Disclaimer
This information collection is a core HTA, i.e. an extensive analysis
of one or more health technologies using all nine domains of the HTA Core Model.
The core HTA is intended to be used as an information base for local
(e.g. national or regional) HTAs.
Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) for colorectal cancer screening compared to CRC screening with Guaiac –based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) in the screening of Adenomas, as non-malignant precursor lesions of ColoRectal Cancer (CRC). in healthy and/or asymptomatic adults and elderly Any adult over 50 years old, both men and women, with average risk of CRC.
(See detailed scope below)
Authors: Jesús González-Enríquez, Francesca Gillespie, Stefania Lopatriello, Iñaki Imaz
The main objective of this EEF domain is to facilitate summarized information on the effectiveness of the use of Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) for detection of occult blood in the stool associated with colorectal lesions (adenomas and CRC), under conditions of population based colorectal cancer screening, comparing with CRC screening with Guaiac –based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT).
We have not identified any study that compares FIT vs gFOBT in terms of mortality. The identified studies that provided mortality information compared screening using FIT vs no screening and reported only colorectal cancer specific mortality. A randomised controlled trial and three observational studies examined the effect of the use of FIT for colorectal cancer screening versus no screening on colorectal cancer mortality, showing a reduction on CRC mortality. The randomised controlled trial obtained no significant differences for colorectal and colon cancer mortality, but significant for rectal cancer mortality, when compared those FIT based screened vs. those no screened In addition, three Japanese observational studies with high risk of bias found a significant reduction in CRC mortality. Therefore no direct evidence comparing FIT vs gFOBT in the context of a population based colorectal cancer screening program is available.
A high-quality level systematic review studying differences in detection rates between FIT and GFOBT has been identified {10}. This systematic review selected five randomized controlled trials comparing detection rate of advanced neoplasm of FIT vs GFOBT for screening of CRC. The five trials were combined in a meta-analysis using random effects. Colonoscopy was the reference standard. The Pooled detection rates intended to screen cancers and significant adenomas were achieved in 2.23% of individuals with FIT and 1.24% of individuals with GFOBT. The pooled Odds Ratio of detection with FIT vs. with GFOBT was 1.50 (IC 95%: 0.94-2.39). Hence, the FIT have a 50%, but not significant, higher detection rate in comparison with gFOBT for advanced adenomas and cancer.
We identified 5 systematic reviews {10,15,16,17,18} and 3 additional diagnostic cohort trials{19,20,21} directly comparing FIT vs gFOBT. Overall 6 out of the 8 studies in the table conclude that FIT is more accurate and preferable to gFOBT for CRC screening.
The most recent and high quality review {15} analyses the performance characteristics of FIT compared with gFOBT, including two randomized control trials {11,12} and two observational studies {13,14}. In summary, the sensitivity of FIT for detecting CRC and AA compared with a standard gFOBT is superior. In the two randomized control trials, specificity was decreased for CRC and Advanced Adenoma when using FIT compared with gFOBT. On the other hand, these two studies reported higher advanced neoplasia detection rates for FIT compared with gFOBT. The PPV for detecting CRC and Advanced Adenoma using FIT is not different from the standard gFOBT. In general, the positivity rates for FIT using the manufacturer’s standard cut-off level in hemoglobin concentration are higher than for gFOBT.
Overall, FIT performance is superior to the standard gFOBT for the detection of CRC and advanced adenomas in a population based screening setting.
The Effectiveness domain in the Core HTA considers all relevant questions related to the efficacy and effectiveness of the technology, focusing in the assessment of the health benefits. We primarily consider patient relevant outcomes (mortality, morbidity, quality of life) and performance characteristics of the intervention (accuracy). Also have considered for assessment other related effects of the intervention (change in management).
We selected the relevant Assessment elements and they were translated into research questions. The assessment elements questions for EFF Domain were selected and adapted using as a model the Core Model for Screening Technologies.
The main objective of this EEF domain is to facilitate summarized information on the effectiveness of the use of Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) for detection of occult blood in the stool associated with colorectal lesions (adenomas and colorectal cancer-CRC), under conditions of population based colorectal cancer screening, comparing with CRC screening with Guaiac –based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT).
Relevant issues and research questions selected
Mortality
D0001. What is the effect of FIT versus gFOBT for CRC screening on overall mortality?
D0002. What is the effect of FIT versus gFOBT for CRC screening on the mortality caused by CRC?
D0003. What is the effect of FIT versus gFOBT for CRC screening due to other causes than CRC?
Morbidity
D0005. How does the use of FIT versus gFOBT for CRC screening modify the symptoms and findings of adenomas and CRC?
D0006. How does FIT versus gFOBT for CRC screening modify the progression of adenomas and CRC?
D0026. How does the use of FIT versus gFOBT for CRC screening technology modify the effectiveness of subsequent interventions?
Change in management
D0020. Does use of FIT versus gFOBT for CRC screening lead to improved detection of adenomas and CRC?
D0022. Does FIT for CRC screening detect other potential health conditions that can impact the subsequent management decisions?
D0023.How does FIT versus gFOBT for CRC screening modifies the need for other technologies and use of resources?
Test accuracy
D1001. What is the accuracy of FIT for CRC screening against reference standard?
D1002. How does FIT compare to gFOBT for CRC screening in terms of accuracy measures?
D1003. What is the reference standard and how likely does it classify adenoma and CRC correctly?
D1005. What is the optimal threshold value of FIT for CRC screening?
D1006. Does FIT for CRC screening reliably rule in or rule out adenomas and CRC?
D1007. How does FIT accuracy vary in different settings?
D1008. What is known about the intra- and inter-observer variation in FIT interpretation?
The collection scope is used in this domain.
Technology | Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) for colorectal cancer screening
DescriptionFITs use an antibody (immunoglobulin) specific to human globin, the protein component of haemoglobin, to detect fecal occult blood. Immunochemical tests have improved test characteristics compared to conventional guaiac-based tests for fecal occult blood. FIT should not be subject to interference from dietary blood and it is more specific to bleeding from the distal gastrointestinal tract. They could be analytically and clinically more sensitive and specific, Their measurement can be automated and the user can adjust the concentration at which a positive result is reported. A wide range of qualitative and quantitative tests is presently available, with varying levels of sensitivity and specificity (like Hem-SP/MagStream H, Fujirebio Inc. Japan ; OC-Sensor, Eiken Chemical Co., Tokyo, Japan; FOB Gold, Medinostics Products Supplier; Sentinel Diagnostics SpA, Milan, Italy). |
---|---|
Intended use of the technology | Screening CRC screening with faecal inmunochemical test (FIT) for detection of occult blood in the stool associated with colorectal lesions (adenomas and CRC). The use of the test is considered under conditions of population based colorectal cancer screening, in the context of organised cancer screening programmes as recommended by the EU. Early detection and treatment of colorectal lesions before they become symptomatic has the potential to improve control of the disease, reducing morbidity and mortality associated to CRC. Early treatment of invasive lesions can be generally less detrimental for quality of life. The endoscopic removal of pre-malignant lesions also reduces the incidence of CRC by stopping the progression to cancer. Colorectal cancers and adenomatous polyps bleed has providing fecal blood haemoglobin as the biomarker of choice for current screening programmes. Stool samples could be periodically taken and analyzed for the presence of occult blood, as an early sign of colorectal lesions (adenoma or CRC). Target conditionAdenomas, as non-malignant precursor lesions of ColoRectal Cancer (CRC).Target condition descriptionCRC is the third most common in incidence and the fourth most common cause of cancer death worldwide. CRC is particularly suitable for screening. The disease is believed to develop in a vast majority of cases from non-malignant precursor lesions called adenomas. Adenomas can occur anywhere in the colorectum after a series of mutations that cause neoplasia of the epithelium. At some time , the adenoma may invade the submucosa and become malignant. Initially, this malignant cancer is not diagnosed and does not give symptoms (preclinical phase). It can progress from localised (stage I) to metastasised (stage IV) cancer, until it causes symptoms and is diagnosed. Only 5–6% of the population actually develop CRC. The average duration of the development of an adenoma to CRC is estimated to be at least 10 years. This long latent phase provides a window of opportunity for early detection of the disease. Target populationTarget population sex: Any. Target population age: adults and elderly. Target population group: Healthy and/or asymptomatic people. Target population descriptionAdults, average risk of CRC, aged 50 years or over. The best age range for offering gFOBT or FIT screening has not been investigated in trials. Circumstantial evidence suggests that mortality reduction from gFOBT is similar in different age ranges between 45 and 80 years .The age range for a national screening programme should at least include people aged 60 to 64 years in which CRC incidence and mortality are high and life-expectancy is still considerable. Only the FOBT for men and women aged 50–74 years has been recommended todate by the EU (Council Recommendation and the European guidelines for quality assurance in CRC screening and diagnosis). Members of families with hereditary syndromes, previous diagnosis of CRC or pre-malignant lesions should follow specific surveillance protocols and are not included in the target population |
Comparison | CRC screening with Guaiac –based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT)
DescriptionCRC screening with Guaiac–based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) The guaiac-based FOBT is still a commonly used method for detecting blood in faeces. To detect hemoglobin the test uses guaiac gum and its efficacy as a colorectal cancer screening test has been analyzed in several randomised controlled trials. The test detects the haem component of haemoglobin, which is identical across human and animal species and is chemically robust and only partially degraded during its passage through the gastrointestinal tract. gFOBTs cannot distinguish between human blood and blood residues from the diet. Many guaiac-based tests are currently on the market (like Coloscreen, Helena Laboratories,Texas,USA; Hema-screen Immunostics Inc.; Hemoccult, Beckman Coulter Inc.; Hemoccult SENSA, Beckman Coulter Inc.; MonoHaem, Chemicon Europe Ltd; Hema-Check, Siemens PLC; HemaWipe, Medtek Diagnostics LLC) The use of the test is considered under conditions of population based colorectal cancer screening, in the context of organised cancer screening programmes as recommended by the EU. Population-based programmes have been rolled out nationwide in several European countries. Many member states haveestablished nationwide non-population-based programmes. Some states are planning or piloting a nationwide population-based programme. These have adopted only FOBT, some only FIT, some a mix between FOBT and endoscopy, or only colonoscopy. |
