Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31085338›Full record

Trial reportClinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association2020

Lower Abnormal Fecal Immunochemical Test Cut-Off Values Improve Detection of Colorectal Cancer in System-Level Screens.

Emily Berry, Stacie Miller, Mark Koch, Bijal Balasubramanian, Keith Argenbright, Samir Gupta

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01946282 (Evidence-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening for the Uninsured), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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.

NCT01946282 nacompletednot on this map

Evidence-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening for the Uninsured

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterRan2013 to 2017Enrolled8,565ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsFIT Invitation Only, FIT plus $5 Incentive, FIT plus $10 Incentive
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Evaluating colonoscopy quality by performing provider type.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024
    Article
  7. Optimal Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening.Current treatment options in oncology · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Emily BerryMoncrief Cancer Institute, Fort Worth, Texas. Electronic address: emily.berry@moncrief.com.
Stacie MillerMoncrief Cancer Institute, Fort Worth, Texas.
Mark KochDepartment of Family Medicine, John Peter Smith Health Network, Fort Worth, Texas.
Bijal BalasubramanianDepartment of Epidemiology, Genetics, and Environmental Science, University of Texas School of Public Health Dallas Regional Campus, Dallas, Texas.
Keith ArgenbrightMoncrief Cancer Institute, Fort Worth, Texas; Harold C. Simmons Cancer Center, Dallas, Texas; Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Samir GuptaSan Diego Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, San Diego, California; Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California. Electronic address: s1gupta@ucsd.edu.
John Peter Smith Hospital · USThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · USUniversity of California, San Diego · USUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at Dallas · US

Funding

VIRAL MALIGNANCYP30CA023100 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI Jesse Nodora · 1985 to 2026
$124.9M
Post-polypectomy Surveillance for Reducing Colon Cancer Incidence and MortalityR37CA222866 · NCI · VETERANS MEDICAL RESEARCH FDN/SAN DIEGO · PI GUPTA, SAMIR · 2018 to 2023
$3.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023100NCI NIH HHS R37 CA222866
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

aimsNoninvasive tests used in colorectal cancer screening, such as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), are more acceptable but detect neoplasias with lower levels of sensitivity than colonoscopy. We investigated whether lowering the cut-off concentration of hemoglobin for designation as an abnormal FIT result increased the detection of advanced neoplasia in a mailed outreach program.

methodsWe performed a prospective study of 17,017 uninsured patients, age 50 to 64 years, who were not current with screening and enrolled in a safety-net system in Texas. We reduced the cut-off value for an abnormal FIT result from 20 or more to 10 or more μg hemoglobin/g feces a priori. All patients with abnormal FIT results were offered no-cost diagnostic colonoscopy. We compared proportions of patients with abnormal FIT results and neoplasia yield for standard vs lower cut-off values, as well as absolute hemoglobin concentration distribution among 5838 persons who completed the FIT. Our primary aim was to determine the effects of implementing a lower hemoglobin concentration cut-off value on colonoscopy demand and yield, specifically colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced neoplasia detection, compared with the standard, higher, hemoglobin concentration cut-off value.

resultsThe proportions of patients with abnormal FIT results were 12.3% at the 10 or more μg hemoglobin/g feces and 6.6% at the standard 20 or more μg hemoglobin/g feces cut-off value (P = .0013). Detection rates for the lower vs the standard threshold were 10.2% vs 12.7% for advanced neoplasia (P = .12) and 0.9% vs 1.2% for CRC (P = .718). The positive predictive values were 18.9% for the lower threshold vs 24.4% for the standard threshold for advanced neoplasia (P = .053), and 1.7% vs 2.4% for CRC (P = .659). The number needed to screen to detect 1 case with advanced neoplasia was 45 at the lower threshold compared with 58 at the standard threshold; the number needed to scope to detect 1 case with advanced neoplasia increased from 4 to 5. Most patients with CRC (72.7%) or advanced adenoma (67.3%) had hemoglobin concentrations of 20 or more μg/g feces. In the group with 10 to 19 μg hemoglobin/g feces, there were 3 patients with CRC (3 of 11; 27.3%) and 36 with advanced adenoma (36 of 110; 32.7%) who would not have been detected at the standard positive threshold (advanced neoplasia Pcomparison < .001). The proportion of patients found to have no neoplasia after an abnormal FIT result (false positives) was not significantly higher with the lower cut-off value (44.4%) than the standard cut-off value (39.1%) (P = .1103).

conclusionsIn a prospective study of 17,017 uninsured patients, we found that reducing the abnormal FIT result cut-off value (to ≥10 μg hemoglobin/g feces) might increase detection of advanced neoplasia, but doubled the proportion of patients requiring a diagnostic colonoscopy. If colonoscopy capacity permits, health systems that use quantitative FITs should consider lowering the abnormal cut-off value to optimize CRC detection and prevention. (ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT01946282.).

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsOccult BloodColonoscopyEarly Detection of CancerFecesHemoglobinsHumansMiddle AgedProspective StudiesHemoglobinsAdenomaColon CancerEarly DetectionRemovalTumor

Identifiers

PMID31085338
PMCPMC7731666
OpenAlexW2944242521

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.