The sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios of fecal occult blood test for the detection of colorectal cancer in hospital settings

Abstract

ObjectivesTo study the performance of a single test using two fecal occult blood tests with colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) for the first time in Saudi Arabia to determine possible implications for the anticipated colorectal screening program.Materials and methodsWe compared the performance of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for the detection of CRC among patients of 50–74 years old attending two hospitals in the Eastern Region of Saudi Arabia. Samples of feces were collected from 257 asymptomatic patients and 20 cases of confirmed CRC, and they were tested simultaneously by the guaiac-based occult blood test and monoclonal antibody-based immunoassay kit. Colonoscopy was performed on all participants and the results were statistically analyzed with both positive and negative occult blood tests of both methods.ResultsOf the 277 subjects, 79 tested positive for occult blood with at least one method. Overall, the number of those with an occult blood-positive result by both tests was 39 (14.1%), while for 198 (71.5%), both tests were negative (P<0.0001); 40 (14.4%) samples showed a discrepant result. Colonoscopy data were obtained for all 277 patients. A total of three invasive cancers were detected among the screening group. Of the three, the guaiac test detected two cases, while the immunochemical test detected three of them. Of the 20 control cases, the guaiac test detected 13 CRC cases (P=0.03), while the immunochemical test detected 16 of them (P<0.0001). The sensitivity of guaiac and immunochemical tests for the detection of CRC in the screening group was 50.00% (95% confidence interval [CI] =6.76–93.24) and 75.00% (95% CI =19.41–99.37), respectively. For comparison, the sensitivity of the guaiac fecal occult blood test for detecting CRC among the control group was 65.00% (95% CI =40.78–84.61) while that of FIT was 80.00% (95% CI =56.34–94.27). The specificity of the guaiac and immunoassay tests was 77.87% (95% CI =72.24–82.83) and 90.12% (95% CI =85.76–93.50), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio of guaiac and immunochemical tests for the detection of CRC was 2.26 (95% CI =0.83–6.18) and 7.59 (95% CI =3.86–14.94), whereas the negative likelihood ratio was 0.64 (95% CI =0.24–1.71) and 0.28 (95% CI =0.05–1.52), respectively. The positive predictive values of guaiac and immunochemical tests were 3.45% (95% CI =0.426–11.91) and 10.71% (95% CI =2.27–28.23), respectively. There was no marked difference in the negative predictive values for both methods. The sensitivity of the fecal occult blood test by FIT was significantly higher for stages III and IV colorectal cancer than for stages I and II (P=0.01) and it was insignificant for the guaiac fecal occult blood test (P=0.07).ConclusionIn areas where other advance screening methods of CRC are not feasible, the use of FIT can be considered.

A blood screening test for Alzheimer's disease

“…Urine dipstick in an emergency room screening setting for detecting diabetic ketoacidosis yields a PPV = 0.15 but NPV = 0.99. G-FOBT provides a PPV = 0.35 and NPV = 0.99 for detecting colorectal cancer [34] . Low-dose computed tomography for lung-cancer screening provides a PPV = 0.42 and NPV = 0.99.…”

Developments in Point-of-Care Diagnostic Technology for Cancer Detection

“…Although there are a wide variety of biomarkers available [ 37 , 38 , 39 ], detection of cancer often requires the use of several biomarkers in tandem to provide a molecular signature sufficiently robust enough to accurately indicate the presence of cancer [ 33 , 40 , 41 ]. More than 50% of all human proteins are glycosylated [ 42 ] and glycosylation is one of the most complex and common post-translational modifications.…”

Methods and novel technology for microRNA quantification in colorectal cancer screening

“…False positives are common due to usage of mediations such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as well as dietary intake of red meat [ 16 , 17 ]. A single FOBT has a sensitivity of only around 50% [ 18 , 19 ], and while repeated testing can boost sensitivity, patients may be less willing to attend multiple appointments [ 20 ]. The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is an antibody-based measurement of hemoglobin protein in stool.…”

“…The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is an antibody-based measurement of hemoglobin protein in stool. One study found that the FOBT provided a specificity of only 78% while the FIT offered a specificity of over 90% [ 19 ]. The FIT also has a higher average sensitivity for CRC of 93%, but has only a 48% sensitivity for advanced neoplasia, suggesting that it may not be optimal for identifying individuals at risk for CRC [ 21 ].…”