Outcomes | CUR and TEC
SAF
EFF
ECO:
ORG:
SOC
LEG
|
Topic | Issue | Relevant | Research questions or rationale for irrelevance | |
---|---|---|---|---|
D0001 | Mortality | What is the effect of the intervention on overall mortality? | yes | What is the effect of FIT versus gFOBT for CRC screening on overall mortality? |
D0002 | Mortality | What is the effect of the intervention on the mortality caused by the target disease? | yes | What is the effect of FIT versus gFOBT for CRC screening on the mortality caused by CRC? |
D0003 | Mortality | What is the effect of the intervention on the mortality due to other causes than the target disease? | yes | What is the effect of FIT versus gFOBT for CRC screening on the mortality due to other causes than CRC? |
D0004 | Mortality | What is the mortality related to the diagnostic test? | no | There is no mortality directly associated to FIT or gFOBT |
D0005 | Morbidity | How does the use of the technology modify the symptoms and findings of the target condition? | yes | How does the use of FIT for CRC screening modify the symptoms and findings of adenomas and CRC? |
D0006 | Morbidity | How does the technology modify the progression of the target condition? | yes | How does FIT for CRC screening modify the progression of adenomas and CRC? |
D0026 | Morbidity | How does the technology modify the effectiveness of subsequent interventions? | yes | How does the use of FIT versus gFOBT for CRC screening technology modify the effectiveness of subsequent interventions? |
D0008 | Morbidity | What is the morbidity directly related to the technology? | no | There is no morbidity directly related to FIT or gFOBT. |
D0020 | Change-in management | Does use of the test lead to improved detection of the condition? | yes | Does use of FIT versus FOBT for CRC screening lead to improved detection of adenomas and CRC? |
D0022 | Change-in management | Does the test detect other potential health conditions that can impact the subsequent management decisions? | yes | Does FIT for CRC screening detect other potential health conditions that can impact the subsequent management decisions? |
D0023 | Change-in management | How does the technology modify the need for other technologies and use of resources? | yes | How does FIT versus FOBT for CRC screening modify the need for other technologies and use of resources? |
D0021 | Change-in management | How does the use of the test change physicians' management decisions? | no | A positive test must be folowed of new invasive tests for diagnosis (colonoscopy). It is not expected that the use of FIT vs gFOBT change the physician’s management decisions. The strategy of performing new invasive diagnostic tests (colonoscopy) following a positive result that is accepted for gFOBT should be applied for FIT. |
D0024 | Change-in management | Is there an effective treatment for the condition the test is detecting? | no | There is no a need of key information regarding this question for the specific framing of this CORE HTA. There are clear evidences regarding treatment effectiveness for CRC and adenomas, and this ussue would not affect in a relevant way our specific scope. |
D1001 | Test accuracy | What is the accuracy of the test against reference standard? | yes | What is the accuracy of FIT for CRC screening against reference standard? |
D1002 | Test accuracy | How does the test compare to other optional tests in terms of accuracy measures? | yes | How does FIT compare to gFOBT for CRC screening in terms of accuracy measures? |
D1003 | Test accuracy | What is the reference standard and how likely does it classify the target condition correctly? | yes | What is the reference standard and how likely does it classify adenoma and CRC correctly? |
D1005 | Test accuracy | What is the optimal threshold value in this context? | yes | What is the optimal threshold value of FIT for CRC screening? |
D1006 | Test accuracy | Does the test reliably rule in or rule out the target condition? | yes | Does FIT for CRC screening reliably rule in or rule out adenomas and CRC? |
D1007 | Test accuracy | How does test accuracy vary in different settings? | yes | How does FIT accuracy vary in different settings? |
D1008 | Test accuracy | What is known about the intra- and inter-observer variation in test interpretation? | yes | What is known about the intra- and inter-observer variation in FIT interpretation? |
D1004 | Test accuracy | What are the requirements for accuracy in the context the technology will be used? | no | Already included within the question G0012 of the ORG domain which is related to quality standards. |
D1019 | Test accuracy | Is there evidence that the replacing test is more specific or safer than the old one? | no | Regarding specificity, it is already included in the effectiveness domain question D1002. Regarding safety, it is already included within SAF domain. |
D0027 | Test accuracy | What are the negative consequences of further testing and delayed treatment in patients with false negative test result? | no | Considered as a relevant question more specifically related to SAF domain (C006) |
D0028 | Test accuracy | What are the negative consequences of further testing and treatments in patients with false positive test result? | no | Considered as a relevant question more specifically related to SAF domain (C006) |
D0011 | Function | What is the effect of the intervention on global function? | no | Already included as a relevant outcome within SOC domain |
D0014 | Function | What is the effect of the technology on return to work? | no | Already included as a relevant outcome within SOC domain |
D0015 | Function | What is the effect of the technology on return to previous living conditions? | no | Already included as a relevant outcome within SOC domain |
D0016 | Function | How does use of the technology affect activities of daily living? | no | Already included as a relevant outcome within SOC domain |
D0012 | Quality of life | What is the effect of the technology on generic health-related quality of life? | no | Already included as a relevant outcome within SOC domain |
D0013 | Quality of life | What is the effect of the technology on disease specific quality of life? | no | Already included as a relevant outcome within SOC domain |
D0030 | Quality of life | Does the knowledge of the test result affect the patient's non-health-related quality of life? | no | Already included as a relevant outcome within SOC domain |
D0017 | Patient satisfaction | Was the use of the technology worthwhile? | no | Already included as a relevant outcome within SOC domain (Patient satisfaction, global value) |
D0018 | Patient satisfaction | Is the patient willing to use the technology? | no | Already included as a relevant outcome within SOC and ORG domains (Patient satisfaction, acceptance) |
D0029 | Benefit-harm balance | What are the overall benefits and harms of the technology in health outcomes? | no | This is a question to be answered with all the information available from all domains. It requires a comprehensive assessment of the overall value of the intervention. |
Domain frame/PICO
The project scope is applied in this domain:
Technology |
FIT for colorectal cancer screening vs. gFOBT colorectal cancer screening in organized screening program Description Procedure of gFOBT: the standard fecal occult blood (FOBT) test can detect small amounts of blood in the stool by submitting a portion of three consecutive bowel movements for testing. The test cannot identify polyps and some diet restrictions need to be considered, as the test is not specific for human blood alone. gFOBT is used for more than 30 years in routine, is widely available and inexpensive. If the test is positive, a colonoscopy will be needed to find the reason for the bleeding. Procedure of FIT: FIT (Fecal Immunochemical Test) for colorectal cancer screening, also called as iFOBT (immunochemical FOBT) screening, is more accurate than FOBT as it only identifies human blood. It needs only one stool sample, thus is more simple to complete. If the test is positive, a colonoscopy will be needed to find the reason for the bleeding. Colorectal cancer screening with faecal inmunochemical test (FIT) for detection of occult blood in the stool associated with colorectal lesions (adenomas and CRC) is considered under conditions of population based colorectal cancer screening, in the context of organised cancer screening programmes as recommended by the EU. Early detection and treatment of colorectal lesions before they become symptomatic has the potential to improve control of the disease, reducing morbidity and mortality associated to CRC. Early treatment of invasive lesions can be generally less detrimental for quality of life. The endoscopic removal of pre-malignant lesions also reduces the incidence of CRC by stopping the progression to cancer. Stool samples could be periodically taken and analysed for the presence of occult blood, as an early sign of colorectal lesions (adenoma or CRC). To ensure effectiveness, the screening interval in a national screening programme should not exceed two years for gFOBT and three years for FIT. Purpose of use: detect cancer, polyps, nonpolypoid lesions, which are flat or slightly depressed areas of abnormal cell growth and can also develop into colorectal cancer. |
Intended use of the technology |
Screening CRC screening with faecal immunochemical test (FIT) Target condition Adenomas, as non-malignant precursor lesions of Colorectal Cancer. Target condition description CRC is the third most common in incidence and the fourth most common cause of cancer death worldwide. CRC is particularly suitable for screening. The disease is believed to develop in a vast majority of cases from non-malignant precursor lesions called adenomas. Adenomas can occur anywhere in the colorectum after a series of mutations that cause neoplasia of the epithelium. Adenoma may invade the submucosa and become malignant. Initially, this malignant cancer is not diagnosed and does not cause symptoms (preclinical phase). It can progress from localised (stage I) to metastasised (stage IV) cancer, until it causes symptoms and is diagnosed. Only 5–6% of the general population actually develop CRC. The average duration of the development of an adenoma to CRC is estimated to be at least 10 years. This long latent phase provides a window of opportunity for early detection of the disease. Target population Target population sex: any. Target population age: 50-74 years. Target population group: Asymptomatic people. Target population description Adults (both men and women), average risk of CRC, aged 50 years or over. The best age range for offering gFOBT or FIT screening has not been investigated in trials. Circumstantial evidence suggests that mortality reduction from gFOBT is similar in different age ranges between 45 and 80 years. The age range for a national screening programme should at least include people aged 60 to 64 years in which CRC incidence and mortality are high and life-expectancy is still considerable. EU Council Recommendations suggests only the faecal occult blood test (gFOBT or FIT) for men and women aged 50–74 for CRC screening. Members of families with hereditary syndromes, previous diagnosis of CRC or pre-malignant lesions should follow specific surveillance protocols and are not included in the target population.
