Dataset Information

The fecal immunochemical test (fit): Selected aspects regarding its effectiveness for colorectal cancer screening in Quebec City.

ABSTRACT: Background and aims:FIT's value has been ascertained across Canada and worldwide, but still needs to be assessed within the province of Quebec. There also remains a gap between formal indications for FIT, and its actual use in clinical practice. This research aims to evaluate some aspects of FIT's effectiveness in our setting, and its application by prescribers. Methods:We retrospectively identified and reviewed all the colonoscopies conducted for a positive FIT in 2014 at 2 hospitals located in Quebec City. Results:Five hundred and fifty-nine (559) colonoscopies were reviewed. We obtained PPVs of 6.8% and 46.9% for the detection of CRC and AA, respectively. The PPV for the detection of SCL was higher in men compared to women (OR 1.56, 95%CI 1.11-2.20) and among justified FITs compared to unwarranted ones (OR 1.88, 95%CI 1.34-2.63). The PPV for CRC detection was 25.0% in the presence of unexplained iron deficiency anemia and 6.5% when anemia was absent (p?=?0.0058). In 49.9% of cases, the prescription of a FIT was inappropriate. Conclusion:The FIT holds a better PPV for detecting SCL among men and when it is indicated. Anemia is associated with a higher CRC detection rate. Half of the FITs were not initially indicated.

SUBMITTER: Caron M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6082993 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The fecal immunochemical test (fit): Selected aspects regarding its effectiveness for colorectal cancer screening in Quebec City.

Caron Mireille M Lamarre Gabriel G Grégoire Philippe P Simonyan David D Laflamme Nathalie N

Preventive medicine reports 20180804

<h4>Background and aims</h4>FIT's value has been ascertained across Canada and worldwide, but still needs to be assessed within the province of Quebec. There also remains a gap between formal indications for FIT, and its actual use in clinical practice. This research aims to evaluate some aspects of FIT's effectiveness in our setting, and its application by prescribers.<h4>Methods</h4>We retrospectively identified and reviewed all the colonoscopies conducted for a positive FIT in 2014 at 2 hospi ...[more]

PMID: 30116704

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany screening programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) use the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) to triage individuals for colonoscopy. Although these programs reduce CRC incidence and CRC-related mortality, the detection of advanced precursor lesions (advanced adenomas and advanced serrated polyps) by FIT could be improved. As an alternative for FIT, the antibody-based multitargetFIT (mtFIT) has been proposed. The mtFIT measures three protein markers: hemoglobin, calprotectin, and serpin family F member 2. In a retrospective diagnostic accuracy study in a large colonoscopy-controlled series (n = 1284), mtFIT showed increased sensitivity for advanced neoplasia (AN), at equal specificity, compared to FIT (42.9% versus 37.3%; p = 0.025). This increase was mainly due to a higher sensitivity of mtFIT for advanced adenomas (37.8% versus 28.1% for FIT; p = 0.006). The present mtFIT study aims to prospectively validate these findings in the context of the Dutch national CRC screening program.MethodThe mtFIT study is a cross-sectional intervention study with a paired design. Eligible subjects for the Dutch FIT-based national CRC screening program are invited to perform mtFIT in addition to FIT. Samples are collected at home, from the same bowel movement, and are shipped to a central laboratory by postal mail. If either one or both tests are positive, participants are referred for colonoscopy. Detailed colonoscopy and pathology data are centrally stored in a national screening database (ScreenIT; Topicus, Deventer, the Netherlands) that is managed by the screening organization, and will be retrieved for this study. We aim to determine the relative sensitivity for AN, comprising of CRC, advanced adenomas and advanced serrated polyps, of mtFIT compared to FIT at an equal positivity rate. Additionally, we will use the Adenoma and Serrated Pathway to Colorectal CAncer model to predict lifetime health effects and costs for programmatic mtFIT- versus FIT-based screening. The target sample size is 13,131 participants.DiscussionThe outcome of this study will inform on the comparative clinical utility of mtFIT versus FIT in the Dutch national CRC screening program and is an important step forward in the development of a new non-invasive stool test for CRC screening.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov ; NCT05314309, registered April 6th 2022, first inclusions March 25th 2022 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT05314309&cntry=&state=&city=&dist =.

