for participants with only proximal adenomas versus those with distal ones (P = 0.008), for women versus men (P = 0.023), and for younger (<55 years) versus older (≥55 years) subjects (P = 0.029). Sensitivities of FIT were 0.0% (95% CI: 0.0-30.9) in subjects with only proximal versus 21.4% (95% CI: 8.3-41.0) in those with distal nonadvanced adenomas; 5.3% (95% CI: 0.0-26.0) in women versus 26.3% (95% CI: 9.2-51.2) in men; 9.5% (95% CI: 1.2-30.4) in younger versus 23.5% (95% CI: 6.8-49.9) in older subjects. Sigmoidoscopy had a significantly higher sensitivity for advanced adenomas than FIT. A single FIT showed very low sensitivity, especially in subjects with only proximal nonadvanced adenomas, in women, and in younger subjects. This points to the existence of "low" FIT performance in subgroups and the need for more tailored screening strategies.
    Cancer Prevention Research 07/2011; 4(10):1563-71. DOI:10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-11-0076 · 5.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine the inter-observer variation in the histological diagnosis of colorectal polyps. Four hundred and forty polyps were randomly selected from a colorectal cancer screening programme. Polyps were first evaluated by a general (324 polyps) or expert (116 polyps) pathologist, and subsequently re-evaluated by an expert pathologist. Conditional agreement was reported, and inter-observer agreement was determined using kappa statistics. In 421/440 polyps (96%), agreement for their non-adenomatous or adenomatous nature was obtained, corresponding to a very good kappa value of 0.88. For differentiation of adenomas as non-advanced and advanced, consensus was obtained in 266/322 adenomas (83%), with a moderate kappa value of 0.58. For the non-adenomatous or adenomatous nature, both general and expert pathologists, and expert pathologists between each other, showed very good agreement {kappa values of 0.89 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-0.95] and 0.86 (95% CI 0.73-0.98), respectively}. For categorization of adenomas as non-advanced and advanced, moderate agreement was found between general and expert pathologists, and between expert pathologists [kappa values of 0.56 (95% CI 0.44-0.67) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.43-0.85), respectively]. General and expert pathologists demonstrate very good inter-observer agreement for differentiating non-adenomas from adenomas, but only moderate agreement for non-advanced and advanced adenomas. The considerable variation in differentiating non-advanced and advanced adenomas suggests that more objective criteria are required for risk stratification in screening and surveillance guidelines.
    Histopathology 05/2011; 58(6):974-81. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03822.x · 3.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Currently, no suitable biomarker for the early detection or follow-up of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is available. We aimed to validate previously reported potential serum biomarkers for RCC obtained with Surface Enhanced Laser Desorption Ionisation-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry (SELDI-TOF MS) in our laboratory using distinct patient populations. Two sets of sera from RCC patients and healthy controls (HC) were gathered from different institutes and analysed according to published procedures. The first set (40 RCC, 32 HC) consisted of mainly presurgery samples from patients with disease stages I-IV. The second set (26 RCC, 27 HC) were mostly sera from patients with stage-IV disease, drawn after nephrectomy. Only the increased expression of the previously found serum amyloid-alpha (SAA) peak cluster could be validated in a similar RCC patient subset in both our populations in two independent analyses. It was seen both in early- and late-stage disease and in pre- and postsurgery samples. These results were also confirmed by ELISA. Other previously identified biomarker candidates (mass-to-charge ratio's (m/z) 3900, 4107, 4153, 5352 and 5987) proved difficult to reproduce upon duplicate analysis. Modification of the analytical protocol for these markers resulted in their detection, but we did not achieve satisfactory classification of patients and controls with these alleged biomarkers in any of our two sample sets. Instead, two new peaks (m/z 4289 and 8151) were identified with better performance (sensitivity and specificity approximately 65-90%) for separating patients from controls in the first sample set. Concluding, only the SAA peak cluster was validated as a robust RCC biomarker candidate, which is present in a specific subset of these patients, regardless of disease stage or nephrectomy status. In addition, two new peaks were seen which might prove useful as biomarkers, provided these are validated in new populations.
    Laboratory Investigation 03/2007; DOI:10.1038/labinvest.3700503 · 3.83 Impact Factor