|
Comparison |
CRC screening with Guaiac – based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) Description CRC screening with Guaiac–based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) The guaiac-based FOBT is still a commonly used method for detecting blood in faeces. To detect haemoglobin the test uses guaiac gum and its efficacy as a colorectal cancer screening test has been analysed in several randomised controlled trials. The test detects the haem component of haemoglobin, which is identical across human and animal species and is chemically robust and only partially degraded during its passage through the gastrointestinal tract. gFOBTs cannot distinguish between human blood and blood residues from the diet. Many guaiac-based tests are currently on the market (like Coloscreen, Helena Laboratories,Texas,USA; Hema-screen Immunostics Inc.; Hemoccult, Beckman Coulter Inc.; Hemoccult SENSA, Beckman Coulter Inc.; MonoHaem, Chemicon Europe Ltd; Hema-Check, Siemens PLC; HemaWipe, Medtek Diagnostics LLC). The use of the test is considered under conditions of population based colorectal cancer screening in the context of organised cancer screening programmes as recommended by the EU. Population-based programmes have been rolled out nationwide in several European countries. Many member states have established nationwide non-population-based programmes. Some states are planning or piloting a nationwide population-based programme. These have adopted only gFOBT, some only FIT, some a mix between FOBT and endoscopy, or only colonoscopy. |
EFF domain Outcomes
Information sources
Answers to the selected research questions of the EFF domain are mainly based in systematic literature search in the following sources {EFF Appendix 1}:
This specific literature search strategy was produced to answer the EEF domain research questions.
We merged the two databases, general and specific, excluding duplicates, and worked with it to answer all research questions. The final selection after deletion of duplicates included a total of 620 studies.
Additional information sources were used to answer specific research questions when the data retrieved through a systematic review did not provide adequate information (hand searching of journals and references in selected studies, trial registers and grey literature).
Retrieved articles were included or excluded according to the PICO adopted for the project scope and related directly to the outcomes selected in the EFF domain. Abstracts resulting from the literature searches were independently assessed by at least two investigators. A final database with 176 selected studies from the merger of the two search strategies used for our EFF domain, after excluding references not directly related to the EFF domain frame and research questions.
Priority was done to the identification of systematic reviews and clinical trials.
For research questions related with issues of mortality, morbidity and change in management the project approach were mainly based in prospective controlled clinical trials, meta-analysis or systematic reviews of clinical trials. Other study types and designs have been considered (observational studies, prognostic studies, registries, statistics) if adequate for some research questions.
For research questions related with test accuracy we searched for diagnostic accuracy reviews, and clinically relevant diagnostic studies comparing FIT and FOBT were selected. Inclusion criteria where: studies that report data on accuracy measures (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, likelihood ratios, SROC and other measures, detection rates), publication date after year 2000, FIT compared with gFOBT or alone, on asymptomatic average risk patients, age 50+ years, data on specific issues relative to selected research questions.
Relevant articles considered to meet inclusion criteria for one selected research question were fully assessed (described, data extraction table, quality assessment) by the investigators. Extraction tables where tailored to research questions issues.
Quality assessment tools or criteria
The quality of the selected studies was analyzed by using the Cochrane risk of bias checklist for randomized controlled trials and for non-randomized studies {1}. To evaluate the quality of systematic reviews we used the 11 items of the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR){2}. Test accuracy studies included in systematic reviews and qualified with QUADAS have also been reported.
Analysis and synthesis
Priority is given to reporting summary effects measures from systematic reviews and randomized clinical trials. When quantitative pooling of results is available or possible from meta-analysis it is presented. When the heterogeneity of studies and nature of data available prevent from pooling on a summary estimate, specific data are described and reported.
Summary informative evidence tables of selected studies are presented once reviewed for methodological quality. Data was synthesized in tables were possible and research questions were answered starting from the best quality of available evidence.
Assessing the accuracy of the screening test we report summary measures from the selected systematic reviews and meta-analysis (pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios or area under receiver operating characteristic curve), and specific results from other prospective studies once reviewed for methodological quality.
Additional descriptive analysis is presented, interpreted and commented if necessary for the EFF assessment elements.
Refer to domain search and domain methodology section.
We have not identified any study that compares FIT vs gFOBT in terms of mortality. The identified studies that provided mortality information compared screening using FIT vs no screening and reported only colorectal cancer specific mortality. A randomised controlled trial {3} and four observational studies {4, 5, 6, 7} examined the effect of the use of FIT for colorectal cancer screening versus no screening on colorectal cancer mortality or incidence, but not on overall mortality. Tables 1 to 6 and Figure 1 {EFF Appendix 1} extract and evaluate the most important results of the five above mentioned studies. Because of the lack of direct evidence to answer the research question a GRADE profile has not been elaborated.
Importance: Important
Transferability: Completely
Refer to domain search and domain methodology section.
We have not identified any study that compares FIT vs gFOBT in terms of mortality. The identified studies that provide mortality information compared screening using FIT vs no screening. A controlled trial {3} and three observational studies {4, 6, 7} examined mortality effect of the use of FIT for colorectal cancer screening versus no screening. Therefore no direct evidence comparing FIT vs gFOBT in the context of a population based colorectal cancer screening program is available. Because of the lack of direct available evidence to answer the research question a GRADE profile has not been elaborated.
The tables 1 to 5 extract and evaluate the most important results of the four above mentioned studies. Only one of them is a randomised controlled trial{3}, two are case-control studies {6, 7} and one is an observational and comparative retrospective study{4}. The randomised controlled trial compares the use of one round Reverse Passive Hemagglutination (RPHA) immunochemical test along with an individual attribute degree value score versus no screening. This trial, which analyses the screening program conducted in Jiashan (China), presents several bias risks and it is no focused on our specific research question.
