Similar fecal immunochemical test results in screening and referral colorectal cancer

来源 :World Journal of Gastroenterology | 被引量 : 0次 | 上传用户:JK0803_lijixiang
下载到本地 , 更方便阅读
声明 : 本文档内容版权归属内容提供方 , 如果您对本文有版权争议 , 可与客服联系进行内容授权或下架
论文部分内容阅读
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. 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 All CRC cases were selected from both cohorts. Outcome measurements were mean FIT results and FIT scores per tissue (OC sensor; ≥ 50 ng / mL) was used in both cohorts. 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 / mL vs 613 ± Tissue tumor stage (T stage) distribution was dif- ferent between both populations [screening population: 13 (46%) T1, eight (29%) T2, six (4%) T4 carcinoma; and higher T stage was significantly associated with higher (4%) T4 carcinoma; referral population: 12 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 = / mL vs 794 ± 341 ng / mL, P = 0.79; T3 563 ± 368 ng / mL vs 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.
其他文献
巨峰葡萄是1937年日本大井上康用大粒康拜尔与森田尼杂交育成的四倍体品种。本品粒穗大粒大、抗病力强,耐贮运,产量高,是优良的鲜食品种。我区1979年由吴忠园艺场引进,生长
据台刊报道,通信网路的交换技术从过去到现在有很大的改变,未来的交换技术更会有很大进步,在网路技术方面,有如下四种发展趋势:一,由于光纤的应用,频宽加大。二,由于整体数
盆栽柑桔做为观果植物在北京已有较长的栽培历史。特别近几年来养柑桔的人显著增加。如何把它养好,是人们很关心的问题。南方柑桔在北方培植,水土、温度等条件都发生了变化,
在与咖啡繁殖有关的诸因素中,插条的长短及其类型是最重要的。F rwerda等人的早期(1934—1940年)研究结果表明,只有用直生枝插条才能培育出正常的植株,因为水平枝插条只横向
前不久,PICC山东省分公司召开了理论研讨会,就转换保险企业经营机制,提高人保公司经济效益这一主题进行了讨论,可归纳为以下几个问题: 一、转换经营机制,实行企业化经营是人