FIT as a Comparator for Evaluating the Effectiveness of New Non-invasive CRC Screening Test.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Carlo Senore, Chyke Doubeni, Lydia Guittet
{"title":"FIT as a Comparator for Evaluating the Effectiveness of New Non-invasive CRC Screening Test.","authors":"Carlo Senore, Chyke Doubeni, Lydia Guittet","doi":"10.1007/s10620-024-08718-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) demonstrated that guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT), sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy are effective at reducing colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and mortality. Even if the impact of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) has not been evaluated within population-based RCT with mortality as the outcome, the results of comparative analyses with gFOBT provide strong indirect evidence of its effectiveness. Extensive information is also available on sensitivity and specificity of FIT, compared with gFOBT. FIT has almost universally replaced gFOBT in organized screening programs worldwide. Using FIT as a comparator is an efficient way to evaluate the effectiveness of new tests, with respect to test performance and relevant intermediate outcomes such as rates of interval cancer and late-stage cancer incidence. Direct comparison with FIT in the pre-screening evaluation of the accuracy of the new test will guide selection of the cut-off of the new test, and document the potential gain in sensitivity. Comparison in cross-sectional single-round screening evaluation can either use paired or parallel designs. Only parallel designs allow direct comparisons of participation rates. Relative accuracy can be derived in both designs with an assumption of similar colorectal cancer and precursor prevalence between groups in parallel designs. Finally, multiple-rounds prospective comparison will document potential effect on risk of CRC and precancerous lesions, and on absolute reductions in late-stage incidence as a proxy of mortality. This paper provides an overview of evidence and rationale for using FIT as a comparator for evaluating new non-invasive tests with repeated testing at short intervals.</p>","PeriodicalId":11378,"journal":{"name":"Digestive Diseases and Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive Diseases and Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-024-08718-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) demonstrated that guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT), sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy are effective at reducing colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and mortality. Even if the impact of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) has not been evaluated within population-based RCT with mortality as the outcome, the results of comparative analyses with gFOBT provide strong indirect evidence of its effectiveness. Extensive information is also available on sensitivity and specificity of FIT, compared with gFOBT. FIT has almost universally replaced gFOBT in organized screening programs worldwide. Using FIT as a comparator is an efficient way to evaluate the effectiveness of new tests, with respect to test performance and relevant intermediate outcomes such as rates of interval cancer and late-stage cancer incidence. Direct comparison with FIT in the pre-screening evaluation of the accuracy of the new test will guide selection of the cut-off of the new test, and document the potential gain in sensitivity. Comparison in cross-sectional single-round screening evaluation can either use paired or parallel designs. Only parallel designs allow direct comparisons of participation rates. Relative accuracy can be derived in both designs with an assumption of similar colorectal cancer and precursor prevalence between groups in parallel designs. Finally, multiple-rounds prospective comparison will document potential effect on risk of CRC and precancerous lesions, and on absolute reductions in late-stage incidence as a proxy of mortality. This paper provides an overview of evidence and rationale for using FIT as a comparator for evaluating new non-invasive tests with repeated testing at short intervals.

将 FIT 作为评估新型无创 CRC 筛查试验有效性的对比试验。
随机对照试验(RCT)表明,愈创木酚粪便潜血试验(gFOBT)、乙状结肠镜检查或结肠镜检查能有效降低结直肠癌(CRC)风险和死亡率。尽管粪便免疫化学检验(FIT)的影响尚未在以死亡率为结果的人群 RCT 中进行评估,但与 gFOBT 的比较分析结果为其有效性提供了有力的间接证据。有关 FIT 与 gFOBT 相比的灵敏度和特异性的信息也非常丰富。在全球有组织的筛查项目中,FIT 几乎已普遍取代了 gFOBT。将 FIT 作为比较对象是评估新检测方法有效性的有效方法,它涉及检测性能和相关的中间结果,如间期癌症率和晚期癌症发病率。在筛查前对新检测方法的准确性进行评估时,与 FIT 进行直接比较将为选择新检测方法的临界值提供指导,并记录灵敏度的潜在提高。横断面单轮筛查评估中的比较可以采用配对设计或平行设计。只有平行设计才能直接比较参与率。在两种设计中都可以得出相对准确性,平行设计中的假设是各组之间的结直肠癌和前兆患病率相似。最后,多轮前瞻性比较将记录对 CRC 和癌前病变风险的潜在影响,以及对作为死亡率替代指标的晚期发病率绝对降低的潜在影响。本文概述了使用 FIT 作为评估新的非侵入性检测方法的比较对象,并在短时间内重复检测的证据和原理。
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
Digestive Diseases and Sciences
Digestive Diseases and Sciences 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
3.20%
发文量
420
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Digestive Diseases and Sciences publishes high-quality, peer-reviewed, original papers addressing aspects of basic/translational and clinical research in gastroenterology, hepatology, and related fields. This well-illustrated journal features comprehensive coverage of basic pathophysiology, new technological advances, and clinical breakthroughs; insights from prominent academicians and practitioners concerning new scientific developments and practical medical issues; and discussions focusing on the latest changes in local and worldwide social, economic, and governmental policies that affect the delivery of care within the disciplines of gastroenterology and hepatology.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信