First at all, the index test differs from the test consider in our research question because the FIT was used together with a quantitative individual risk assessment method (Attributive Degree Value). On the other hand, the reference standard was initially sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy only for positive sigmoidoscopies and for positive FIT for those who FIT was repeated. Individuals with a positive FOBT were asked to undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS). If FS failed to detect colorectal lesions, the participants were asked to repeat the FOBT. Those without a lesion found by FS but with a positive repeated FOBT were re-examined by 150-cm colonoscopy to confirm the results. The no use of colonoscopy for all the positive FIT could lead to an underestimation of the colon cancer cases and may explain the better results for detection of rectal but no for colon cancer. Double reference standard can lead to a differential verification bias. That occurs when some of the index test results are verified by a different reference standard. This usually occurs when patients testing positive on the index test receive a more accurate, often invasive, reference standard than those with a negative test result. In this case, the results are overestimated.
The controlled trial is a cluster randomized trial based on townships allocation, with a high risk of bias in several key domains of the Cochrane risk of bias table (randomization, allocation concealment and blinding). Twenty one townships were matched by population size and age distribution into 10 pairs. In each pair, a table of random digits was used to allocate to the screening or to the control group. The unit of analysis was individuals, but there was no inter-cluster correction that would minimize the selection bias risk. On the other hand, there was no participant and personnel blinding, which implies a high risk of performance bias.
This trial obtained no significant differences for colorectal and colon, but significant for rectal cancer mortality, when compared those FIT based screened vs. those no screened. The 8 year cumulative colorectal cancer mortality rate per 1,000 was 2.08 for the FIT group (95% CI: 1.96-2.18) and 2.44 (95% CI: 2.33-2.55) for no screening (p=0.19). For the specific colon cancer mortality the 8 year cumulative mortality rate per 1,000 was 0.90 for the FIT group (95% CI: 0.83-0.97) and 0.83 for the no screening group (95% CI: 0.76-0.90) (p=0.222). The 8 year cumulative rectal cancer mortality rate per 1,000 was significantly different (p<0.05) for the FIT group (1.10; 95% CI: 1.02-1.18) vs the no screening group (1.61; 95% CI: 1.52-1.70).
The rest of the studies are observational retrospective studies with high risk of bias in most of the domains of the Cochrane risk of bias table. Two case-control studies compare, in the context of two different screening programs performed in two Japanese counties, the Odds Ratio of dying due to colorectal cancer for those screened within 1 to 5 years of case diagnosis vs. those no screened. The last one is a retrospective observational study that compares the five years survival rate of 194 screened detected colorectal cancer subjects versus 352 routinely detected (no screening) colorectal cancer at Hirosaki Hospital (Japan). Any of these observational studies provided high quality evidence of the effect of FIT versus gFOBT on the mortality caused by colorectal cancer in the context of a population based colorectal cancer screening program.
We have observed a similar reduction in CRC mortality in RCT of FIT versus no screening and in RCT of gFOBT vs no screening. If we compare the only one randomized clinical trial on CRC mortality in a population invited to FIT versus no screening {3} with the meta-analysis of four RCT on CRC mortality of gFOBT versus no screening {8}, we observe similar results but with a wide confidence interval. The meta-analysis used the Peto method and effect fixed modelization for obtaining an Odds Ratio of 0.84 (IC 95%: 0.78-0.9). Using the same method for estimating the effect of the unique RCT that compared FIT versus no screening the Odds Ratio would be 0.85 (CI 95%: 0.70-1.03). Table 7 {EFF Appendix 3}.
Importance: Important
Transferability: Completely
Refer to domain search and domain methodology section.
We have not identified any study that compares FIT vs gFOBT in terms of mortality. The identified studies that provided mortality information compared screening using FIT vs no screening and reported only colorectal cancer specific mortality. A controlled trial {3} and three observational studies {4, 5, 7} examined the effect of the use of FIT for colorectal cancer screening versus no screening on colorectal cancer mortality but not on overall mortality. Tables 1 to 5 {EFF Appendix 3} extract and evaluate the most important results of the above mentioned studies. Because of the lack of direct evidence to answer the research question a GRADE profile has not been elaborated.
Importance: Important
Transferability: Completely
Refer to domain search and domain methodology section.
A recent Italian screening programme by biennial immunochemical FOBT reported a retrospective comparison of cancer rate and stages between average risk screening participants and those who did not participate in the screening programme. Although the overall cancer rate was similar in the two populations (1.23 versus 1.20 per 1000 person-years), there were significant differences in TNM stage distribution between the two groups (stage III–IV cancers 0.24 versus 0.74 per 1000 respectively, p = 0.009).
This large cross-sectional study reported that colorectal cancers detected by immunochemical FOBT screening are identified at an earlier pathological stage, with significant prognostic and economic advantages to the populations screened {9}.
Importance: Optional
Transferability: Partially
Refer to domain search and domain methodology section.
Compared with standard gFOBT, current evidence from systematic reviews and clinical trials indicates a higher sensitivity for the detection of CRC and advanced adenomas, and higher rates of detection for CRC and advanced adenomas (refer to EFF 12, EFF 20, EFF 22) {10,15,16,17,18}. A superior sensitivity and detection rate of adenomas is a distinguishing performance characteristic of FIT compared with gFOBT, thus proving a greater preventive capacity. If all advanced adenomas and CRC detected are removed progression of lesions could be avoided. The endoscopic removal of pre-malignant lesions also reduces the incidence of CRC by stopping the progression to cancer.
TNM stage distribution of CRC detected in screening programmes using FIT shows an early detection, and early treatment of colorectal lesions before they become symptomatic can reduce morbidity and mortality associated to CRC.
A recent Italian screening programme by biennial immunochemical FOBT reported a retrospective comparison of cancer rate and stages between average risk screening participants and those who did not participate in the screening programme. Although the overall cancer rate was similar in the two populations (1.23 versus 1.20 per 1000 person-years), there were significant differences in TNM stage distribution between the two groups (stage III–IV cancers 0.24 versus 0.74 per 1000 respectively, p = 0.009). This large cross-sectional study reported that colorectal cancers detected by immunochemical FOBT screening are identified at an earlier pathological stage, with significant prognostic and treatment cost advantages to the populations screened {9}. A major goal of a colorectal cancer mass screening programme is to diagnose cancer at an earlier stage, thus permitting curative treatment at lower cost, as the prognosis and cost of late-stage cancer at diagnosis are quite different. In this screening programme most of the screen-detected cancers were diagnosed at a very early stage; 81 per cent were TNM stage I or II and were therefore treated with curative intent, compared with only44·0 per cent of cancers detected within the same age range in the non-screened population.
It could be a case of lead time bias. Those participants who do not participate in the screening programme are diagnosed after they have signs and symptoms of cancer, so they are in advances TNM stages. If the screening program does not modify the progression, the increase in survival time makes it seem as though screened patients are living longer when that may not be happening (the date of diagnosis is earlier for screened patients).
Importance: Optional
Transferability: Partially
Refer to domain search and domain methodology section.
We have not identified clinical trials or systematic reviews comparing FIT vs gFOBT in terms of the effectiveness of subsequent interventions (colonoscopy and surgery) in the context of population based colorectal cancer screening.
Importance: Optional
Transferability: Not
Refer to domain search and domain methodology section.
A high-quality level systematic review studying differences in detection rates between FIT and gFOBT has been detected {10). This systematic review selected five randomized controlled trials comparing detection rate of advanced neoplasm of FIT vs gFOBT for screening of CRC. The five trials were combined in a meta-analysis using random effects. Colonoscopy was the reference standard. The Pooled detection rates intended to screen cancers and significant adenomas were achieved in 2.23% of individuals with FIT and 1.24 % of individuals with gFOBT. The pooled Odds Ratio of detection with FIT vs. with gFOBT was 1.50 (IC 95%: 0.94-2.39). Hence, the FIT have a 50%, but not significant, higher detection rate in comparison with gFOBT for advanced adenomas and cancer. The existence of heterogeneity (I2: 70.7%) led to use random effects model.
Importance: Critical
Transferability: Completely
Refer to domain search and domain methodology section.
We have not identified clinical trials or systematic reviews comparing FIT vs gFOBT in terms of other health effects or clinical conditions not included in the project scope and requiring subsequent clinical management decisions. Therefore no direct evidence on other potential health conditions comparing FIT vs gFOBT in the context of a population based colorectal cancer screening program is available.
Importance: Optional
Transferability: Not
Refer to domain search and domain methodology section.
