A107 ANALYSIS OF THE EFFICACY IN TRANSITIONING FROM FOBT TO FIT FOR COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING AT A SINGLE CENTRE IN ONTARIO

A Nguyen, G. Porwal
{"title":"A107 ANALYSIS OF THE EFFICACY IN TRANSITIONING FROM FOBT TO FIT FOR COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING AT A SINGLE CENTRE IN ONTARIO","authors":"A Nguyen, G. Porwal","doi":"10.1093/jcag/gwad061.107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Colonoscopy is the gold standard for detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced lesions, but is an invasive and carries some risks, with limited availability and accessibility. Alternatively, the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are both non-invasive, cost-effective screening tests that can also be used to detect CRC, advanced lesions, and polyps, identifying individuals to be prioritized to undergo colonoscopy. FOBT screens for small amounts of blood in stool by detecting heme through a chemical reaction. FIT confirms the presence of blood in stool by using antibodies to detect hemoglobin. Prior to 2019, Ontario employed FOBT as the preferred method for CRC screening in eligible individuals. In early 2019, Ontario transitioned to FIT as the preferred screening test, due its established superior test performance for identifying patients with high risk lesions for colon cancer. Aims This single-centre retrospective study analyzed the change in efficacy of detecting advanced lesions, when transitioning from FOBT to FIT, as identified on subsequent colonoscopy Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted of approximately 1000 patients undergoing colonoscopy for FOBT or FIT at Cambridge Memorial Hospital, covering the period of transition from FOBT to FIT. Colonoscopies were performed by 10 endoscopists. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on fecal test type, FOBT (N = 344) and FIT (N = 572). Overall and individual proportions of cancer, polyps, adenomas, advanced adenomas (AA), and sessile serrated adenomas (SSA) detection in the subsequent colonoscopies were calculated for both groups. The efficacy of both tests was then assessed using statistical analysis. Results In total, 344 patients were included for FOBT analysis and results included: cancer (5.52%), any polyp (56.69%), adenoma (43.6%), AA (20.64), and SSA (6.1%). In contrast, 572 patients were included for analysis of FIT group and results included: cancer (3.85%), any polyp (83.22%), adenoma (76.92%), AA (43.01), and SSA (12.94%). Cancer detection was similar in the 2 groups. There was significant improvement in polyp, adenoma, advanced adenoma, and sessile serrated adenoma detection with FIT compared to FOBT. This improvement was consistent in all endoscopists, but more pronounced in endoscopists with lower detection rates in FOBT cases. Conclusions The use of FIT as a screening stool test, as compared to FOBT, was associated with a significantly improved detection for polyps, adenomas, AA, and SSA, confirming greater accuracy and sensitivity of FIT as a screening tool. This result confirms the premise, at least at a single institution, that by switching to FIT, Ontario has improved colon cancer screening and prevention with more efficient and higher yield utilization of a limited and costly health care resource Funding Agencies None","PeriodicalId":508018,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology","volume":"129 2","pages":"78 - 79"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcag/gwad061.107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Background Colonoscopy is the gold standard for detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced lesions, but is an invasive and carries some risks, with limited availability and