ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2016
Does Low Threshold Value Use Improve Proximal Neoplasia Detection by Fecal Immunochemical Test?
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Findings from the first colorectal cancer screening among 103 542 individuals in Vietnam with systematic review of colorectal cancer screening programs in Asia-Pacific region.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Effect of Sex, Age, and Positivity Threshold on Fecal Immunochemical Test Accuracy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Gastroenterology · 2019Pooled it
- Participant-Related Risk Factors for False-Positive and False-Negative Fecal Immunochemical Tests in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2018Pooled it
- Serum methylation of GALNT9, UPF3A, WARS, and LDB2 as noninvasive biomarkers for the early detection of colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas.Clinical epigenetics · 2023Article
- Faecal haemoglobin concentrations are associated with all-cause mortality and cause of death in colorectal cancer screening.BMC medicine · 2023Article
- Potential Modifiers and Different Cut-offs in Diagnostic Accuracy of Fecal Immunochemical Test in Detecting Advanced Colon Neoplasia: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-analysis.Middle East journal of digestive diseases · 2022Article
- Positive fecal immunochemical test results are associated with non-colorectal cancer mortality.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2022Article
- Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test Results Are Associated with Increased Risks of Esophageal, Stomach, and Small Intestine Cancers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Refinement and validation of the IDIOM score for predicting the risk of gastrointestinal cancer in iron deficiency anaemia.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy Of Fecal Occult Blood Tests For Detecting Proximal Versus Distal Colorectal Neoplasia: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis.Clinical epidemiology · 2019Review
- Influence of Varying Quantitative Fecal Immunochemical Test Positivity Thresholds on Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Community-Based Cohort Study.Annals of internal medicine · 2018Article
- A new approach to epigenome-wide discovery of non-invasive methylation biomarkers for colorectal cancer screening in circulating cell-free DNA using pooled samples.Clinical epigenetics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral studies have reported that the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) less sensitively detects proximal advanced neoplasia (AN) compared to distal AN. Low threshold value use may improve proximal AN detection.
aimTo investigate whether FIT diagnostic accuracy for AN is different according to AN location and to compare FIT accuracy in proximal AN detection using different threshold values.
methodsThis retrospective study was conducted in a university hospital in Korea from June 2013 to May 2015. Out of 34,547 participants who underwent FITs, 3990 subjects aged ≥50 years who also underwent colonoscopies were analyzed. The FIT diagnostic accuracy for AN with differing locations (proximal vs. distal) and threshold values (20, 15, and 10 mcg Hb/g feces) were assessed.
resultsThe sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of FIT in AN detection were 42.2, 84.3, 24.1, and 92.5 %, respectively. The FIT sensitivity for proximal AN detection was significantly lower than that for distal AN detection (32.7 and 49.0 %, respectively; P = 0.001). Lowering FIT threshold values tended to increase the sensitivity for proximal AN, whereas it significantly decreased the specificity for proximal AN. As a result, there was no significant difference in the accuracy for proximal AN detection (80.1, 79.3, and 78.1 % for 20, 15, and 10 mcg Hb/g feces, respectively; P = 0.107).
conclusionsFIT was less sensitive in proximal AN detection than distal AN detection. Lowering the FIT cutoff threshold did not increase the accuracy for proximal AN detection. New biomarker development for colorectal cancer screening is required to improve proximal ACRN diagnostic accuracy.
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.