All the systematic reviews and available RCTs included reported statistically significantly higher participation rates for FIT compared with gFOBT {10, 11, 15}. This means a higher charge of diagnostic colonoscopies in the population. With respect to FIT performance, compared with standard gFOBT, current evidence indicates a higher sensitivity for the detection of CRC and advanced adenomas, and higher rates of detection for CRC and advanced adenomas. These advantages of FIT are offset by a higher positivity rate (depending on the used cut-off level), which in turn may require a greater number of colonoscopies. A superior sensitivity and detection rate of adenomas is a distinguishing performance characteristic of FIT compared with gFOBT. These performance characteristics change when the cut-off level in hemoglobin concentration is changed, allowing a screening program to select the optimal cut-off for the program (more cancers and pre-malignant lesions detected with the minimum number of colonoscopies required).
Positive rates varies among randomized clinical trials from FIT 5.5% to gFOBT 3.2% {11}; FIT 4.8% to gFOBT 2.8%{12}; FIT 11.2% to gFOBT 7.9% {13} and FIT 3.2% to gFOBT 10.1%{14}. Differences in positive predictive values for CRC or advanced adenoma were no statistically significant.
The total number of colonoscopies needed to confirm positive test results is higher for FIT comparing to gFOBT. In one RCT{11} 20,623 individuals were invited; 10,301 received gFOBT and 10,322 FIT. Tests were returned by 10,993 individuals, 4836 (46.9%) in the gFOBT group and 6157 (59.6%) in the FIT group. To evaluate the outcome in the 456 positives results, a colonoscopy was performed in 383 (84%) patients. Total number of colonoscopies was 103 in the gFOBT group and 280 in the FIT group. Cancer was found in 11 of the G-FOBTs and in 24 of the FIT. Advanced adenomas were found in 46 of the gFOBT and in 121 of the FIT. The number of polyps found with gFOBT was 220 (of which 154 adenomas) and 679 with FIT (of which 470 adenomas). In this RCT the specificity of the FIT for advanced adenomas and cancer was lower compared with the gFOBT, but the detection rate for advanced adenomas and cancer with the FIT was significantly higher. Consequently, 3 times as many subjects tested with the FIT are referred for a negative colonoscopy. On the other hand, 3 times as many patients with advanced adenomas and 2 times more patients with cancer are left undetected in the gFOBT group compared with the FIT group, ultimately resulting in comparable Positive Predictive Values for both tests.
Importance: Important
Transferability: Partially
We used both basic search done for the whole project and domain search (described in the Domain Methodology section). Furthermore test accuracy issues relative to Research Questions EFF 20, EFF 22, EFF 24, EFF 26, EFF 28, EFF 30 were selected from the above mentioned searches.
Inclusion criteria where: studies that report data on accuracy measures (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, likelihood ratios, SROC and other measures, detection rates), publication date after year 2000, FIT compared with gFOBT or alone, on asymptomatic average risk patients, age 50+ years, data on specific issues relative to selected research questions. Two investigators independently reviewed the titles and abstract. Disagreement was resolved by discussion. See Table 8 {EFF Appendix 3} for included articles. These articles were used, where pertinent, to answer all the above-mentioned Research Questions.
The quality assessment criteria for studies we used for all above mentioned Research Questions are R-AMSTAR {2} {EFF Appendix 2} for systematic reviews and Cochrane risk of bias for observational studies {1}. Two independent reviewers assessed quality and bias. Disagreement was resolved by discussion.
Extraction tables where tailored to research questions issues. Articles covered by systematic reviews that were in our included list were not extracted.
Data was synthesized in tables were possible and research questions were answered starting from the best quality of available evidence.
Very few good quality diagnostic studies comparing FIT versus gFOBT use as reference standard colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy for all positive or negative results in the index test {10,15}.
Allison et al. {14} and Park et al. {13} studied participants that would receive screening in practice. The reference standards used for each study were different, with Allison et al comparing FIT with gFOBT, and with Park et al comparing FIT with colonoscopy. In both studies, the reference standard and the index test were performed in a short time. In Allison et al, colonoscopy was not used as the comparator to FIT, although participants with a positive test were referred for colonoscopy, and those with a negative test were referred for FS. In Park et al, FIT results were compared directly with colonoscopy results. The index test was independent of the reference standard used.
In the study conducted by Park et al, positivity was slightly higher for FIT (11.2%) than for gFOBT (7.9%), but this difference was not statistically significant. The sensitivity for detecting CRC was statistically significantly increased when using FIT compared with gFOBT (FIT 92.3% versus gFOBT 30.8% [P<0.01]). The sensitivity of FIT (33.9%) compared with gFOBT (13.6%) for detecting advanced adenoma (AA) was significantly higher (P<0.05).
The difference in specificity for both CRC and AA was not statistically significant when comparing FIT (CRC 90.1%; AA 90.6%) with gFOBT (CRC 92.4%; AA 92.4%). The difference in PPV for both CRC and AA was not statistically significant when comparing FIT (CRC 12.8%; AA 23.3%) with gFOBT (CRC 6.7%; AA 13.1%).
In the study conducted by Allison et al, positivity was statistically significantly lower for FIT than the sensitive gFOBT used in the study (FIT 3.2% versus gFOBT 10.1% [P<0.01]). The difference in sensitivity for detecting CRC and AA was not statistically significant for FIT (CRC 81.8%; AA 29.5%) compared with gFOBT (CRC 64.3%; AA 41.3%).The specificity for both CRC and AA was statistically significantly higher for FIT than for gFOBT (CRC FIT 96.9% versus gFOBT 90.1% [P<0.01]; AA FIT 97.3% versus gFOBT 90.6% [P<0.01]). The PPV for both CRC and AA was also statistically significantly higher for FIT compared with gFOBT (CRC FIT 5.2% versus gFOBT 1.5% [P<0.01]; AA FIT 19.1% versus gFOBT 8.9% [P<0.01]). Positive likelihood ratio for distal cancer was 26.7 (95% CI 19.4-36.6) with FIT and 6.5 (4.3-9.6) with gFOBT. Positive likelihood ratio for distal adenomas ≥1 cm was 11.0 (7.9-15.3) with FIT and 4.4 (3.5-5.5) with gFOBT. This measure summarizes how many times more likely patients with the disease will test positive compared with patients without the disease.
In summary, the sensitivity and PPV of FIT for detecting CRC and AA compared with a standard gFOBT is superior. Differences on specificity are not so relevant. Positivity rates for FIT using the manufacturer’s standard cut-off level in hemoglobin concentration are higher than for gFOBT.
In a review and meta-analysis {10} seven diagnostic cohort studies in diagnostic patients scheduled for colonoscopy are included. The pooled PPV for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasm was significantly higher for FIT than for gFOBT (0.41 vs 0.29, P < 0.01). The sensitivity of FIT (0.67, 95% CI 0.61–0.73) was superior to that of gFOBT (0.54, 95% CI 0.48–0.60), as were the specificities (0.85, 95% CI 0.83–0.87 vs 0.80, 95% CI 0.78–0.82). Figure shows the SROC for FOBT in diagnosing advanced colorectal neoplasm of diagnosed patients, which indicates the mildly higher diagnostic accuracy of FIT.
Figure 1. Summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) showing the diagnostic precision of guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) as Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.7677, was lower than that of immunochemical fecal occult blood (iFOBT) as AUC 0.8241, for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasm in patients scheduled for colonoscopy.
From: Zhu MM, Xu XT, Nie F, Tong JL, Xiao SD, Ran ZH. Comparison of immunochemical and guaiac-based fecal occult blood test in screening and surveillance for advanced colorectal neoplasms: A meta-analysis. Journal of Digestive Diseases, 2010; 11 (3): 148-60.
Importance: Important
Transferability: Partially
Please refer to EFF 20
We identified 5 systematic reviews {10,15,16,17,18} and 3 additional diagnostic cohort trials {19,20,21} directly comparing FIT vs gFOBT and they are listed in table 9 with R-AMSTAR and risk of bias results. Data reported on accuracy measures are presented in the relative column of above mentioned table, starting from the more robust available evidence.
Overall 6 out of the 8 studies in the table conclude that FIT is more accurate and preferable to gFOBT for CRC screening.
The most recent and high quality review {15} analyses the performance characteristics of FIT compared with gFOBT, including two randomized control trials {11,12} and two observational studies{13,14}. In summary, the sensitivity of FIT for detecting CRC and AA compared with a standard gFOBT is superior. In the two randomized control trials, specificity was decreased for CRC and Advanced Adenoma when using FIT compared with gFOBT. On the other hand, these two studies reported higher advanced neoplasia detection rates for FIT compared with gFOBT. The PPV for detecting CRC and Advanced Adenoma using FIT is not different from the standard gFOBT. In general, the positivity rates for FIT using the manufacturer’s standard cut-off level in hemoglobin concentration are higher than for gBOBT. Please refer to Table 9 for values of accuracy measures.