accessibility. Alternatively, the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are both non-invasive, cost-effective screening tests that can also be used to detect CRC, advanced lesions, and polyps, identifying individuals to be prioritized to undergo colonoscopy. FOBT screens for small amounts of blood in stool by detecting heme through a chemical reaction. FIT confirms the presence of blood in stool by using antibodies to detect hemoglobin. Prior to 2019, Ontario employed FOBT as the preferred method for CRC screening in eligible individuals. In early 2019, Ontario transitioned to FIT as the preferred screening test, due its established superior test performance for identifying patients with high risk lesions for colon cancer. Aims This single-centre retrospective study analyzed the change in efficacy of detecting advanced lesions, when transitioning from FOBT to FIT, as identified on subsequent colonoscopy Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted of approximately 1000 patients undergoing colonoscopy for FOBT or FIT at Cambridge Memorial Hospital, covering the period of transition from FOBT to FIT. Colonoscopies were performed by 10 endoscopists. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on fecal test type, FOBT (N = 344) and FIT (N = 572). Overall and individual proportions of cancer, polyps, adenomas, advanced adenomas (AA), and sessile serrated adenomas (SSA) detection in the subsequent colonoscopies were calculated for both groups. The efficacy of both tests was then assessed using statistical analysis. Results In total, 344 patients were included for FOBT analysis and results included: cancer (5.52%), any polyp (56.69%), adenoma (43.6%), AA (20.64), and SSA (6.1%). In contrast, 572 patients were included for analysis of FIT group and results included: cancer (3.85%), any polyp (83.22%), adenoma (76.92%), AA (43.01), and SSA (12.94%). Cancer detection was similar in the 2 groups. There was significant improvement in polyp, adenoma, advanced adenoma, and sessile serrated adenoma detection with FIT compared to FOBT. This improvement was consistent in all endoscopists, but more pronounced in endoscopists with lower detection rates in FOBT cases. Conclusions The use of FIT as a screening stool test, as compared to FOBT, was associated with a significantly improved detection for polyps, adenomas, AA, and SSA, confirming greater accuracy and sensitivity of FIT as a screening tool. This result confirms the premise, at least at a single institution, that by switching to FIT, Ontario has improved colon cancer screening and prevention with more efficient and higher yield utilization of a limited and costly health care resource Funding Agencies None
A107 安大略省单一中心大肠癌筛查从 "FOBT "向 "Fit "过渡的效果分析
摘要 背景 结肠镜检查是检测结肠直肠癌(CRC)和晚期病变的黄金标准,但它是一种侵入性检查,具有一定的风险,而且可用性和可及性有限。另外,粪便隐血试验(FOBT)和粪便免疫化学试验(FIT)都是无创、经济有效的筛查试验,也可用于检测 CRC、晚期病变和息肉,确定优先接受结肠镜检查的人群。FOBT 通过化学反应检测血红素,筛查粪便中的少量血液。FIT 通过使用抗体检测血红蛋白来确认粪便中是否含有血液。2019 年之前,安大略省采用 FOBT 作为对符合条件的个人进行 CRC 筛查的首选方法。2019 年初,安大略省将 FIT 过渡为首选筛查试验,因为 FIT 在识别结肠癌高风险病变患者方面具有公认的卓越检测性能。这项单中心回顾性研究分析了从 FOBT 过渡到 FIT 后,在随后的结肠镜检查中发现的晚期病变检测效果的变化 方法 对剑桥大学纪念医院约 1000 名接受 FOBT 或 FIT 结肠镜检查的患者进行了回顾性病历审查,涵盖了从 FOBT 到 FIT 的过渡时期。结肠镜检查由 10 名内镜医师进行。根据粪便检验类型将患者分为两组:FOBT(344 人)和 FIT(572 人)。计算两组患者在随后的结肠镜检查中发现癌症、息肉、腺瘤、晚期腺瘤(AA)和无柄锯齿状腺瘤(SSA)的总体比例和个体比例。然后通过统计分析评估两种检测方法的有效性。结果 共有 344 名患者接受了 FOBT 分析,结果包括:癌症(5.52%)、任何息肉(56.69%)、腺瘤(43.6%)、AA(20.64)和 SSA(6.1%)。而 FIT 组有 572 名患者,结果包括:癌症(3.85%)、任何息肉(83.22%)、腺瘤(76.92%)、AA(43.01)和 SSA(12.94%)。两组癌症检出率相似。与 FOBT 相比,FIT 对息肉、腺瘤、晚期腺瘤和无柄锯齿状腺瘤的检出率有明显提高。所有内镜医师的检出率都有提高,但 FOBT 病例检出率较低的内镜医师的提高更为明显。结论 与 FOBT 相比,使用 FIT 作为粪便筛查试验可显著提高息肉、腺瘤、AA 和 SSA 的检出率,从而证实 FIT 作为筛查工具具有更高的准确性和灵敏度。这一结果证实了一个前提,至少在单个机构中是这样,即通过改用 FIT,安大略省提高了结肠癌筛查和预防水平,更有效、更高产地利用了有限而昂贵的医疗资源 资助机构 无
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信