ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2025
Assessing the impact of a single qualitative fecal immunochemical test on colonoscopy prioritization and mortality in risk-stratified patients with suspected colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Performing fecal immunochemical tests in symptomatic individuals at low-or moderate risk for suspected colorectal cancer could help prioritize candidates for colonoscopies. The objective of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in symptomatic individuals at low-or moderate risk of colorectal cancer and explore association with survival. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study between December 2016 and July 2024 from a single-center, public hospital in Chile. Adults (≥18 years-old) individuals were included, those with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer and set for evaluation via colonoscopy. Symptomatic individuals with suspected colorectal cancer were stratified as high risk or low/moderate risk by a trained nurse according to 2015 NICE guidelines. Subsequently, high risk patients were directly referred for colonoscopies, while low/moderate risk patients underwent a single qualitative FIT and prioritized to colonoscopy based on results. Main outcomes were FIT diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer, overall mortality, and colorectal cancer-specific mortality. Findings: A total of 394 out of 1304 participants (30%) were classified as high risk. The remaining 910 (70%) were categorized as low/moderate risk and were referred for FIT. From these, 808 (89%) individuals were tested and had results for FIT. Regarding the diagnostic accuracy of the FIT, sensitivity was 96% and specificity reached 66.8%, with a negative value of 99.8%. Low/moderate risk positive FIT (FIT+) and high-risk participants had higher mortality rates vs. low/moderate risk negative FIT (FIT-) individuals. Time-to-event analysis confirmed a lower cumulative mortality in low/moderate risk FIT- patients. A multivariable Cox regression model showed a consistently lower risk of death in this group, while a non-significant trend towards increased mortality was observed in low/moderate risk FIT+ individuals after 30 months. Interpretation: In symptomatic individuals at low or moderate risk, a single qualitative FIT was associated with high sensitivity and moderate specificity for colorectal cancer detection. FIT may help prioritize colonoscopy in low-resource settings, but further prospective validation is warranted. Funding: This research was partially funded by ANIDFONDAP152220002 (CECAN).
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.