Overall, FIT performance is superior to the standard gFOBT for the detection of CRC and adenomas. FIT has additional important advantages compared to gFOBT: higher screening participation rates, potential for automation in the laboratory and to select the cut-off level of hemoglobin concentration that defines a positive test. However, the following potential disadvantages are: greater specimen instability and possibly higher positivity rates.
No merging of available data has been performed do to the wide variability in settings and presented outcomes.
Need for further research:
Importance: Critical
Transferability: Partially
Please refer to EFF 20
The reference standard used in most reviews was colonoscopy {10,15,17,22}. Burch et al reported that one study was a diagnostic cohort study in which 3090 patients underwent colonoscopy and an unspecified immunochemical FOBT: for the detection of all neoplasms, sensitivity was 53% and specificity 99.6%; for the detection of CRC, sensitivity was 52.6% and specificity 87.2% {17}.
We found one systematic review reporting accuracy measures for colonoscopy among a total of five colorectal cancer screening methods {22}. It included 130 articles in total (of these 20 were relative to colonoscopy) and the reported mean ± standard deviation sensitivity of colonoscopy for cancer and for large polyps (≥10mm) was respectively 94.7 ± 4.6 % and 92.5± 6.2 % (compared to FOBTs 45.7 ± 26.5% and 18.5 ± 11.8%). Instead the overall specificity of colonoscopy for detecting CRC was 99.8 ± 0.2% (compared to FOBTs 87.6 ± 11.4%). Colonoscopy has the highest sensitivity and specificity of the selected screening methods.
In the remaining reviews the results were not clear. Nevertheless, one of them{15} reported results about one study also included in this review. Park 2010 et al{13} implemented a prospective study in a large population of average- risk people in which everyone underwent colonoscopy after having FIT and gFOBT: confirmed with better evidence the observations of others that FIT has a higher sensitivity for detecting advanced colorectal cancers than gFOBT, and has an acceptable specificity that significantly reduces the need for colonoscopic evaluation in the screened population. FIT results were compared directly with colonoscopy results: the positive rate of gFOBT in patients with adenomas did not differ from the patients with normal colonoscopies (8.0 % vs. 7.3 %); however, the positive rate of FIT at the 75 and 100 ng/ml thresholds was higher in patients with adenomas compared with that of patients with normal colonoscopies (16.9 % vs. 7.5 %, and 14.6 % vs. 7.3% ( P < 0.001 and P = 0.002), respectively.
Further literature research could be done on colonoscopy accuracy measures to gain a more comprehensive view, although most of the studies relative to accuracy measures of FOBTs refer to colonoscopy as the reference standard but do not report what these measures are for colonoscopy itself.
Importance: Critical
Transferability: Completely
Please refer to EFF 20
We found a total of 7 studies relative to cut-off values for the amount of fecal blood that have attempted to define an optimal cut off value or have adopted producers indications and are here below described.
It is know that the positivity rate, specificity and the detection rate of advanced neoplasia varied with the cut-off level. A high-level quality review performed the analysis using different cut-off values in the meta analysis, and the superiority of FIT in the detection of advanced neoplasm was not significantly influenced. Ultimately, data extracted at a cut-off value of 75 ng/mL were considered as an acceptable trade-off between the detection rate and the number needed to scope {10}. Another review reported on 4 studies assessing FITs performances at multiple haemoglobin concentrations cut-off levels that differ from manufacture’s recommendations: in general, increasing the cut-off level of haemoglobin concentration the positivity rate decreased and the specificity and PPV increased {15}.
The faecal haemoglobin concentration at first screening predicts subsequent risk of incident colorectal neoplasia: the adjusted hazard ratios increased from 1.43 (95% CI 1.08–1.88) for baseline faecal haemoglobin concentration of 20–39 ng/mL, to 3.41 (2.02–5.75) for a baseline concentration of 80–99 ng/mL (trend test p<0·0001), relative to 1–19 ng/mL {23}. Nevertheless, findings needs to be validated for each kit separately, with a longer term follow-up, since colorectal neoplasia typically takes 10 years to develop, and using a large, population-based longitudinal follow-up study {23}.
Furthermore, f-Hb is related to severity of colorectal neoplastic disease: median f-Hb concentration was higher in those with cancer than those with no (p<0.002) or non-neoplastic (p<0.002) pathology, and those with LRA (p=0.0001); polyp cancers had lower concentrations than more advanced stage cancers (p<0.04). Higher f-Hb was also found in those with HRA than with LRA (p<0.006), large (>10 mm) compared with small adenoma (p<0.0001), and also an adenoma displaying high-grade dysplasia compared with low-grade dysplasia (p<0.009); f-Hb was significantly higher in those with a large compared with a small adenoma (p<0.0001){24}. Nevertheless, these results could be limited by the fact that false negative f-Hb were not taken into account and only participants with a positive result were referred for colonoscopy.
The cut-off level increases detection both for haemoglobin and haemoglobin-haptoglobin: when varying the cut-off level from 2 mcg/ g of stool (recommended by the manufacturer) to 14 mcg/g of stool, sensitivities for advanced adenomas and large adenomas ( ≥ 1 cm in diameter) ranged 40-24 % and 50-30 % for haemoglobin, and 33-12 % and 41-13 % for haemoglobin-haptoglobin, respectively, whereas specificities ranged 90–97 % for hemoglobin and 91–99 % for haemoglobin-haptoglobin; at cutoff values of 6 mcg/g of stool for hemoglobin and 4 mcg/g of stool for haemoglobin-haptoglobin, the specificity was ~ 95 % for both tests {25}.
A major advantage of FIT is recognized to be the automated and easier to interpret and furthermore, it measures the concentration of haemoglobin in the buffer, thus making it possible to choose the cut-off value. Nevertheless, the effect of different cut-off level in different FIT kit cannot be detected because manufacturers quote the concentration of haemoglobin not in the faeces, but in the buffer solution and this varies between different devices. Therefore, simple comparisons of cut-offs were not possible {19}.
Cut-off level detection is also linked to the colonoscopy capability: when colonoscopy capacity was unlimited, the optimal screening strategy was to administer an annual FIT with a 50 ng/mL haemoglobin cut off level in individuals aged 45–80 years and to offer colonoscopy surveillance to all individuals with adenomas. When colonoscopy capacity was decreasing, the optimal screening adaptation was to first increase the FIT haemoglobin cut-off value to 200 ng haemoglobin per mL and narrow the age range to 50–75 years, to restrict colonoscopy surveillance, and finally to further decrease the number of screening rounds {26}.
Importance: Important
Transferability: Completely
Please refer to EFF 20.
A high-quality review indicated that sensitivities were higher for the detection of CRC, and lower for adenomas, in both the diagnostic cohort and diagnostic case–control studies for both guaiac and immunochemical FOBTs {17}. Another review with lower quality due to unclear design and quality assessment of selected studies, compared sensitivity and specificity of the colorectal cancer mass screening methods: colonoscopy was reported as the one with best sensitivity and specificity while fecal occult blood test with the lowest. The mean ± standard deviation per patient sensitivities and specificity of colonoscopy respectively 94.7 ± 4.6 % and 99.8 ± 0.2% (compared to FOBTs 45.7 ± 26.5% 87.6 ± 11.4%) {22}.
A large population study found that the sensitivity of FIT for non-advanced adenomas, advanced adenomas, and cancer was 10.6%, 28.0%, and 78.6%, respectively. The sensitivity of FIT for advanced polypoid neoplasm (31.1%) was significantly higher than that of nonpolypoid ones (21.1%) (P <.001){27}. Furthermore, the sensitivity of FIT was in relation to neoplasm stage: FIT sensitivity showed stage-dependence and was 28.0% for advanced adenomas, 73.9% for invasive cancer, 66.7% for Tis plus T1 cancers, and 100% for T2 to T4 cancers (P for trend < .001){27}. The specificity was similar in relation with stage: 92.8% for invasive cancer, Tis plus T1 cancer and T2-T4 cancer.
Finally, the sensitivity of FIT for advanced neoplasms was in relation to location and morphology: the sensitivity was significantly lower for proximal polypoid advanced neoplasms compared with distal ones (27.7% vs 31.6%; P < .001) and proximal nonpolypoid advanced neoplasms compared with distal ones (16.2% vs 24.3%; P < .001) {27}. The trend was similar when proximal and distal, polypoid and nonpolypoid advanced adenomas were compared. For invasive cancers, although there was a trend toward lower sensitivity for proximal lesions, the result was not statistically significant {27}.
