Suppr超能文献

基于人群的结直肠癌筛查项目中免疫化学法与愈创木脂粪便潜血试验的比较

Immunochemical vs guaiac faecal occult blood tests in a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer.

作者信息

Castiglione G, Zappa M, Grazzini G, Mazzotta A, Biagini M, Salvadori P, Ciatto S

机构信息

Centro per lo Studio e la Prevenzione Oncologica, Florence, Italy

出版信息

Br J Cancer. 1996 Jul;74(1):141-4. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1996.329.

Abstract

Two faecal occult blood tests (FOBTs), Hemoccult II (guaiac based) and Hemeselect (immunochemical) were compared in a population screening for colorectal cancer on 24 282 subjects aged 40-70. Hemeselect was interpreted according to a lower (+ and +/-) and a higher (+) positivity threshold. A total of 8008 compliers were enrolled in the study. Positivity rates: Hemoccult = 6.0%, Hemeselect (+ and +/) = 8.2%, Hemeselect (+) = 3.1%. Among FOBT-positive subject complying with the diagnostic work-up, 22 had colorectal cancer (17 Hemeselect-positive (+), four Hemeselect-borderline (+/-), 15 Hemoccult-positive) and 166 subjects had adenomas (62 Hemeselect(+), 56 Hemeselect-borderline (+/-), 79 Hemoccult-positive) were detected. The positive predictive values (PPVs) for cancer were as follows: Hemoccult = 3.7%, Hemeselect (+ and +/-) = 3.8%, Hemeselect (+) = 8.4%. The PPVs for adenoma(s) were: Hemoccult = 19.7%, Hemeselect (+ and +/-) = 21.4%, Hemeselect (+) = 30.5%. The specificity for cancer was: Hemoccult = 94.1%, Hemeselect (+ +/-) = 92%, Hemeselect (+) = 97.1%. Ratios between detection rates of each test and expected incidence of colorectal cancer suggest that Hemoccult anticipates cancer diagnosis by approximately 2 years on average whereas the mean diagnostic anticipation of Hemeselect ranges between 2.5 and 3.2 years. Hemeselect is superior to Hemoccult as it is at least as effective but more efficient and acceptable than guaiac testing. Further evaluation of Hemeselect cost-effectiveness and sensitivity is needed in order to assess the optimal threshold of positivity and screening frequency.

摘要

在一项针对24282名年龄在40至70岁之间的受试者进行的结直肠癌人群筛查中,对两种粪便潜血试验(FOBT)进行了比较,即Hemoccult II(基于愈创木脂法)和Hemeselect(免疫化学法)。Hemeselect根据较低(+和+/-)和较高(+)的阳性阈值进行解读。共有8008名依从者纳入研究。阳性率分别为:Hemoccult为6.0%,Hemeselect(+和+/-)为8.2%,Hemeselect(+)为3.1%。在接受诊断检查的FOBT阳性受试者中,发现22例患有结直肠癌(17例Hemeselect阳性(+),4例Hemeselect临界阳性(+/-),15例Hemoccult阳性),166例患有腺瘤(62例Hemeselect(+),56例Hemeselect临界阳性(+/-),79例Hemoccult阳性)。癌症的阳性预测值(PPV)如下:Hemoccult为3.7%,Hemeselect(+和+/-)为3.8%,Hemeselect(+)为8.4%。腺瘤的PPV分别为:Hemoccult为19.7%,Hemeselect(+和+/-)为21.4%,Hemeselect(+)为30.5%。癌症的特异性为:Hemoccult为94.1%,Hemeselect(+/-)为92%,Hemeselect(+)为97.1%。各检测方法的检出率与结直肠癌预期发病率之间的比率表明,Hemoccult平均比癌症诊断提前约2年,而Hemeselect的平均诊断提前时间在2.5至3.2年之间。Hemeselect优于Hemoccult,因为它至少同样有效,而且比愈创木脂检测更高效、更易接受。需要进一步评估Hemeselect的成本效益和敏感性,以确定最佳阳性阈值和筛查频率。

相似文献

3

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

7
Screening for colorectal cancer: which test is best?
JAMA. 1994 Oct 12;272(14):1099; author reply 1100. doi: 10.1001/jama.272.14.1099b.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验