Comparison of the yield from two faecal immunochemical tests at identical cutoff concentrations - a randomized trial in Latvia

Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Current Situation and Screening in North and Central Asian Countries

The prevalence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing in the past few decades. A significant proportion of this increase is from low to middle income countries (LMIC). CRC prevalence is also increasing in North and Central Asian Countries (NCAC). Screening for colorectal cancer has decreased CRC mortality but data regarding screening practices in NCAC is limited.  A literature search was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane for current colorectal cancer screening practices in NCAC. Incidence and mortality rates were derived from public health agency websites to calculate age-standardized CRC mortality-to-incidence ratios. Web-based online break-point testing defined as statistical major changes in CRC mortality trends was completed. Among the 677 screened studies, 37 studies met the criteria for inclusion for review. CRC screening in NCAC is not organized, although most countries have cancer registries. The data availability is scarce, and most data is prior to 2017. Most studies are observational. There is minimal data about colonoscopy preparations, adenoma detection and complications rates. The polyp detection rates (PDRs) and adenoma detection rates (ADRs) seem low to optimal in this region. Commonly measured outcomes include participation rate, fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) positivity rate and cost-benefit measures. Lower mortality-to-incidence ratios is seen in countries with screening programs. Kazakhstan and Lithuania with screening programs have achieved breakpoint suggesting major changes in CRC mortality trends. Data about CRC screening varies widely within NCAC. High human developmental index (HDI) countries like Lithuania and Estonia have higher incidence of CRC and mortality. Seven NCAC have CRC screening programs with most utilizing non-invasive methods for screening. Data collection is regional and not organized. The ADR and PDR are low to optimal in this region and cancer detection rates are comparable to other high-income countries (HIC). CRC detection rate is 0.05% for screening in Kazakhstan and 0.2% for screening in Lithuania. Very limited information is available on the actual cost and logistics of implementing a CRC screening program. All NCAC have a cancer registry, with some having a high-quality registry showing national coverage with good validity and completeness. Establishing guideline-based registries and increasing screening efficacy could improve CRC outcomes in NCAC.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effectiveness, test accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2015, to December 4, 2019; surveillance through March 26, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting cancers or adenomas, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

The review included 33 studies (n = 10 776 276) on the effectiveness of screening, 59 (n = 3 491 045) on the test performance of screening tests, and 131 (n = 26 987 366) on the harms of screening. In randomized clinical trials (4 trials, n = 458 002), intention to screen with 1- or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy vs no screening was associated with a decrease in CRC-specific mortality (incidence rate ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.68-0.80]). Annual or biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) vs no screening (5 trials, n = 419 966) was associated with a reduction of CRC-specific mortality after 2 to 9 rounds of screening (relative risk at 19.5 years, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84-0.98]; relative risk at 30 years, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.93]). In observational studies, receipt of screening colonoscopy (2 studies, n = 436 927) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (1 study, n = 5.4 million) vs no screening was associated with lower risk of CRC incidence or mortality. Nine studies (n = 6497) evaluated the test accuracy of screening computed tomography (CT) colonography, 4 of which also reported the test accuracy of colonoscopy; pooled sensitivity to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger was similar between CT colonography with bowel prep (0.86) and colonoscopy (0.89). In pooled values, commonly evaluated FITs (14 studies, n = 45 403) (sensitivity, 0.74; specificity, 0.94) and stool DNA with FIT (4 studies, n = 12 424) (sensitivity, 0.93; specificity, 0.85) performed better than high-sensitivity gFOBT (2 studies, n = 3503) (sensitivity, 0.50-0.75; specificity, 0.96-0.98) to detect cancers. Serious harms of screening colonoscopy included perforations (3.1/10 000 procedures) and major bleeding (14.6/10 000 procedures). CT colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation. It is unclear if detection of extracolonic findings on CT colonography is a net benefit or harm.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There are several options to screen for colorectal cancer, each with a different level of evidence demonstrating its ability to reduce cancer mortality, its ability to detect cancer or precursor lesions, and its risk of harms.

PPV and Detection Rate of mt-sDNA Testing, FIT, and CT Colonography for Advanced Neoplasia: A Hierarchic Bayesian Meta-Analysis of the Noninvasive Colorectal Screening Tests