The I-FOBTs were significantly better than the G-FOBTs in detecting both cancers and advanced adenomas. The detection of cancers was at least twice as high with the I-FOBT as with the G-FOBT, and the number of advanced adenomas was about three to four times as high{19}. The same study also assessed detection according to stage of cancers at diagnosis: the proportion of Tis and stage 1 cancers was higher with I-FOBTs than with the G-FOBT. The differences between I-FOBTs and G-FOBTs, however, were not significant{19}. However, results need to be validated with cut off levels assessed in the faeces and not in the buffer solution {19}.
When applied on as second round test, the results reported here show that, despite a significant decrease in the PPV for CRC, a substantial number of significant lesions were detected; this applies more to advanced adenomas than to cancer cases and appears to be independent of the type of test used in the first round (guaiac FOBT or FIT) {28}.
FITs capability of reliably ruling in or out adenomas and CRC depends not only on its accuracy measures, but also on threshold and appropriate Mean Sejourn Time. Both of these issues need further research. Also refer to research question EFF15 for other factors influencing accuracy measures.
Importance: Important
Transferability: Partially
Please refer to EFF 20.
Many factors affecting the FITs accuracy have been studied. These are reported in the following table.
Effect of variations of different factors on fecal blood detection immunochemical screening
Factor |
Results
|
Conclusions |
Reference |
Round of detection |
A significant decrease was observed in the PPV for advanced neoplasia between the first and second round, from 55% (132/239) to 44% (112/252; P=.017). The PPV for CRC was 8% (20/239) in the first round versus 4% (9/252) in the second round (P=.024). Ten interval cancers were diagnosed. |
Despite a significant decrease in the PPV for CRC in a second round of screening, a substantial number of significant lesions are detected in a second screening round. This applies more to advanced adenomas than to cancer cases and appears to be independent of the type of test used in the first round (guaiac FOBT or FIT). |
Denters 2012{28} |
Temperature |
The mean log10 Hb concentration in the low temperature group was significantly higher than those in the high temperature group (0.36 vs. 0.25 ng/ml, p=0.000). An increase in temperature of 1°C reduced the probability of a positive FIT by 3.1 %, but with no effect on detection rate of colorectal neoplasms. High ambient temperature was not a significant risk factor for either the positive FIT result or the detection of colorectal neoplasms. Nevertheless, other Authors* reported the FIT positive rate was significantly lower in summer than in winter, and explained these results as a decrease in fecal hemoglobin values in summer. |
Potential instability of fecal hemoglobin at high ambient temperatures should be considered; however, its influence on performance of FIT may be attenuated by the short exposure time of fecal samples to high ambient temperature (i.e., rapid return system).
|
Cha 2012{29} |
Delay between fecal sampling and delivery at the laboratory |
Delay in sample return increased false negative immunochemical FOBT’s. Mainly precursor lesions, but also colorectal cancer, will be missed due to delayed sample return. The decreased performance of the FIT due to delayed return of the sample was observed to be independent of the cut-off value for positivity of the FIT. |
Although selection bias could in a certain measure result in a false negative result, The evidence in this study shows how important it is to control all aspects and logistics of screening protocols. Subjects invited for screening should be adequately informed of the necessity of prompt return of the sample and reporting the date of taking the sample. However, more complicated information and effort, as well as the pressure of prompt return, might also result in decreased participation. The production of a less sensitive hemoglobin stabilizing buffer with improved stability is suggested. Until a less sensitive hemoglobin stabilizing buffer is produced, monitoring delay between fecal sampling and laboratory research should be part of quality control for screening with immunochemical FOBT. Inviting participants to perform a second test when delay is 5 days or more could be considered. |
Van Rossum 2009{30} |
Diet restrictions |
The restricted diet subgroup and unrestricted diet subgroup had showed significant difference for advanced neoplasm detection rate and compliance rate |
FIT removes the need for dietary restrictons.
However, some FIT advised alcohol and acetylsalicylic acid and similar restriction for 48 h before stool is collected (Rabeneck 2012). |
Zhu 2010{10} |
Type of care setting |
Results demonstrated significant differences in the analytical performance among different FOBT methods. |
Highly sensitive and specific FIT methods may be best suited for colorectal cancer screening programs where testing is performed in a central location. Guaiac-based methods are rapid and easy to perform and are suitable for bedside point-of-care testing albeit a high rate of false positive results should be expected. |
Tannous 2009{31} |
Sampling strategy used: multiple sample from consecutive stools or one sample |
Number of samples for FIT: most kits require one sample, Hemoglobin NS-PLUS two samples over two days, HEMOCCULT ICT 3 samples/3days A one-day strategy resulted in an intermediate positive rate. |
FIT is superior to gFOBT for participation rate (fewer samples, less stool handling).
However, another study in France reported a two day testing (choice based on the fact that CRC bleeding is often intermittent) not to be a barrier to compliance (Faivre 2012) |
Rabeneck 2012{15} |
Colonoscopy capacity and variation |
For all levels of colonoscopy capacity, FIT screening was more effective clinically and in terms of cost compared with gFOBT screening. |
FIT should be used at higher hemoglobin cutoff levels when colonoscopy capacity is limited compared with unlimited and is more effective in terms of health outcomes and cost compared with guaiac FOBT at all colonoscopy capacity levels. Increasing the colonoscopy capacity substantially increases the health benefits of FIT screening |
Wilschut 2011{26}
|
Sensitivity left vs right CRC |
Sensitivities for subjects with left-vs right-sided advanced neoplasia were 33% (95% CI, 26 – 41%) and 20% (95% CI: 11 – 31%) at a specificity of 95% (overall sensitivity: 29%) and the areas under the receiver-operating characteristics curve were 0.71 (CI, 0.69 – 0.72) and 0.60 (CI, 0.58 – 0.63), respectively. |
In conclusion, the immunochemical FOBT in our study was more sensitive for detecting subjects with left-vs right-sided advanced colorectal neoplasia. Our findings may stimulate further research in the field as well as modelling analyses to estimate the potential effect of site-specific test performance on the programmatic sensitivity and the effectiveness of annual or biennial FOBT based screening programmes, in particular with respect to protection from right-sided CRC. |
Haug 2011{32} |
* Grazzini G, Ventura L, Zappa M, et al. Influence of seasonal variation in ambient temperatures on performance of immunochemical faecal occult blood test for colorectal cancer screening: observational study from Florence district. Gut. 2010;59:1511– 1515.
Importance: Important
Transferability: Completely
Please refer to EFF 20.
The development of automated systems for the interpretation of the test has increased the advantage of FITs. Accurate interpretation of gFOBTs is not easy and requires well-run laboratories. An automated FIT is easier to interpret, and minimizes human error in test processing, thus making it a more objective laboratory test with excellent quality control. Furthermore, it measures the concentration of hemoglobin in the buffer, thus making it possible to choose the cutoff value. It is also possible to reinterpret the test in case of a technical problem {19}.
Direct comparison between quantitative and qualitative immunochemical fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) has been studied. One cohort study reported that quantitative FITs offers advantages in terms of transparency and flexibility regarding the positivity threshold (e.g., specificity can be oriented toward available colonoscopy resources or personal risk profiles) and in terms of a higher level of standardization regarding test analysis and interpretation {25}.
These findings are also confirmed by another cohort study that reported a positivity rates of 8.1% for the qualitative and 2.5% for the quantitative FIT. The detection rate was 5.2% for the qualitative and 14.4% for the quantitative FIT. The odds ratio of a “suspicious cancer and cancer” versus a “normal” result was 2.73 (95% CI=2.22–3.35) for the quantitative compared to qualitative FIT {33}.
Another study about inter-observer variability in interpretation of 5 visually read FOBTs methods (standard guaiac-based method and four immunochemical methods) reported no cases of observer variability except for Hemoccult ITC test this was only minimal (on 1 sample 2 observers recorded a faint band at the cut off and one called the test negative){31}.
Importance: Important
Transferability: Partially
With the evidence available for the effectiveness of FIT for CRC screening, it could be argued that it is appropriate to implement FIT instead of gFOBT without direct evidence from high quality RCT on CRC mortality, given that FIT is more sensitive for advanced adenomas and cancer, at least presents equal high specificity and higher detection rates for advanced adenomas and cancer.
