Federici Antonio, Giorgi Rossi Paolo, Borgia Piero, Bartolozzi Francesco, Farchi Sara, Gausticchi Gabriella
Agency for Public Health, Lazio Region, Via di S. Costanza 53, 00198 Rome, Italy.
J Med Screen. 2005;12(2):83-8. doi: 10.1258/0969141053908357.
We conducted a cluster-randomized trial aimed at assessing the effect of the type of faecal occult blood, guaiac or immunochemical test on screening compliance.
We sampled 130 general practitioners (GPs) who consented to participate in the trial. We randomly allocated half of them to the guaiac (Hemo-Fec) and half to the immunochemical test (OC-Hemodia). We sampled 2/10 of the GPs' 50-75-year-old patients (n=7332) and randomly divided this population into half. One half was invited to be screened at the GP's office and the other to the nearest gastroenterology ward. The principal outcome was the percentage of returned tests.
The immunochemical test had a compliance of 35.8% and the guaiac of 30.4% (relative risk [RR] 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.44). The difference was mostly due to a higher probability of returning the sample: 93.8% and 88.6% for immunochemical and guaiac, respectively (RR 1.06; 95% CI 1.02-1.10). The guaiac test had a higher prevalence of positives (10.3% versus 6.3%, RR 0.603; 95% CI 0.433-0.837). There was a higher variability in the results obtained with the guaiac test compared with the immunochemical (F[1, 12] = 16.25; P=0.0017).
Compliance is more likely with the immunochemical than the guaiac test, independent of the provider. Guaiac tests show a higher variability of the results among centres. The successful implementation of a screening programme requires a period of standardization of the test reading in order to avoid unexpected work overload for colonoscopy services.
我们进行了一项整群随机试验,旨在评估粪便潜血检测类型(愈创木脂法或免疫化学法)对筛查依从性的影响。
我们抽取了130名同意参与试验的全科医生(GP)。将他们随机分为两组,一半采用愈创木脂法(Hemo-Fec),另一半采用免疫化学法(OC-Hemodia)。我们从这些全科医生的50至75岁患者中抽取了2/10(n = 7332),并将这一人群随机分为两半。一半被邀请在全科医生办公室进行筛查,另一半被邀请到最近的胃肠病科病房进行筛查。主要结局指标是检测结果返回的百分比。
免疫化学法的依从率为35.8%,愈创木脂法为30.4%(相对风险[RR] 1.20;95%置信区间[CI] 1.02 - 1.44)。差异主要是由于样本返回概率更高:免疫化学法和愈创木脂法分别为93.8%和88.6%(RR 1.06;95% CI 1.02 - 1.10)。愈创木脂法检测出阳性的比例更高(10.3%对6.3%,RR 0.603;95% CI 0.433 - 0.837)。与免疫化学法相比,愈创木脂法获得的结果变异性更高(F[1, 12] = 16.25;P = 0.0017)。
与愈创木脂法相比,免疫化学法更易获得较高的依从性,且与检测提供者无关。愈创木脂法在各中心之间的检测结果变异性更高。成功实施筛查计划需要一段时间对检测结果判读进行标准化,以避免结肠镜检查服务出现意外的工作负担过重情况。