ArticleClinical and translational gastroenterology2026
Accuracy of Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Detecting Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia at Surveillance Colonoscopy.
Article in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionUS guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopy after polyp removal, but stool testing may offer a more efficient, acceptable strategy for patients with nonadvanced lesions. We conducted exploratory analyses to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) results to diagnose advanced colorectal neoplasia in patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy.
methodsWe classified patients by previous colonoscopy findings as having low, intermediate, or high risk polyps. We compared the diagnostic performance for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia at an optimal cutoff identified by the Youden index vs the standard cutoff of 100 ng/mL. We also estimated cumulative sensitivity and specificity for serial FIT testing in patients with nonadvanced findings.
resultsAmong the 449 participants (mean ± SD age 65.4 ± 7.1, 53.2% women, and 92.7% White), the median interval between colonoscopies was 5.0 years (IQR 3.5, 5.6); adequate or better bowel prep was achieved in 89.3%, and cecal intubation in 98.4%. We detected 55 advanced precancerous lesions, but no cancers. For patients with previous nonadvanced lesions (n = 378), the optimal cutoff was 26 ng/mL. Compared with the standard cutoff, the optimal cutoff increased sensitivity (14.3%-35.7%, P < 0.01) but reduced specificity (95.5%-79.2%, P < 0.01). Estimated cumulative sensitivity across 3 rounds of FIT testing was 73.4% at the optimal cutoff vs 37.1% with the standard cutoff. DISCUSSION: Lowering the FIT hemoglobin cutoff markedly improved sensitivity for detecting advanced precancerous lesions in patients without previous advanced polyps. Serial testing could further enhance detection. FIT-based surveillance should be further evaluated as a potential strategy to prioritize, delay, or replace colonoscopy.
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.