Project description:BackgroundMailed reminders to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) have been shown to be effective in the Medicaid population, in which screening is underused. However, little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions, with or without an included FIT kit.MethodsThe authors conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial that compared the effectiveness of a reminder + FIT intervention versus a reminder-only intervention in increasing FIT screening. The analysis compared the costs per person screened for CRC screening associated with the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative using a 1-year time horizon. Input data for a cohort of 35,000 unscreened North Carolina Medicaid enrollees ages 52 to 64 years were derived from the trial and microcosting. Inputs and outputs were estimated from 2 perspectives-the Medicaid/state perspective and the health clinic/facility perspective-using probabilistic sensitivity analysis to evaluate uncertainty.ResultsThe anticipated number of CRC screenings, including both FIT and screening colonoscopies, was higher for the reminder + FIT alternative (n = 8131; 23.2%) than for the reminder-only alternative (n = 5533; 15.8%). From the Medicaid/state perspective, the reminder + FIT alternative dominated the reminder-only alternative, with lower costs and higher screening rates. From the health clinic/facility perspective, the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $116 per person screened.ConclusionsThe reminder + FIT alternative was cost saving per additional Medicaid enrollee screened compared with the reminder-only alternative from the Medicaid/state perspective and likely cost-effective from the health clinic/facility perspective. The results also demonstrate that health departments and state Medicaid programs can efficiently mail FIT kits to large numbers of Medicaid enrollees to increase CRC screening completion.

Project description:BACKGROUND & AIMS:Biomarker assays could increase the accuracy of noninvasive detection of colorectal cancer (CRC); fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are estimated to miss 27%-47% of CRCs and 70%-80% of advanced adenomas per round of screening. We investigated the conditions under which biomarker screens would be cost-effective compared with FIT screens of average-risk individuals. METHODS:We used the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate the effects of various CRC screening test characteristics on life-years gained (LYG) and; age-specific all-cause mortality was based on the 2010 Dutch life tables. Simulated CRC incidence rate and CRC stage distribution were calibrated to observed data in The Netherlands from 1999 through 2003 (before opportunities for screening). Survival rates after diagnosis of CRC at an age younger than 75 years were based on CRC relative survival data from 1985 through 2004; survival for individuals diagnosed at an age of 75 years or older was adjusted to fit the observed age-increasing mortality/incidence ratio. We modeled FIT along with hypothetical biomarker tests with different test performance levels. For each biomarker test we calculated the maximum unit cost for the test to be cost-effective compared with FIT, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000 ($56,000) per LYG. RESULTS:Biennial FIT screening of subjects 55-75 years old provided 84.9 LYG at a cost of €122,000 ($137,000) per 1000 participants. Considering a unit cost of €7 ($8) for FIT (including kit and analysis only, excluding organizational costs), a biomarker test that detects CRC with higher levels of specificity and sensitivity (100%) and advanced adenomas at a proportionally higher level of sensitivity (53%) should never exceed a cost of €51 ($57). The threshold cost could increase to more than €200 ($224) for high-performing biomarker tests in cases of limited colonoscopy capacity or higher uptake of this test. CONCLUSIONS:By using the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate effects of CRC screening tests, we found that for a biomarker test with increased overall performance to be cost-effective, it should not exceed 7-fold the unit cost of FIT. This maximum would increase substantially if colonoscopy becomes more expensive or scarce, or if the new test has higher screening uptake. These values could be used to estimate the added value of new biomarkers compared with current FIT screening.

Dataset Information

The fecal immunochemical test (fit): Selected aspects regarding its effectiveness for colorectal cancer screening in Quebec City.

Publications

The fecal immunochemical test (fit): Selected aspects regarding its effectiveness for colorectal cancer screening in Quebec City.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets