Faecal Occult Blood Point-of-Care Tests.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Koscielniak-Merak B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6208834 | biostudies-other | 2018 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND: Faecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) are widely used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Blood-based inflammatory markers have been suggested as alternative or supplementary non-invasive CRC screening tests. METHODS: Among 179 CRC patients, 193 people with advanced adenoma and 225 people free of neoplasm, C-reactive protein (CRP), serum CD26 (sCD26), complement C3a anaphylatoxin and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases 1 (TIMP-1) levels in blood were measured by ELISA tests, and an immunochemical FOBT (iFOBT) and a guaiac-based FOBT were performed. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed and the areas under the curves (AUCs) were compared. RESULTS: The blood levels of CRP, sCD26 and TIMP-1 showed statistically significant differences between CRC patients and neoplasm-free participants, and levels of TIMP-1 were furthermore significantly elevated in advanced adenoma patients. For the four inflammatory markers, AUCs ranged from 0.52 to 0.62 for CRC detection and from 0.50 to 0.58 for advanced adenomas detection, compared with AUCs of 0.90 and 0.68 for the iFOBT. At 97% specificity, blood markers showed much lower sensitivities than FOBTs. Combining inflammatory markers with the iFOBT increased the AUC for advanced adenomas. CONCLUSION: These blood-based markers do not seem to be an alternative to FOBT-based CRC screening. The potential use of these and other blood-based tests in combination with iFOBT might deserve further attention.
| S-EPMC3326680 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND: Many patients with a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) do not undergo follow-up evaluations. OBJECTIVE: To identify the rate of follow-up colonoscopy following a positive FOBT and determine underlying reasons for lack of follow-up. DESIGN: It is a retrospective chart review. PARTICIPANTS: The subject group consisted of 1,041 adults with positive FOBTs within a large physician group practice from 2004 to 2006. MEASUREMENTS: We collected data on reasons for ordering FOBT, presence of prior colonoscopy, completed evaluations, and results of follow-up tests. We fit a multivariable logistic regression model to identify predictors of undergoing follow-up colonoscopy. RESULTS: Most positive FOBTs were ordered for routine colorectal cancer screening (76%), or evaluation of anemia (13%) or rectal bleeding (7%). Colonoscopy was completed in 62% of cases, with one-third of these procedures identifying a colorectal adenoma (29%) or cancer (4%). Factors associated with higher rates of follow-up colonoscopy included obtaining the FOBT for routine colorectal screening (odds ratio (OR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-2.29) and consultation with gastroenterology (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.46-2.72). Patients were less likely to undergo colonoscopy if they were older than 80 years old (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.92), younger than 50 years old (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.70), uninsured (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27-0.93), or had undergone colonoscopy within the prior five years (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.23-0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical decisions and patient factors available at the time of ordering an FOBT impact performance of colonoscopy. Targeting physicians' understanding of the use of this test may improve follow-up and reduce inappropriate use of this test.
| S-EPMC2642561 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundScreening for colorectal cancer (CRC) with guaiac-based faecal occult-blood test (FOBT) has been reported to reduce CRC mortality in randomised trials in the 1990s, but not in routine screening, so far. In Finland, a large randomised study on biennial FOB screening for CRC was gradually nested as part of the routine health services from 2004. We evaluate the effectiveness of screening as a public health policy in the largest population so far reported.MethodsWe randomly allocated (1:1) men and women aged 60-69?years to those invited for screening and those not invited (controls), between 2004 and 2012. This resulted in 180?210 subjects in the screening arm and 180?282 in the control arm. In 2012, the programme covered 43% of the target age population in Finland.ResultsThe median follow-up time was 4.5?years (maximum 8.3?years), with a total of 1.6 million person-years. The CRC incidence rate ratio between the screening and control arm was 1.11 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.23). The mortality rate ratio from CRC between the screening and control arm was 1.04 (0.84 to 1.28), respectively. The CRC mortality risk ratio was 0.88 (0.66 to 1.16) and 1.33 (0.94 to 1.87) in males and females, respectively.ConclusionsWe did not find any effect in a randomised health services study of FOBT screening on CRC mortality. The substantial effect difference between males and females is inconsistent with the evidence from randomised clinical trials and with the recommendations of several international organisations. Even if our findings are still inconclusive, they highlight the importance of randomised evaluation when new health policies are implemented.Trial registration002_2010_august.
| S-EPMC4599169 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Contextual socio-economic factors, health-care access, and general practitioner (GP) involvement may influence colonoscopy uptake and its timing after positive faecal occult blood testing (FOBT). Our objectives were to identify predictors of delayed or no colonoscopy and to assess the role for GPs in colonoscopy uptake. METHODS: We included all residents of a French district with positive FOBTs (n = 2369) during one of the two screening rounds (2007-2010). Multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed to identify individual and area-level predictors of delayed colonoscopy, no colonoscopy, and no information on colonoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 998 (45.2%) individuals underwent early, 989 (44.8%) delayed, and 102 (4.6%) no colonoscopy; no information was available for 119 (5.4%) individuals. Delayed colonoscopy was independently associated with first FOBT (odds ratio, (OR)), 1.61; 95% confidence interval ((95% CI), 1.16-2.25); and no colonoscopy and no information with first FOBT (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.02-3.97), FOBT kit not received from the GP (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.67-3.14), and socio-economically deprived area (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.98-5.08). Colonoscopy uptake varied significantly across GPs (P=0.01). CONCLUSION: Socio-economic factors, GP-related factors, and history of previous FOBT influenced colonoscopy uptake after a positive FOBT. Interventions should target GPs and individuals performing their first screening FOBT and/or living in socio-economically deprived areas.
| S-EPMC3776987 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer screening by fecal occult blood testing has been an important public health test and shown to reduce colorectal cancer-related mortality. However, the low participation rate in colorectal cancer screening by the general public remains a problematic public health issue. This fact could be attributed to the complex and unpleasant operation of the screening tool.ObjectiveThis study aimed to validate a novel toilet paper-based point-of-care test (ie, JustWipe) as a public health instrument to detect fecal occult blood and provide detailed results from the evaluation of the analytic characteristics in the clinical validation.MethodsThe mechanism of fecal specimen collection by the toilet-paper device was verified with repeatability and reproducibility tests. We also evaluated the analytical characteristics of the test reagents. For clinical validation, we conducted comparisons between JustWipe and other fecal occult blood tests. The first comparison was between JustWipe and typical fecal occult blood testing in a central laboratory setting with 70 fecal specimens from the hospital. For the second comparison, a total of 58 volunteers were recruited, and JustWipe was compared with the commercially available Hemoccult SENSA in a point-of-care setting.ResultsAdequate amounts of fecal specimens were collected using the toilet-paper device with small day-to-day and person-to-person variations. The limit of detection of the test reagent was evaluated to be 3.75 µg of hemoglobin per milliliter of reagent. Moreover, the test reagent also showed high repeatability (100%) on different days and high reproducibility (>96%) among different users. The overall agreement between JustWipe and a typical fecal occult blood test in a central laboratory setting was 82.9%. In the setting of point-of-care tests, the overall agreement between JustWipe and Hemoccult SENSA was 89.7%. Moreover, the usability questionnaire showed that the novel test tool had high scores in operation friendliness (87.3/100), ease of reading results (97.4/100), and information usefulness (96.1/100).ConclusionsWe developed and validated a toilet paper-based fecal occult blood test for use as a point-of-care test for the rapid (in 60 seconds) and easy testing of fecal occult blood. These favorable characteristics render it a promising tool for colorectal cancer screening as a public health instrument.
| S-EPMC7472847 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Colorectal cancer screening by faecal occult blood test (FOBT) is a high public health priority. The interest of guaiac tests (G-FOBT) is limited by their poor sensitivity, while the superiority of I-FOBT in comparison with G-FOBT is now established. Nevertheless automated quantitative I-FOBTs have not been compared, and the optimal number of samples and threshold is not yet fixed. The aim of this study is to compare the performances of the 2 more well-known I-FOBTs with automated analyzers (magstream by Fujirebio, and OC Sensor by Eiken) for different positivity thresholds and numbers of samples in general average risk population. Patients will performed a two samples Magstream, a two samples OC Sensor and Hemoccult II. In case of a positive test, a colonoscopy will be performed. Sensitivity and specificity for detection of cancer and advanced neoplasias will be compared between tests using ratio of sensitivities (RSN) and ratio of false positives (RFP) according to number of samples and positivity threshold.
| 2098890 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:BackgroundFaecal immunochemical tests (FITs) have replaced guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBTs) in several colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes. We aimed to evaluate the benefits of this transition based on the Wallonia-Brussels-organised CRC screening programme.MethodsA total of 1,569,868 individuals aged 50-74 years, who were invited to screening during 2009-2017, were studied by linking their screening records with insurance, pathology and cancer data in the Belgian Cancer Registry. We compared neoplasm detection rates and positive predictive values (PPVs) of gFOBT and FIT at 15 µg haemoglobin per gram cut-off in screen-naive individuals. We furthermore examined the incidence rates of interval cancer in gFOBT- and FIT-based screening programme.ResultsAdvanced neoplasms were detected less frequently by gFOBT (0.8%) than by FIT (1.3%), with a difference of 0.5% (P < 0.01). PPVs were lower for gFOBT (15.1%) than for FIT (21.7%) for advanced neoplasms (difference 6.6%, P < 0.01). Compared to participants with negative gFOBT, those with negative FIT were 77% less likely to develop interval cancer (incidence rate ratio 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.33).ConclusionOur study demonstrated that in an organised CRC screening programme, replacing gFOBT with FIT improved neoplasm detection rate and substantially reduced interval cancer incidence.
| S-EPMC7109124 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Screening with fecal occult blood tests (FOBT) reduces colorectal cancer mortality. Failure to complete repeat tests may compromise screening effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review of repeat FOBT across diverse health care settings. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published from 1997 to 2017 and reported repeat FOBT over ?2 screening rounds. Studies (n = 27 reported in 35 articles) measured repeat FOBT as (i) proportion of Round 1 participants completing repeat FOBT in Round 2; (ii) proportion completing two, consecutive FOBT; or (iii) proportion completing ?3 rounds. Among those who completed FOBT in Round 1, 24.6% to 89.6% completed repeat FOBT in Round 2 [median: 82.0%; interquartile range (IQR): 73.7%-84.6%]. The proportion completing FOBT in two rounds ranged from 16.4% to 80.0% (median: 46.6%; IQR: 40.5%-50.0%), and in studies examining ?3 rounds, repeat FOBT ranged from 0.8% to 64.1% (median: 39.2%; IQR: 19.7%-49.4%). Repeat FOBT appeared higher in mailed outreach (69.1%-89.6%) compared with opportunistic screening (24.6%-48.6%). Few studies examined correlates of repeat FOBT. In summary, we observed a wide prevalence of repeat FOBT, and prevalence generally declined in successive screening rounds. Interventions that increase and maintain participation in FOBT are needed to optimize effectiveness of this screening strategy.
| S-EPMC7007334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to compare the uptake of three mailed high-sensitivity fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs).MethodsWe conducted a parallel 3-arm randomized controlled trial in an integrated healthcare delivery system in Washington State. From January 2010 through February 2011, automated data were used to identify potentially eligible patients aged 50-74 due for colorectal cancer screening. Participants were mailed one of three FOBT kits (1-sample OC-Auto® fecal immunochemical test [FIT], 2-sample InSure® FIT, or 3-sample guaiac Hemoccult SENSA®), instructions, and a postage-paid return envelope. We performed a modified intent-to-treat analysis with return of any FOBT within 6 months of randomization as the primary outcome.ResultsOf the 9922 people invited, 2873 returned surveys, 2263 were randomized, and 2234 were analyzed. FOBTs were returned by 1431 participants. At 6 months post-randomization, the proportions screened by any FOBT were 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.72) for the OC-Auto arm, 0.64 (95% CI: 0.61-0.68) for the InSure arm, and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.58-0.65) for the Hemoccult SENSA arm (P<0.001 for any difference). Pairwise comparisons showed significant differences between the OC-Auto group and each of the other groups after correction for multiple comparisons.ConclusionUptake of mailed FOBT kits varies by kit type.
| S-EPMC3856243 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the outcomes of biennial guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening after once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening.MethodsBetween 1994 and 1999, as part of the UK FS Screening Trial (UKFSST), adults aged 55-64 were randomly allocated to an intervention group (offered FS screening) or a control group (not contacted). From 2006, a subset of UKFSST participants (20,895/44,041 intervention group; 41,497/87,149 control group) were invited to biennial gFOBT screening by the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. We analysed gFOBT uptake, test positivity, yield of colorectal cancer (CRC), and positive predictive value (PPV) for CRC, advanced adenomas (AAs), and advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN: AA/CRC).ResultsUptake of gFOBT at first invitation was 1.9% lower (65.7% vs. 67.6%, p?<?0.01) among intervention versus control group participants. Positivity was 0.4% lower (2.0% vs. 2.4%, p?<?0.01) and CRC yield was 0.08% lower (0.19% vs. 0.27%, p?=?0.14). PPVs were also lower in the intervention versus control group, at 10.3% vs. 12.3% ( p?=?0.44) for CRC, 22.7% vs. 31.4% ( p?<?0.01) for AA, and 33.0% vs. 43.7% ( p?<?0.01) for ACN. Among those who refused FS ( n?=?5532), gFOBT uptake at first invitation was 47.7%, CRC yield was 0.25%, and PPV for ACN was 46.2%. Among FS attenders ( n?=?15,363), uptake was 72.2%, CRC yield was 0.18%, and PPV for ACN was 27.9%.ConclusionsUptake, positivity and PPV of gFOBT screening were reduced following prior offer of FS screening. However, a quarter of FS screened participants receiving a diagnostic examination after positive gFOBT were diagnosed with ACN.
| S-EPMC6376653 | biostudies-literature