AIM: To improve the interpretation of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results in colorectal cancer (CRC) cases from screening and referral cohorts. METHODS: In this comparative observational study, two prospective coh...AIM: To improve the interpretation of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results in colorectal cancer (CRC) cases from screening and referral cohorts. METHODS: In this comparative observational study, two prospective cohorts of CRC cases were compared. The first cohort was obtained from 10 322 average risk subjects invited for CRC screening with FIT, of which, only subjects with a positive FIT were referred for colonoscopy. The second cohort was obtained from 3637 subjects scheduled for elective colonoscopy with a positive FIT result. The same FIT and positivity threshold (OC sensor; ≥ 50 ng/mL) was used in both cohorts. Colonoscopy was performed in all referral subjects and in FIT positive screening subjects. All CRC cases were selected from both cohorts. Outcome measurements were mean FIT results and FIT scores per tissue tumor stage (T stage). RESULTS: One hundred and eighteen patients with CRC were included in the present study: 28 cases obtained from the screening cohort (64% male; mean age 65 years, SD 6.5) and 90 cases obtained from the referral cohort (58% male; mean age 69 years, SD 9.8). The mean FIT results found were higher in the referral cohort (829 ± 302 ng/mLvs 613 ± 368 ng/mL,P = 0.02). Tissue tumor stage (T stage) distribution was dif-ferent between both populations [screening population: 13 (46%) T1, eight (29%) T2, six (21%) T3, one (4%) T4 carcinoma; referral population: 12 (13%) T1, 22 (24%) T2, 52 (58%) T3, four (4%) T4 carcinoma], and higher T stage was significantly associated with higher FIT results (P < 0.001). Per tumor stage, no significant difference in mean FIT results was observed (screening vs referral: T1 498 ± 382 ng/mL vs 725 ± 374 ng/mL, P = 0.22; T2 787 ± 303 ng/mL vs 794 ± 341 ng/mL, P = 0.79; T3 563 ± 368 ng/mLvs 870 ± 258 ng/mL,P = 0.13; T4 not available). After correction for T stage in logistic regression analysis, no significant differences in mean FIT results were observed between both types of cohorts (P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Differences in T stage distribution largely explain differences in FIT results between screening and referral cohorts. Therefore, FIT results should be reported according to T stage.展开更多
基金Supported by A Research Grant of Center for Translational Molecular Medicine, The Netherlands, to van Turenhout STGrant of Nycomed B.V., Hoofddorp to "the Amsterdam Gut-club", The Netherlands+1 种基金The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, ZonMW, No. 50-50115-98-060,project 63000004The original trial was registered under IS-RCTN57917442 at Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com)
文摘AIM: To improve the interpretation of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results in colorectal cancer (CRC) cases from screening and referral cohorts. METHODS: In this comparative observational study, two prospective cohorts of CRC cases were compared. The first cohort was obtained from 10 322 average risk subjects invited for CRC screening with FIT, of which, only subjects with a positive FIT were referred for colonoscopy. The second cohort was obtained from 3637 subjects scheduled for elective colonoscopy with a positive FIT result. The same FIT and positivity threshold (OC sensor; ≥ 50 ng/mL) was used in both cohorts. Colonoscopy was performed in all referral subjects and in FIT positive screening subjects. All CRC cases were selected from both cohorts. Outcome measurements were mean FIT results and FIT scores per tissue tumor stage (T stage). RESULTS: One hundred and eighteen patients with CRC were included in the present study: 28 cases obtained from the screening cohort (64% male; mean age 65 years, SD 6.5) and 90 cases obtained from the referral cohort (58% male; mean age 69 years, SD 9.8). The mean FIT results found were higher in the referral cohort (829 ± 302 ng/mLvs 613 ± 368 ng/mL,P = 0.02). Tissue tumor stage (T stage) distribution was dif-ferent between both populations [screening population: 13 (46%) T1, eight (29%) T2, six (21%) T3, one (4%) T4 carcinoma; referral population: 12 (13%) T1, 22 (24%) T2, 52 (58%) T3, four (4%) T4 carcinoma], and higher T stage was significantly associated with higher FIT results (P < 0.001). Per tumor stage, no significant difference in mean FIT results was observed (screening vs referral: T1 498 ± 382 ng/mL vs 725 ± 374 ng/mL, P = 0.22; T2 787 ± 303 ng/mL vs 794 ± 341 ng/mL, P = 0.79; T3 563 ± 368 ng/mLvs 870 ± 258 ng/mL,P = 0.13; T4 not available). After correction for T stage in logistic regression analysis, no significant differences in mean FIT results were observed between both types of cohorts (P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Differences in T stage distribution largely explain differences in FIT results between screening and referral cohorts. Therefore, FIT results should be reported according to T stage.
