Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19337257›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2009

Screening for colorectal cancer: random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing at different cut-off levels.

L Hol, J A Wilschut, M van Ballegooijen, A J van Vuuren, H van der Valk, J C I Y Reijerink, A C M van der Togt, E J Kuipers, J D F Habbema, M E van Leerdam

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05661292 (Validation of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasm Risk Categories in Screening Colonoscopy and Identification of Biomarkers in a Prospective Cohort in Mexico.), which is not on this map. Cited by 80 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05661292 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Validation of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasm Risk Categories in Screening Colonoscopy and Identification of Biomarkers in a Prospective Cohort in Mexico.

TypeobservationalSponsorInstituto Nacional de Ciencias Medicas y Nutricion Salvador ZubiranRan2019 to 2025Enrolled2,000ConditionsColorectal Cancer ScreeningArmsFecal inmunochemical test, Colonoscopy, Optional collection of tissue, blood and urine for future biomedical research
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

80 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 273 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Recommendations on screening for colorectal cancer in primary care.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2016
    Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Lower Abnormal Fecal Immunochemical Test Cut-Off Values Improve Detection of Colorectal Cancer in System-Level Screens.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2020
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Participant uptake of the fecal immunochemical test decreases with the two-sample regimen compared with one-sample FIT.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2014
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

L HolDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. l.hol.1@erasmusmc.nl
J A Wilschut
M van Ballegooijen
A J van Vuuren
H van der Valk
J C I Y Reijerink
A C M van der Togt
E J Kuipers
J D F Habbema
M E van Leerdam
Erasmus MC · NLAssociation of Dutch Burn Centres · NLNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation · NLPathoFinder (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immunochemical faecal occult blood testing (FIT) provides quantitative test results, which allows optimisation of the cut-off value for follow-up colonoscopy. We conducted a randomised population-based trial to determine test characteristics of FIT (OC-Sensor micro, Eiken, Japan) screening at different cut-off levels and compare these with guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening in an average risk population. A representative sample of the Dutch population (n=10 011), aged 50-74 years, was 1 : 1 randomised before invitation to gFOBT and FIT screening. Colonoscopy was offered to screenees with a positive gFOBT or FIT (cut-off 50 ng haemoglobin/ml). When varying the cut-off level between 50 and 200 ng ml(-1), the positivity rate of FIT ranged between 8.1% (95% CI: 7.2-9.1%) and 3.5% (95% CI: 2.9-4.2%), the detection rate of advanced neoplasia ranged between 3.2% (95% CI: 2.6-3.9%) and 2.1% (95% CI: 1.6-2.6%), and the specificity ranged between 95.5% (95% CI: 94.5-96.3%) and 98.8% (95% CI: 98.4-99.0%). At a cut-off value of 75 ng ml(-1), the detection rate was two times higher than with gFOBT screening (gFOBT: 1.2%; FIT: 2.5%; P<0.001), whereas the number needed to scope (NNscope) to find one screenee with advanced neoplasia was similar (2.2 vs 1.9; P=0.69). Immunochemical faecal occult blood testing is considerably more effective than gFOBT screening within the range of tested cut-off values. From our experience, a cut-off value of 75 ng ml(-1) provided an adequate positivity rate and an acceptable trade-off between detection rate and NNscope.

Indexed as

GuaiacOccult BloodAgedColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHemoglobinsHumansImmunochemistryMaleMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificityGuaiacHemoglobins

Identifiers

PMID19337257
PMCPMC2670000
OpenAlexW2076728125

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.