A comparison of qualitative and quantitative fecal immunochemical tests in the Korean national colorectal cancer screening program

Abstract

The positivity rate of the qualitative FIT was around three times higher than that of the quantitative FIT. However, the odds ratio for detection of "suspicious cancer and cancer" versus "normal" of the quantitative FIT was about three times higher than that of the qualitative FIT. These findings suggest that quality control may be important, particularly for the qualitative FIT.

A combination of clinical risk stratification and fecal immunochemical test results to prioritize colonoscopy screening in asymptomatic participants

“…31,37 The high cut-off value would increase test specificity and possibly allow some false-negative test results. However, the consequence of a false-negative test would result in missing advanced neoplasia.…”

“…Fourth, we performed a 1-time method FIT, which has a lower sensitivity for advanced neoplasia than 3-time collection. 37 However, it may improve the compliance of the screening participants. Finally, this is a hospital-based study, which might result in selection bias.…”

“…Additionally, there is no interobserver variation in the interpretation of quantitative tests, because it is an automated reading. 37 Nevertheless, using qualitative FIT is more convenient and more practical for mass CRC screening, because participants can perform a self-test at home, or the health care volunteer can distribute and interpret the FIT at remote sites in a rural area. Second, we used a threshold of 50 ng/mL, which was considered a lower cut-off level.…”

Making colorectal cancer screening FITTER for purpose with quantitative faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT)

“…We recommend a full description of the way specimens are treated from collection through to analysis as we do for the analytical performance characteristics and quality management strategies, both of which also lacking in this report. In a comparison of qualitative and quantitative FIT, Park et al [12] gave no information on important preanalytical aspects such as time and storage of collection devices, no information on the analytical methods used, not even the names of the FIT, and no information on analytical performance, or cut-off faecal Hb concentrations. Unfortunately, many other publications on FIT include abundant clinical details but provide scant descriptions of pre-analytical and analytical aspects.…”

Laboratory screening markers in gastroenterology - state of the art

“…17 ). Three analytical systems for qiFOBT (Magstream HT, OC-Sensor/DIANA, FOB Gold/SENTiFOB) were compared as to their diagnostic accuracy, analytical sensitivity, sample stability, as well as sample consignment by tested subjects [18][19][20][21] . Quantitative FOBT was found to be superior in compliance and CRCA detection, when compared with both gFOBT and flexible sigmoidoscopy 22 .…”