Result card

  • TEC7: What material investments are needed to use FIT?
Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT ) versus guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT) for colorectal cancer screening
B0007
English
No adaptation help available for this domain

What material investments are needed to use FIT?

Authors: Mirjana Huic, Eleftheria Karampli, Silvia Florescu, Cristian Vladescu

Internal reviewers: Antonio Migliore, Pernilla Östlund, Frida Mowafi, Daniela d’Angela, Jesus Gonzalez

iFOBTs are around 10-fold more expensive than gFOBT. In an evaluation of three automated analytical iFOB methods in the UK {5}, investments made by a laboratory for use of FIT, include:

-Analytical platforms (automated analysers): The number of analysers required will depend on the laboratory workload; number required in the evaluation for a 5,000 sample per day workload will be 1 for HemSp/MagStream HT; 5 for OC-Sensor/DIANA, and 15 SentiFOB and 1 chemistry analyser for FOB Gold/SENTiFOB. All analysers required routine prentative maintance visits (part of the service contract, annualy, but depend on the workload). All analysers required a 13 amp power suplly and purified water to wash the cuvettes (OC-Sensor/DIANA) or for preparation of wash solutions (all three) and system solution (SentiFOB). All three have RS 232-C serial interface ports.

-Sample collection devices: for OC-Sensor the faecal sample was collected into the OC-Auto sampling bottle 3; for Hem-SP/MagStream HT (MagStream Hem-Sp®) the faecal sample was collected into the NEW HEMTUBE; for the FOB Gold the faecal sample was collected into the FOB Gold tube.

- Refrigerated storage space

- Clinical waste disposal.  iFOBT sample collection tubes required disposal in rigid bins to contain any liquid, which required different procedure and more manual handling.

- End of life disposal: end of life disposal of the products may have financial and/or environmental costs, depending on the regulations in place (e.g. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment regulation in the UK).

Important
Partially
Huic M et al. Result Card TEC7 In: Huic M et al. Description and technical characteristics of technology In: Jefferson T, Cerbo M, Vicari N [eds.]. Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT ) versus guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT) for colorectal cancer screening [Core HTA], Agenas - Agenzia nazionale per i servizi sanitari regionali; 2014. [cited 10 June 2023]. Available from: http://corehta.info/ViewCover.aspx?id=206

References

1.         Young GP, St John DJ, Winawer SJ, Rozen P. Choice of fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer screening: recommendations based on performance characteristics in population studies: a WHO (World Health Organization) and OMED (World Organization for Digestive Endoscopy) report. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2002;97(10):2499-507. eng.

2.         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. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology. 2012;26(3):131-47. eng.

3.         Health Information and Quality Authority. Health technology assessment (HTA) of a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme in Ireland. Dublin: Health Information and Quality Authority, 2009.

4.         Rabeneck L RR, Thompson F, Mills M, Oleschuk C, Whibley AH, et al. Fecal immunochemical tests compared with guaiac fecal occult blood tests for population-based colorectal cancer screening. Toronto, ON: Cancer Care Ontario, 2011 Nov 8  Contract No.: Program in Evidence-based Care Evidence-based Series No.: 15-8.

5.         NHS Centre for Evidence-based Purchasing. Evaluation report: Immunohistocemical faecal occult blood tests. NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, 2009 CEP09042.

6.         Segnan N, Patnick J, von Karsa L, editors. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis - First Edition. 1st ed. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2010.

7.         Whyte S, Chilcott J, Cooper K, Essat M, Stevens J, Wong R, et al. Re-appraisal of the options for colorectal cancer screening. Report for the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, School of Health and related Research, 2011.

8.         Guittet L, Guillaume E, Levillain R, Beley P, Tichet J, Lantieri O, et al. Analytical comparison of three quantitative immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011 2011 Jul;20(7):1492-501. eng.

9.         von Karsa L, Patnick J, Segnan N, Atkin W, Halloran S, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication. Endoscopy. 2013;45(1):51-9. eng.

10.       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. International Journal of Cancer. 2009;125(4):746-50.

11.       Young GP. Fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) vs. office-based guaiac fecal occult blood test (FOBT). Pract Gastroenterol. 2004 2004;28(6):46-56.

12.       Lin J, Webber E, Beil T, Goddard K, EP W. Fecal DNA Testing in Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Average-Risk Adults. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2012  Contract No.: AHRQ Publication 12-EHC022-EF.

13.       Exact Sciences Corp. Top-Line Data Show Exact Sciences' Cologuard Test Demonstrates 92 Percent Sensitivity in the Detection of Colorectal Cancer. [Internet]. 2013, April 18 [cited 2013 Aug 9]. Available from: http://investor.exactsciences.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=757341.

14.       ClinicalTrials.gov. Multi-Target Colorectal Cancer Screening Test for the Detection of Colorectal Advanced Adenomatous Polyps and Cancer (DeeP-C) [Internet]. U.S. National Institutes of Health; 2013, Jun 18 [cited 2013 Aug 9]. Available from: http://prsinfo.clinicaltrial.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT01397747?id=NCT01397747&rank=1).

15.       Council of the European Union. Recommendation of 2 December 2003 on cancer screening. 2003/878/EC. Off J Eur Union. 2003:34–8.

16.       Medical Advisory Secretariat. Screening Methods for Early Detection of Colorectal Cancers and Polyps. Summary of Evidence-Based Analyses. Toronto: Medical Advisory Secretariat, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, 2009  Contract No.: 6.

17.       Epigenomics AG. Epigenomics AG submits the fourth module and completes its PMA submission to the FDA for Epi proColon®. [Internet]. Epigenomics AG,; 2013, Jan 7 [cited 2013 Oct 26]. Available from: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT01580540.

18.       ClinicalTrials.gov. Head to Head Study Epi proColon and FIT. [Internet]. U.S. National Institutes of Health; 2013 [updated 2013, Feb 6; cited 2013 Oct 26]. Available from: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT01580540.

19.       Epigenomics AG. Results of Comparative Study between Epigenomics Epi proColon® and FIT to be Presented at Digestive Disease Week. [Internet]. Epigenomics AG,; 2013, Mar 15 [updated 2011; cited 2013 Oct 26]. Available from: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT01580540.

20.       van Rossum LGM, van Rijn AF, Laheij RJF, van Oijen MGH, Fockens P, Jansen JBMJ, et al. Cutoff value determines the performance of a semi-quantitative immunochemical faecal occult blood test in a colorectal cancer screening programme. British journal of cancer. 2009;101(8):1274-81.