Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGrobbee, E.
dc.contributor.authorvan der Vlugt, M.
dc.contributor.authorvan Vuuren, A.
dc.contributor.authorStroobants, A.
dc.contributor.authorMundt, M.
dc.contributor.authorSpijker, W.
dc.contributor.authorBongers, E.
dc.contributor.authorKuipers, E.
dc.contributor.authorLansdorp_Vogelaar, Iris
dc.contributor.authorBossuyt, P.
dc.contributor.authorDekker, E.
dc.contributor.authorSpaander, M.
dc.date.accessioned2017-03-15T22:16:52Z
dc.date.available2017-03-15T22:16:52Z
dc.date.created2017-02-26T19:31:41Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationGrobbee, E. and van der Vlugt, M. and van Vuuren, A. and Stroobants, A. and Mundt, M. and Spijker, W. and Bongers, E. et al. 2016. A randomised comparison of two faecal immunochemical tests in population-based colorectal cancer screening. Gut. 66: pp. 1975-1982.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/49962
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/gutjnl-2016-311819
dc.description.abstract

Objective: Colorectal cancer screening programmes are implemented worldwide; many are based on faecal immunochemical testing (FIT). The aim of this study was to evaluate two frequently used FITs on participation, usability, positivity rate and diagnostic yield in population-based FIT screening. Design: Comparison of two FITs was performed in a fourth round population-based FIT-screening cohort. Randomly selected individuals aged 50-74 were invited for FIT screening and were randomly allocated to receive an OC -Sensor (Eiken, Japan) or faecal occult blood (FOB)-Gold (Sentinel, Italy) test (March-December 2014). A cut-off of 10 µg haemoglobin (Hb)/g faeces (ie, 50 ng Hb/mL buffer for OC-Sensor and 59 ng Hb for FOB-Gold) was used for both FITs. Results: In total, 19 291 eligible invitees were included (median age 61, IQR 57-67; 48% males): 9669 invitees received OC-Sensor and 9622 FOB-Gold; both tests were returned by 63% of invitees ( p=0.96). Tests were nonanalysable in 0.7% of participants using OC-Sensor vs 2.0% using FOB-Gold (p<0.001). Positivity rate was 7.9% for OC-Sensor, and 6.5% for FOB-Gold (p=0.002). There was no significant difference in diagnostic yield of advanced neoplasia (1.4% for OC-Sensor vs 1.2% for FOB-Gold; p=0.15) or positive predictive value (PPV; 31% vs 32%; p=0.80). When comparing both tests at the same positivity rate instead of cut-off, they yielded similar PPV and detection rates. Conclusions: The OC-Sensor and FOB-Gold were equally acceptable to a screening population. However, FOB-Gold was prone to more non-analysable tests. Comparison between FIT brands is usually done at the same Hb stool concentration. Our findings imply that for a fair comparison on diagnostic yield between FIT's positivity rate rather than Hb concentration should be used. Trial registration number: NTR5385; Results.

dc.titleA randomised comparison of two faecal immunochemical tests in population-based colorectal cancer screening
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.source.issn0017-5749
dcterms.source.titleGut
curtin.accessStatusFulltext not available


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record