No abstract

Background: Faecal occult blood test (FOBT) has demonstrated effectiveness in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Faecal calprotectin (FC) has proven efficient for evaluating activity in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but its value in CRC detection is less established. Most symptomatic patients have benign pathologies, but still undergo colonoscopy in many settings. Aims: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of the combination of FOBT plus FC in symptomatic patients. Methods: Patients who completed colonic investigations and returned stool samples, on which FOBT and FC were performed, were recruited prospectively. CRC, advanced adenoma, IBD and angiodysplasia were considered as relevant pathologies. Results: A total of 404 patients were included, of whom 87 (21.5%) had relevant pathologies. Sensitivity and specificity were 50.6% and 69.6% for FOBT, 78.2% and 54.4% for FC. Negative predictive value (NPV) was 90.1% for FC and 86.9% for FOBT. NPV for the combination of FOBT and FC was 94.1%, with a sensitivity and specificity of 88.5% and 50.3%. The area under ROC (receiver operator curve) (AUC) was 0.741 for FOBT, 0.736 for FC and 0.816 for the combination. The total cost for visits and procedures was €233,016 (€577/patient). Using a combination of FOBT and FC as pre-endoscopic tool allows colonoscopies to be reduced by 39.4%, reducing total costs by 20.5%. Conclusion: The combination of FOBT and FC has a better diagnostic accuracy compared with each test alone. Performing both tests before colonoscopy is a less costly and more effective strategy, reducing unnecessary procedures and complications.

ObjectivesTo compare indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) for antinuclear antibodies (ANA) against immunoassays (IAs) as an initial screening test for connective tissue diseases (CTDs).MethodsA systematic literature review identified cross-sectional or case-control studies reporting test accuracy data for IIF and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (FEIA), chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) or multiplex immunoassay (MIA). The meta-analysis used hierarchical, bivariate, mixed-effect models with random-effects by test.ResultsDirect comparisons of IIF with ELISA showed that both tests had good sensitivity (five studies, 2321 patients: ELISA: 90.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 80.5%, 95.5%] vs. IIF at a cut-off of 1:80: 86.8% [95% CI: 81.8%, 90.6%]; p = 0.4) but low specificity, with considerable variance across assays (ELISA: 56.9% [95% CI: 40.9%, 71.5%] vs. IIF 1:80: 68.0% [95% CI: 39.5%, 87.4%]; p = 0.5). FEIA sensitivity was lower than IIF sensitivity (1:80: p = 0.005; 1:160: p = 0.051); however, FEIA specificity was higher (seven studies, n = 12,311, FEIA 93.6% [95% CI: 89.9%, 96.0%] vs. IIF 1:80 72.4% [95% CI: 62.2%, 80.7%]; p < 0.001; seven studies, n = 3251, FEIA 93.5% [95% CI: 91.1%, 95.3%] vs. IIF 1:160 81.1% [95% CI: 73.4%, 86.9%]; p < 0.0001). CLIA sensitivity was similar to IIF (1:80) with higher specificity (four studies, n = 1981: sensitivity 85.9% [95% CI: 64.7%, 95.3%]; p = 0.86; specificity 86.1% [95% CI: 78.3%, 91.4%]). More data are needed to make firm inferences for CLIA vs. IIF given the wide prediction region. There were too few studies for the meta-analysis of MIA vs. IIF (MIA sensitivity range 73.7%–86%; specificity 53%–91%).ConclusionsFEIA and CLIA have good specificity compared to IIF. A positive FEIA or CLIA test is useful to support the diagnosis of a CTD. A negative IIF test is useful to exclude a CTD.

For colorectal cancer, 8 reports from NICE, 6 reports from ASGE and 16 papers were included. Among national reports, 4 of 7 clinical trials illustrated NBI has better imaging effect (accuracy, sensitivity, specificity) than WLI in colorectal lesions diagnosis. 2 of 3 meta-analysis showed NBI has good imaging effect and 3 clinical guidelines suggest NBI using in observing mucosal surface of colorectal polyps. 8 of clinical trials among literatures demonstrated outstanding imaging effect for colorectal lesions. 3 reports and 2 literatures mentioned economy of NBI, which showed a result of cost reduction with a Resect and Discard Strategy in colorectal cancer screening using NBI. For gastric cancer, 5 reports (NICE: 4 ASGE: 1) and 22 literatures were included. The 5 reports (1 guidelines, 1 clinical trials, 2 meta-analysis and 1 technologic report) showed NBI has better effect in early gastric cancer (EGC) than WLI. All literature affirmed imaging effect of NBI, especially in EGC test. ConClusions: From results of reports and literatures, we concluded NBI using in colorectal lesions screening could had better effect with lower cost. Besides, NBI could be used in EGC screening for the brilliant imaging effect.

No abstract