ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2012
Colorectal cancer screening: comparison of transferrin and immuno fecal occult blood test.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Glucosinolates Extracts fromNutrients · 2023Article
- Improved diagnosis of colorectal cancer using combined biomarkers including Fusobacterium nucleatum, fecal occult blood, transferrin, CEA, CA19-9, gender, and age.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Combining methylated SDC2 test in stool DNA, fecal immunochemical test, and tumor markers improves early detection of colorectal neoplasms.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- A fluorescent microsphere-based immunochromatographic strip is effective for quantitative fecal blood testing in colorectal cancer screening.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
- Comprehensive aptamer-based screen of 1317 proteins uncovers improved stool protein markers of colorectal cancer.Journal of gastroenterology · 2021Article
- A network-based predictive gene expression signature for recurrence risks in stage II colorectal cancer.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
- A novel panel of stool-based DNA biomarkers for early screening of colorectal neoplasms in a Chinese population.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2019Article
- Fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin in combination with fecal transferrin in colorectal cancer screening.United European gastroenterology journal · 2018Article
- Evaluation of the analytical performance of the novel NS-Prime system and examination of temperature stability of fecal transferrin compared with fecal hemoglobin as biomarkers in a colon cancer screening program.Practical laboratory medicine · 2015Article
- Advances in Fecal Occult Blood Tests: the FIT revolution.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of transfesrrin dipstick test (Tf) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and precancerous lesions screening.
methodsEight hundreds and sixty-one individuals at high-risk for CRC were recruited. Six hundreds and eleven subsequently received the three fecal occult blood tests and colonoscopy with biopsy performed as needed. Fecal samples were obtained on the day before colonoscopy. Tf, immuno fecal occult blood test (IFOBT) and guaiac fecal occult blood test (g-FOBT) were performed simultaneously on the same stool. To minimize false-negative cases, all subjects with negative samples were asked to provide an additional stool specimen for a second test even a third test. If the results were all negative after testing three repeated samples, the subject was considered a true negative. The performance characteristics of Tf for detecting CRC and precancerous lesions were examined and compared to those of IFOBT and the combination of Tf, IFOBT and g-FOBT.
resultsA total of six hundreds and eleven subjects met the study criteria including 25 with CRC and 60 with precancerous lesions. Sensitivity for detecting CRC was 92% for Tf and 96% for IFOBT, specificities of Tf and IFOBT were both 72.0% (95% CI: 68.2%-75.5%; χ² = 0.4, P > 0.05); positive likelihood ratios of those were 3.3 (95% CI: 2.8-3.9) and 3.4 (95% CI: 2.9-4.0), respectively. In precancerous lesions, sensitivities for Tf and IFOBT were 50% and 58%, respectively (χ² = 0.8, P > 0.05); specificities of Tf and IFOBT were 71.5% (95% CI: 67.6%-75.1%) and 72.2% (95% CI: 68.4%-75.8%); positive likelihood ratios of those were 1.8 (95% CI: 1.3-2.3) and 2.1 (95% CI: 1.6-2.7), respectively; compared to IFOBT, g-FOBT+ Tf+ IFOBT had a significantly higher positive rate for precancerous lesions (83% vs 58%, respectively; χ² = 9.1, P < 0.05). In patients with CRC and precancerous lesions, the sensitivities of Tf and IFOBT were 62% and 69% (χ² = 0.9, P > 0.05); specificities of those were 74.5% (95% CI: 70.6%-78.1%) and 75.5% (95% CI: 71.6%-79.0%); positive likelihood ratios of those were 2.5 (95% CI: 2.0-3.1) and 2.8 (95% CI: 2.3-3.5). Compared to IFOBT alone, combining g-FOBT, IFOBT and Tf led to significantly increased sensitivity for detecting CRC and cancerous lesions (69% vs 88%, respectively; χ² = 9.0, P < 0.05).
conclusionTf dipstick test might be used as an additional tool for CRC and precancerous lesions screening in a high-risk cohort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.