Guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests versus faecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk individuals

Worldwide, many countries have adopted colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes, often based on faecal occult blood tests (FOBTs). CRC screening aims to detect advanced neoplasia (AN), which is defined as CRC or advanced adenomas. FOBTs fall into two categories based on detection technique and t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2022-06, Vol.6 (6), p.CD009276-CD009276
Main Authors: Grobbee, Esmée J, Wisse, Pieter HA, Schreuders, Eline H, van Roon, Aafke, van Dam, Leonie, Zauber, Ann G, Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris, Bramer, Wichor, Berhane, Sarah, Deeks, Jonathan J, Steyerberg, Ewout W, van Leerdam, Monique E, Spaander, Manon Cw, Kuipers, Ernst J
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adenoma - diagnosis
Cancer
Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnosis
Diagnosis
Early Detection of Cancer - methods
Gastroenterology & hepatology
Guaiac
Hemoglobins
Humans
Neoplastic diseases of the colon
Neoplastic diseases of the rectum and anus
Occult Blood
Prevention and screening of colorectal cancer or polyps
Prospective Studies
Retrospective Studies
Sensitivity and Specificity
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Worldwide, many countries have adopted colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes, often based on faecal occult blood tests (FOBTs). CRC screening aims to detect advanced neoplasia (AN), which is defined as CRC or advanced adenomas. FOBTs fall into two categories based on detection technique and the detected blood component: qualitative guaiac-based FOBTs (gFOBTs) and faecal immunochemical tests (FITs), which can be qualitative and quantitative. Screening with gFOBTs reduces CRC-related mortality. To compare the diagnostic test accuracy of gFOBT and FIT screening for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia in average-risk individuals. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Google Scholar. We searched the reference lists and PubMed-related articles of included studies to identify additional studies. We included prospective and retrospective studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for gFOBTs, FITs, or both, with colonoscopy as reference standard. We excluded case-control studies. We included studies in which all participants underwent both index test and reference standard ("reference standard: all"), and studies in which only participants with a positive index test underwent the reference standard while participants with a negative test were followed for at least one year for development of interval carcinomas ("reference standard: positive"). The target population consisted of asymptomatic, average-risk individuals undergoing CRC screening. The target conditions were CRC and advanced neoplasia (advanced adenomas and CRC combined). Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. In case of disagreement, a third review author made the final decision. We used the Rutter and Gatsonis hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model to explore differences between tests and identify potential sources of heterogeneity, and the bivariate hierarchical model to estimate sensitivity and specificity at common thresholds: 10 µg haemoglobin (Hb)/g faeces and 20 µg Hb/g faeces. We performed indirect comparisons of the accuracy of the two tests and direct comparisons when both index tests were evaluated in the same population. We ran the initial search on 25 June 2019, which yielded 63 studies for inclusion. We ran a top-up search on 14 September 2021, which yielded one potentially eligible study, currently
ISSN:1469-493X
DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD009276.pub2