四种不同的粪便免疫化学测试系统对疑似结直肠癌和严重肠道疾病患者的粪便血红蛋白浓度和诊断准确性的比较

S. Benton, C. Piggott, Z. Zahoor, S. O’Driscoll, C. Fraser, N. D’Souza, Michelle M. Chen, T. Georgiou Delisle, M. Abulafi
{"title":"四种不同的粪便免疫化学测试系统对疑似结直肠癌和严重肠道疾病患者的粪便血红蛋白浓度和诊断准确性的比较","authors":"S. Benton, C. Piggott, Z. Zahoor, S. O’Driscoll, C. Fraser, N. D’Souza, Michelle M. Chen, T. Georgiou Delisle, M. Abulafi","doi":"10.1515/cclm-2021-1248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives Faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT) are used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes and to triage patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of CRC for further bowel investigations. There are a number of quantitative FIT analytical systems available. Currently, there is no harmonisation or standardisation of FIT methods. The aim of the study was to assess the comparability of numerical faecal haemoglobin concentrations (f-Hb) obtained with four quantitative FIT systems and the diagnostic accuracy at different f-Hb thresholds. Methods A subgroup of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) FIT study, a multicentre, prospective diagnostic accuracy study were sent four FIT specimen collection devices from four different FIT systems or two FIT devices for one FIT system. Faecal samples were examined and analysis of results carried out to assess difference between methods at thresholds of limit of detection (LoD), 10 µg haemoglobin/g faeces (µg/g) and 100 μg/g. Results 233 patients returned specimen collection devices for examination on four different systems; 189 patients returned two FIT kits for one system. At a threshold of 100 μg/g the sensitivity is the same for all methods. At lower thresholds of LoD and 10 μg/g differences were observed between systems in terms of patients who would be referred and diagnostic accuracies. Conclusions The lack of standardisation or harmonisation of FIT means that differences are observed in f-Hb generated on different systems. Further work is required to understand the clinical impact of these differences and to minimise them.","PeriodicalId":10388,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of the faecal haemoglobin concentrations and diagnostic accuracy in patients suspected with colorectal cancer and serious bowel disease as reported on four different faecal immunochemical test systems\",\"authors\":\"S. Benton, C. Piggott, Z. Zahoor, S. O’Driscoll, C. Fraser, N. D’Souza, Michelle M. Chen, T. Georgiou Delisle, M. Abulafi\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/cclm-2021-1248\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objectives Faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT) are used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes and to triage patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of CRC for further bowel investigations. There are a number of quantitative FIT analytical systems available. Currently, there is no harmonisation or standardisation of FIT methods. The aim of the study was to assess the comparability of numerical faecal haemoglobin concentrations (f-Hb) obtained with four quantitative FIT systems and the diagnostic accuracy at different f-Hb thresholds. Methods A subgroup of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) FIT study, a multicentre, prospective diagnostic accuracy study were sent four FIT specimen collection devices from four different FIT systems or two FIT devices for one FIT system. Faecal samples were examined and analysis of results carried out to assess difference between methods at thresholds of limit of detection (LoD), 10 µg haemoglobin/g faeces (µg/g) and 100 μg/g. Results 233 patients returned specimen collection devices for examination on four different systems; 189 patients returned two FIT kits for one system. At a threshold of 100 μg/g the sensitivity is the same for all methods. At lower thresholds of LoD and 10 μg/g differences were observed between systems in terms of patients who would be referred and diagnostic accuracies. Conclusions The lack of standardisation or harmonisation of FIT means that differences are observed in f-Hb generated on different systems. Further work is required to understand the clinical impact of these differences and to minimise them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2021-1248\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2021-1248","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

目的粪便血红蛋白(FIT)免疫化学试验用于结直肠癌(CRC)筛查计划,并对出现提示结直肠癌症状的患者进行分类,以进行进一步的肠道调查。有许多可用的定量FIT分析系统。目前,FIT方法没有统一或标准化。该研究的目的是评估四种定量FIT系统获得的数值粪便血红蛋白浓度(f-Hb)的可比性以及不同f-Hb阈值的诊断准确性。方法国家健康与护理卓越研究所(NICE) FIT研究的一个亚组,一个多中心,前瞻性诊断准确性研究,从四个不同的FIT系统发送四个FIT标本采集装置或为一个FIT系统发送两个FIT装置。对粪便样本进行检测和结果分析,以评估检测限阈值(LoD)、10 μg血红蛋白/g粪便(μg/g)和100 μg/g血红蛋白阈值的差异。结果233例患者在4种不同的系统上送检标本采集装置;189名患者退回了一个系统的两个FIT试剂盒。在阈值为100 μg/g时,所有方法的灵敏度相同。在较低的LoD阈值和10 μg/g时,观察到不同系统之间在转诊患者和诊断准确性方面的差异。结论:FIT缺乏标准化或协调性,这意味着不同系统产生的f-Hb存在差异。进一步的工作需要了解这些差异的临床影响,并尽量减少它们。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparison of the faecal haemoglobin concentrations and diagnostic accuracy in patients suspected with colorectal cancer and serious bowel disease as reported on four different faecal immunochemical test systems
Abstract Objectives Faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT) are used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes and to triage patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of CRC for further bowel investigations. There are a number of quantitative FIT analytical systems available. Currently, there is no harmonisation or standardisation of FIT methods. The aim of the study was to assess the comparability of numerical faecal haemoglobin concentrations (f-Hb) obtained with four quantitative FIT systems and the diagnostic accuracy at different f-Hb thresholds. Methods A subgroup of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) FIT study, a multicentre, prospective diagnostic accuracy study were sent four FIT specimen collection devices from four different FIT systems or two FIT devices for one FIT system. Faecal samples were examined and analysis of results carried out to assess difference between methods at thresholds of limit of detection (LoD), 10 µg haemoglobin/g faeces (µg/g) and 100 μg/g. Results 233 patients returned specimen collection devices for examination on four different systems; 189 patients returned two FIT kits for one system. At a threshold of 100 μg/g the sensitivity is the same for all methods. At lower thresholds of LoD and 10 μg/g differences were observed between systems in terms of patients who would be referred and diagnostic accuracies. Conclusions The lack of standardisation or harmonisation of FIT means that differences are observed in f-Hb generated on different systems. Further work is required to understand the clinical impact of these differences and to minimise them.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信