BACKGROUND. Noninvasive tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and prevention limit the need for invasive colonoscopy to follow up positive test results. However, the relative performance characteristics of available noninvasive tests have not yet been adequately compared. OBJECTIVE. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performance of the available noninvasive CRC screening tests, including multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) testing, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and CT colonography (CTC), with an emphasis on comparison of PPV and detection rate (DR) for advanced neoplasia (AN; encompassing cases of advanced adenomas and CRC). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION. After systematic searches of MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases, 10 mt-sDNA, 27 CTC, and 88 FIT published screening studies involving 25,132, 33,493, and 2,355,958 asymptomatic adults, respectively, were included. Meta-analysis with hierarchic Bayesian modeling was conducted in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA guidelines to determine test positivity rates (TPRs) leading to optical colonoscopy, as well as PPVs and DRs for both AN and CRC. Different positivity thresholds were considered for FIT and CTC. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS. Point estimates (with 95% credible intervals) from pooled Bayesian meta-analysis combining all thresholds for FIT and stratifying CTC results by a polyp size threshold of 6 mm or larger (CTC6) and 10 mm or larger (CTC10) were calculated. TPR was 13.5% (10.9-16.6%) for mt-sDNA testing, 6.4% (5.8-7.2%) for FIT, 13.4% (11.4-15.6%) for CTC6, and 6.6% (5.2-7.7%) for CTC10. AN PPV was 26.9% (95% credible interval, 21.8-33.2%) for mt-sDNA testing, 31.8% (29.3-34.5%) for FIT, 34.4% (27.2-41.0%) for CTC6, and 61.0% (54.0-70.0%) for CTC10. CRC PPV was 2.4% (1.5-3.9%) for mt-sDNA testing, 4.9% (4.3-5.3%) for FIT, 3.5% (2.5-4.8%) for CTC6, and 6.0% (4.3-8.0%) for CTC10. The DR for AN was 3.4% (95% credible interval, 2.5-4.8%) for mt-SDNA, 2.0% (1.8-2.3%) for FIT, 4.8% (4.0-6.5%) for CTC6, and 4.0% (3.0-4.6%) for CTC10. When FIT is restricted to a lower threshold (< 10 μg Hb/g feces), its performance profile is similar to that of mt-sDNA testing, although available data are limited. AN PPV odds ratios (relative to CTC10 as the reference) were 0.24 (95% credible interval, 0.17-0.33) for mt-sDNA testing, 0.30 (0.24-0.45) for FIT, and 0.33 (0.25-0.47) for CTC6. CONCLUSION. Among noninvasive CRC screening tests, CTC with a polyp size threshold of 10 mm or larger most effectively targets AN, preserving detection while also decreasing unnecessary colonoscopies compared with mt-sDNA testing and FIT. CLINICAL IMPACT. CTC performed with a polyp size threshold for colonoscopy referral set at 10 mm or larger represents the most effective and efficient noninvasive screening test for CRC prevention and detection.

Fecal Immunochemical Test: The World's Colorectal Cancer Screening Test

The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a tool used for colorectal cancer screening and its use is growing rapidly. FIT, applied as a qualitative or quantitative test, has far better sensitivity for hemoglobin than older, guaiac fecal occult blood tests. This translates into several advantages of FIT, including ability to screen using only 1 stool sample per cycle. This article reviews current understanding of FIT performance as a 1-time test and when applied programmatically. It outlines how to apply the test at the patient level and track performance at the program level. Future prospects for FIT application are highlighted.

Equivalent Accuracy of 2 Quantitative Fecal Immunochemical Tests in Detecting Advanced Neoplasia in an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Although different brands of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, few studies have compared their accuracy in detecting advanced neoplasia.

METHODS

We performed a large prospective cohort study within the Dutch national CRC screening program to evaluate 2 quantitative FITs: FOB-Gold (Sentinel, Milan, Italy) and OC-Sensor (Eiken Chemical, Tokyo Japan), from May 2016 through March 2017. We randomly selected 42,179 screening-naïve individuals (55-75 years old), who were asked to perform both FITs themselves using the same bowel movement. Participants with positive results from 1 or both FITs (≥15 μg hemoglobin/gram feces) were invited for colonoscopy examination (reference standard). Equivalence in detection of advanced neoplasia was evaluated with a predefined margin of 0.15%.

RESULTS

Of 42,179 invitees, 22,064 (52%) participated and FITs were completed for 21,078 participants. Of 2112 participants (9.6%) with 1 or 2 positive results from FITs, 1778 (84%) underwent a colonoscopy. Of all invitees, the FOB-Gold test detected advanced neoplasia (confirmed by colonoscopy) in 610 participants (1.45%) and the OC-Sensor detected advanced neoplasia (confirmed by colonoscopy) in 606 participants (1.44%)-an absolute difference of 0.01% (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.06% to 0.08%). Of the 21,078 participants who completed both FITs, 1582 (7.5%) had a positive result from the FOB-Gold test and 1627 (7.7%) a positive result from the OC-Sensor test (P = .140). The relative true-positive rate of FOB-Gold vs OC-Sensor in detecting advanced neoplasia was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.92-1.01) and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.87-1.03) for CRC. The relative false-positive rate of the FOB-Gold test vs the OC-Sensor test in detecting advanced neoplasia was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.93-1.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large prospective study of individuals invited for CRC screening in The Netherlands, we found equivalent accuracy of the FOB-Gold FIT vs the OC-Sensor FIT in detecting advanced neoplasia. These results are relevant for selecting FITs for CRC screening programs worldwide. Dutch National Trial Registry: NTR5874.

Quantitative fecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer screening

Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for hemoglobin (Hb) are increasingly used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We aimed to review, summarize and compare reported diagnostic performance of various FITs. PubMed and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 24, 2017. Data on diagnostic performance of quantitative FITs, conducted in colonoscopy-controlled average-risk screening populations, were extracted. Summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted and correlations between thresholds, positivity rates (PRs), sensitivities and specificities were assessed. Seven test brands were investigated across 22 studies. Although reported sensitivities for CRC, advanced adenoma (AA) and any advanced neoplasm (AN) varied widely (ranges: 25-100%, 6-44% and 9-60%, respectively), with specificities for AN ranging from 82% to 99%, the estimates were very close to the respective summary ROC curves whose areas under the curve (95% CI) were 0.905 (0.88-0.94), 0.683 (0.67-0.70) and 0.710 (0.70-0.72) for CRC, AA and AN, respectively. The seemingly large heterogeneity essentially reflected variations in test thresholds (range: 2-82 µg Hb/g feces) and showed moderate correlations with sensitivity (r = -0.49) and specificity (r = 0.60) for AN. By contrast, observed PRs (range: 1-21%) almost perfectly correlated with sensitivity (r = 0.84) and specificity (r = -0.94) for AN. The apparent large heterogeneity in diagnostic performance between various FITs can be almost completely overcome by appropriate threshold adjustments. Instead of simply applying the threshold recommended by the manufacturer, screening programs should adjust the threshold to yield a desired PR which is a very good proxy indicator for the specificity and the subsequent colonoscopy workload.