Search

Background & Aims We investigated whether 2 quantitative fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) with the same cutoff concentration of fecal hemoglobin perform equivalently in identifying patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods A total of 956,005 Taiwanese subjects, 50 to 69 years old, participated in a nationwide CRC screening program to compare results from 2 FITs; 78% were tested using the OC-Sensor (n = 747,076; Eiken Chemical Co, Tokyo, Japan) and 22% were tested using the HM-Jack (n = 208,929; Kyowa Medex Co Ltd, Tokyo, Japan), from 2004 through 2009. The cutoff concentration for a positive finding was 20 μg hemoglobin/g feces, based on a standardized reporting unit system. The tests were compared using short-term and long-term indicators of performance. Results The OC-Sensor test detected CRC in 0.21% of patients, with a positive predictive value of 6.8%. The HM-Jack test detected CRC in 0.17% of patients, with a positive predictive value of 5.2%. The rate of interval cancer rate was 30.7/100,000 person-years among subjects receiving the OC-Sensor test and 40.6/100,000 person-years among those receiving the HM-Jack test; there was significant difference in test sensitivity (80% vs 68%, P = .005) that was related to the detectability of proximal CRC. After adjusting for differences in city/county, age, sex, ambient temperature, and colonoscopy quality, significant differences were observed between the tests in the positive predictive value for cancer detection (adjusted relative risk = 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.14–1.46) and the rates of interval cancer (0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.62–0.92). Although each test was estimated to reduce CRC mortality by approximately 10%, no significant difference in mortality was observed when the 2 groups were compared. Conclusions Different brands of quantitative FITs, even with the same cutoff hemoglobin concentration, perform differently in mass screening. Population-level data should be gathered to verify the credibility of quantitative laboratory findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Aims Colonoscopy examination does not always detect colorectal cancer (CRC)— some patients develop CRC after negative findings from an examination. When this occurs before the next recommended examination, it is called interval cancer. From a colonoscopy quality assurance perspective, that term is too restrictive, so the term post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) was created in 2010. However, PCCRC definitions and methods for calculating rates vary among studies, making it impossible to compare results. We aimed to standardize the terminology, identification, analysis, and reporting of PCCRCs and CRCs detected after other whole-colon imaging evaluations (post-imaging colorectal cancers [PICRCs]). Methods A 20-member international team of gastroenterologists, pathologists, and epidemiologists; a radiologist; and a non-medical professional met to formulate a series of recommendations, standardize definitions and categories (to align with interval cancer terminology), develop an algorithm to determine most-plausible etiologies, and develop standardized methodology to calculate rates of PCCRC and PICRC. The team followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A literature review provided 401 articles to support proposed statements; evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. The statements were voted on anonymously by team members, using a modified Delphi approach. Results The team produced 21 statements that provide comprehensive guidance on PCCRCs and PICRCs. The statements present standardized definitions and terms, as well as methods for qualitative review, determination of etiology, calculation of PCCRC rates, and non-colonoscopic imaging of the colon. Conclusions A 20-member international team has provided standardized methods for analysis of etiologies of PCCRCs and PICRCs and defines its use as a quality indicator. The team provides recommendations for clinicians, organizations, researchers, policy makers, and patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Aims Age, sex, smoking, and family history are risk factors for colorectal cancer in Asia. The Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening (APCS) scoring system was developed to identify subjects with a high risk for advanced neoplasm (AN). We tested an algorithm that combined APCS scores with fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in colorectal cancer screening. Methods We performed a multicenter prospective study, enrolling asymptomatic individuals older than 40 years old in 12 Asia-Pacific regions from December 2011 to December 2013. APCS scores were calculated for each individual (0−1 = low risk [LR], 2−3 = medium risk [MR], and 4−7 = high risk [HR] for AN). LR and MR subjects were offered FIT and referred for early colonoscopies if FIT results were positive. HR subjects were offered colonoscopies. The proportions of subjects with ANs were determined for each group based on colonoscopy findings; odd ratios for LR and MR subjects were calculated compared to LR individuals. We calculated the sensitivity of the APCS-FIT algorithm in identifying subjects with AN. Results A total of 5657 subjects were recruited: 646 subjects (11.4%) were considered LR, 3243 subjects (57.3%) were considered MR, and 1768 subjects (31.3%) were considered HR for AN. The proportions of individuals with an AN in these groups were 1.5%, 5.1%, and 10.9%, respectively. Compared with LR group, MR and HR subjects had a 3.4-fold increase and a 7.8-fold increase in risk for AN, respectively. A total of 70.6% subjects with AN (95% confidence interval: 65.6%−75.1%) and 95.1% subjects with invasive cancers (95% confidence interval: 82.2%−99.2%) were correctly instructed to undergo early colonoscopy examination. Conclusions The APCS scoring system, which is based on age, sex, family history, and smoking, is a useful tool for determining risk for colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma in asymptomatic subjects. Use of the APCS score-based algorithm in triaging subjects for FIT or colonoscopy can substantially reduce colonoscopy workload. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]