Referring to test accuracy assessment, well-designed randomized controlled studies directly comparing FIT and gFOBT are needed. The use the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy guidelines is recommended for reporting future diagnostic accuracy studies. Studies should ideally recruit a representative screening population, use colonoscopy to confirm diagnosis regardless of the FOBT result, measure the detection of CRC and adenomas and report the results separately and combined, and allow outcome assessors access to clinical information that would be available in practice, but blind them to other information. Specimen instability issue must be considered in each setting. The type of FIT and associated costs, the appropriate haemoglobin cut-off to use, and the capacity for follow-up by colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy may contribute to the evidence of FIT as an appropriate CRC screening tool.
Despite the differences in the design and heterogeneity of selected studies the analysis shows that FIF is more accurate and performs better than gFOBT in detecting advanced adenoma and CRC.
FIT has additional important advantages compared to gFOBT: higher acceptance and screening participation rates, needs a smaller number of stool samples, has no need for dietary restriction, potential for automation in the laboratory and to select the cut-off level of hemoglobin concentration that defines a positive test. However, potential disadvantages are greater specimen instability and possibly higher positivity rates.
Global balance between total health benefits and harms and costs is out of the scope of the EFF domain. The global impact of false positive screening results and false negative screening results, the potential effects of over-diagnosis and over-treatment have not been considered. This global balance could be obtained in a comprehensive view of all pieces of information produced by all domains of the CoreHTA and could need the design of specific analytical modeling.
1. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
2. Kung J, Chiappelli F, Cajulis OO, Avezova R, Kossan G, Chew L, et al. From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance. Open Dent J. 2010; 4:84-91.
3. Zheng S, Chen K, Liu X, Ma X, Yu H, Chen K, et al. Cluster randomization trial of sequence mass screening for colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003; 46(1):51-8.
4. Wada T, Saito H, Soma Y, Koeda J, Kawaguchi H, Tanaka M, et al. Survival benefit for patients with colorectal cancer detected by population-based screening program using an immunochemical fecal occult blood test. Int J Oncol 1996; 9:685-91.
5. Nakajima M, Saito H, Soma Y, Sobue T, Tanaka M, Munakata A. Prevention of advanced colorectal cancer by screening using the immunochemical faecal occult blood test: a case-control study. Br J Cancer 2003; 89(1):23-8.
6. Saito H, Soma Y, Nakajima M, Koeda J, Kawaguchi H, Kakizaki R, et al. A case-control study evaluating occult blood screening for colorectal cancer with hemoccult test and an immunochemical hemagglutination test. Oncol Rep 2000;7:815-9.
7. Saito H, Soma Y, Koeda J, Wada T, Kawaguchi H, Sobue T, et al. Reduction in risk of mortality from colorectal cancer by fecal occult blood screening with immunochemical hemagglutination test. A case-control study. Int J Cancer 1995; 61:465-9.
8. Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Watson E, Towler B, Irwig L. Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (Hemoccult): An update. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103(6):1541-9.
9. Parente F, Marino B, DeVecchi N, Moretti R, Ucci G, Tricomi P, et al. Colorectal Cancer Screening Group. Faecal occult blood test-based screening programme with high compliance for colonoscopy has a strong clinical impact on colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2009; 96(5):533-40.
10. Zhu MM, Xu XT, Nie F, Tong JL, Xiao SD, Ran ZH. Comparison of immunochemical and guaiac-based fecal occult blood test in screening and surveillance for advanced colorectal neoplasms: A meta-analysis. J Dig Dis 2010; 11(3):148-60.
11. Van Rossum LG, van Rijn AF, Laheij RJ, van Oijen MG, Fockens P, van Krieken HH, et al. Random Comparison of Guaiac and Immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer in a Screening Population. Gastroenterology 2008; 135(1):82-90.
12. Hol L, Wilschut JA, Van Ballegooijen M, van Vuuren AJ, Van Der Valk H, Reijerink JCIY, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: Random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing at different cut-off levels. Br J Cancer 2009; 100(7):1103-10.
13. Park DI, Ryu S, Kim YH, Lee SH, Lee CK, Eun CS, et al. Comparison of guaiac-based and quantitative immunochemical fecal occult blood testing in a population at average risk undergoing colorectal cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105(9):2017-25.
14. Allison JE, Sakoda LC, Levin TR, Tucker JP, Tekawa IS, Cuff T, et al. Screening for colorectal neoplasms with new fecal occult blood tests: update on performance characteristics. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99(19):1462-70.
15. Rabeneck L, Rumble RB, Thompson F, Mills M, Oleschuk C, Whibley A, et al. Fecal immunochemical tests compared with guaiac fecal occult blood tests for population-based colorectal cancer screening. Can J Gastroenterol 2012; 26(3):131-47.
16. Fecal occult blood test for colorectal cancer screening: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Heal Technol Assess Ser. 2009; 9(10):1-40.
17. Burch JA, Soares-Weiser K, St John DJB, Duffy S, Smith S, Kleijnen J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of faecal occult blood tests used in screening for colorectal cancer: A systematic review. J Med Screen 2007; 14(3):132-7.
18. Fecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review of accuracy and compliance. CADTH Technol Overv 2010; 1(3):e0117.
19. Faivre J, Dancourt V, Denis B, Dorval E, Piette C, Perrin P, et al. Comparison between a guaiac and three immunochemical faecal occult blood tests in screening for colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48(16):2969-76.
20. Raginel T, Puvinel J, Ferrand O, Bouvier V, Levillain R, Ruiz A, et al. A Population-based Comparison of Immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 918-925.
21. Wong CKW, Fedorak RN, Prosser CI, Stewart ME, Van Zanten SV, Sadowski DC. The sensitivity and specificity of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced colonic adenomas and cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 2012; 27 (12):1657-64.
22. Allameh Z, Davari M, Emami MH. Sensitivity and specificity of colorectal cancer mass screening methods: A systematic review of the literature. Iran J Cancer Prev 2011; 4(2):88-105.
23. Chen LS, Yen AMF, Chiu SYH, Liao CS, Chen HH. Baseline faecal occult blood concentration as a predictor of incident colorectal neoplasia: Longitudinal follow-up of a Taiwanese population-based colorectal cancer screening cohort. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12(6):551-8.
24. Digby J, Fraser CG, Carey FA, McDonald PJ, Strachan JA, Diament RH, et al. Faecal haemoglobin concentration is related to severity of colorectal neoplasia. J Clin Pathol 2013; 66(5): 415-419.
25. Haug U, Hundt S, Brenner H. Quantitative immunochemical fecal occult blood testing for colorectal adenoma detection: evaluation in the target population of screening and comparison with qualitative tests. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105(3):682-90.
26. Wilschut JA, Habbema JD, van Leerdam ME, Hol L, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Kuipers EJ, et al. Fecal occult blood testing when colonoscopy capacity is limited. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103 (23):1741-51.
27. Chiu HM, Lee YC, Tu CH, Chen CC, Tseng PH, Liang JT, et al. Association Between Early-Stage Colon Neoplasms and False-Negative Results from the Fecal Immunochemical Test. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11(7):832-8.
28. Denters MJ, Deutekom M, Bossuyt PM, Stroobants AK, Fockens P, Dekker E. Lower risk of advanced neoplasia among patients with a previous negative result from a fecal test for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2012; 142(3):497-504.
29. Cha JM, Lee JI, Joo KR, Shin HP, Park JJ, Jeun JW, et al. Performance of the fecal immunochemical test is not decreased by high ambient temperature in the rapid return system. Dig Dis Sci 2012; 57(8):2178-83.
30. Van Rossum LGM, van Rijn AF, Van Oijen MGH, Fockens P, Laheij RJF, Verbeek ALM, et al. False negative fecal occult blood tests due to delayed sample return in colorectal cancer screening. Int J Cancer 2009; 125(4):746-50.
31. Tannous B, Lee-Lewandrowski E, Sharples C, Brugge W, Bigatello L, Thompson T, et al. Comparison of conventional guaiac to four immunochemical methods for fecal occult blood testing: implications for clinical practice in hospital and outpatient settings. Clin Chim Acta. febrero de 2009; 400(1-2):120-2.
32. Haug U, Kuntz KM, Knudsen AB, Hundt S, Brenner H. Sensitivity of immunochemical faecal occult blood testing for detecting left- vs right-sided colorectal neoplasia. Br J Cancer 2011; 104(11):1779-85.
33. Park MJ, Choi KS, Lee YK, Jun JK, Lee HY. A comparison of qualitative and quantitative fecal immunochemical tests in the Korean national colorectal cancer screening program. Scand J Gastroenterol 2012; 47(4):461-6.
<< SafetyCosts and economic evaluation >>