A randomised comparison of two faecal immunochemical tests in population-based colorectal cancer screening

Abstract

NTR5385; Results.

Quantitative fecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer screening

“…By contrast, two population-based studies conducted in Latvia and in the Netherlands observed significant differences in PRs between two different FIT brands (OC Sensor and FOB Gold), in spite of applying an identical threshold (10 mg Hb/g feces). 48,49 Furthermore, even large differences in the PR (12.8% 48 vs. 6.5% 49 ) were seen when the same test brand (FOB Gold) was applied at an identical threshold (10 mg Hb/ g feces). In our study, we could show that the adjustment of the threshold value to yield a certain PR would have led to almost identical specificities and a much narrower range of sensitivities.…”

“…48,49 Furthermore, even large differences in the PR (12.8% 48 vs. 6.5% 49 ) were seen when the same test brand (FOB Gold) was applied at an identical threshold (10 mg Hb/ g feces). 48,49 Furthermore, even large differences in the PR (12.8% 48 vs. 6.5% 49 ) were seen when the same test brand (FOB Gold) was applied at an identical threshold (10 mg Hb/ g feces).…”

A comparative effectiveness trial of two faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT). Assessment of test performance and adherence in a single round of a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer

“…However, setting a higher f-Hb cut-off criterion for the PR with the OC-Sensor at subsequent rounds, to achieve the same PR with the two systems (29 µg Hb/g faeces rather than 20 µg Hb/g faeces) would result in a similar diagnostic performance. Grobbee et al 12 have pointed out recently that comparison between FIT systems is usually done at the same f-Hb. Our findings support their thesis that improved comparison on diagnostic yield would be achieved with PR rather than f-Hb.…”

“…The reasons for the observed difference in the PR between the two systems at subsequent but not at first round, when using the same standardised f-Hb cut-off need to be investigated. The lower prevalence of neoplasia among people with previous negative results might result in lower average f-Hb and, for a number of reasons,12 different methods might show different performances.…”

“…Comparative effectiveness studies, conducted in the context of established CRC screening programmes, as performed in a recent study from The Netherlands,12 may therefore represent a valuable methodology to gather the information relevant to assist screening planning and decision-making about the adoption of screening tests. We conducted a randomised controlled trial (RCT) within a population-based CRC screening programme to compare the acceptability and the diagnostic accuracy the FIT routinely used in a well-established programme (OC-Sensor, Eiken Chemical, Tokyo, Japan) with a recently available automated quantitative FIT system (HM-JACKarc, Kyowa Medex, Tokyo, Japan).…”