首页> 外文OA文献 >Immunochemical vs guaiac faecal occult blood tests in a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer.
【2h】

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

机译:一项基于人群的结肠直肠癌筛查计划中的免疫化学与愈创木脂粪便隐血测试。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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.
机译:在对24 282位年龄在40-70岁的受试者进行大肠癌筛查时,比较了两种粪便潜血测试(FOBT),Hemoccult II(基于愈创木脂)和Hemeselect(免疫化学)。根据较低的(+和+/-)和较高的(+)阳性阈值来解释血红素选择。共有8008位合规者参加了该研究。阳性率:血细胞学= 6.0%,血红素选择(+和+ /)= 8.2%,血红素选择(+)= 3.1%。在符合诊断检查标准的FOBT阳性受试者中,有22名患有结直肠癌(17名Hemeselect阳性(+),4名Hemeselect-borderline(+/-),15名Hemoccult阳性)和166名患有腺瘤的受试者(62名Hemeselect( +),检测到56个Hemeselect-borderline(+/-),79个Hemoccult阳性。癌症的阳性预测值(PPV)如下:Hemoccult = 3.7%,Hemeselect(+和+/-)= 3.8%,Hemeselect(+)= 8.4%。腺瘤的PPV为:血细胞培养= 19.7%,血红素选择(+和+/-)= 21.4%,血红素选择(+)= 30.5%。癌症的特异性为:血细胞培养= 94.1%,血红素选择(+ +/-)= 92%,血红素选择(+)= 97.1%。每种测试的检出率与结直肠癌的预期发病率之间的比率表明,Hemoccult预计癌症诊断的平均时间约为2年,而Hemeselect的平均诊断预期范围为2.5至3.2年。 Hemeselect优于Hemoccult,因为它至少比愈创木脂测试更有效,但更有效且可以接受。为了评估阳性和筛查频率的最佳阈值,需要对Hemeselect的成本效益和敏感性进行进一步评估。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号