Comparison between a guaiac and three immunochemical faecal occult blood tests in screening for colorectal cancer
Comparison between a guaiac and three immunochemical faecal occult blood tests in screening for colorectal cancer
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ejca.2012.04.007
复制
发表时间：
2012-11-01
影响因子：
8.4
通讯作者：
Bretagne, J. F.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Faivre, J.;Dancourt, V.;Bretagne, J. F.
背景：本研究的目的是比较基于愈创木脂的粪便潜血测试 (G-FOBT) 与允许自动解释的三种免疫化学粪便潜血测试 (I-FOBT) 的性能。 患者和方法：根据法国组织的筛查计划，参加第三轮筛查的 85,149 名 50-74 岁平均风险个体进行了 G-FOBT（Hemocult-II 测试）和其中一项测试I-FOBT：FOB-Gold、Magstream 和 OC-Sensor。结果：给定选定的阈值，不同 I-FOBT 和 G-FOBT 之间的阳性比率为：FOB-Gold 为 2.4，Magstream 为 2.0，OC-Sensor 为 2.2（P = 0.17）。对于结直肠癌 (CRC) 检测，三种 I-FOBT 优于 G-FOBT。检测率比率为 1.6 (FOB-Gold)、1.7 (Magstream) 和 2.1 (OC-Sensor) (P = 0.74)。对于非侵入性 CRC，它们分别为 2.5、3.0 和 4.0 (P = 0.83)，对于晚期腺瘤，分别为 3.6、3.1 和 4.0 (P = 0.39)。 结论：这项研究提供了进一步的证据，表明 I-FOBT 优于 G-FOBT。研究的三种 I-FOBT 似乎都没有明显优于其他的。 (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. 保留所有权利。
Background: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the guaiacbased faecal occult blood test (G-FOBT), with that of three immunochemical faecal occult blood tests (I-FOBT) which allow automatic interpretation.Patients and methods: Under the French organised screening programme, 85,149 average-risk individuals aged 50-74 participating in the third screening round, performed both the G-FOBT (Hemoccult-II test) and one of the I-FOBTs: FOB-Gold, Magstream and OC-Sensor.Results: Given the chosen threshold, the positivity ratio between the different I-FOBTs and the G-FOBT was 2.4 for FOB-Gold, 2.0 for Magstream and 2.2 for OC-Sensor (P = 0.17). The three I- FOBTs were superior to the G-FOBT for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection. The ratios for detection rates were 1.6 (FOB-Gold), 1.7 (Magstream) and 2.1 (OC-Sensor) (P = 0.74). For non-invasive CRC they were, respectively, 2.5, 3.0 and 4.0 (P = 0.83) and for advanced adenomas 3.6, 3.1 and 4.0 (P = 0.39).Conclusions: This study provides further evidence that I-FOBT is superior to G-FOBT. None of the three I-FOBTs studied appeared to be significantly better than the others. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.