Diagnostic Accuracy Of Fecal Occult Blood Tests For Detecting Proximal Versus Distal Colorectal Neoplasia: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis
Received 27 April 2019
Accepted for publication 16 September 2019
Published 25 October 2019 Volume 2019:11 Pages 943—954
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Amy Norman
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Professor Eyal Cohen
Ming Lu,1,* Xiaohu Luo,2,* Ni Li,1 Hongda Chen,1 Min Dai1
1National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Toxicant Occupational Disease Testing Laboratory, Xuzhou Cancer Hospital, Xuzhou 221000, People’s Republic of China
*These authors contributed equally to this work
Correspondence: Min Dai; Hongda Chen
National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, People’s Republic of China
Email firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Objective: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the differences of diagnostic performance of fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) in detecting advanced colorectal neoplasms located in the proximal versus distal colorectum.
Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for eligible articles published before August 17, 2018. Two independent reviewers conducted study assessment and data extraction. Diagnosis-related indicators of FOBT for detecting proximal and distal colorectal neoplasms were summarized, and further stratified by the type of FOBT (guaiac-based FOBT (gFOBT) and immunochemical FOBT (iFOBT)). Pooled sensitivities and specificities were calculated using a random effect model. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted and area under the curves were calculated.
Results: Overall, 31 studies meeting the inclusion criteria were included in this review. For gFOBT, we found no site-specific difference (proximally vs distally located) of pooled sensitivities observed in the colorectal cancer (CRC), advanced adenomas, and advanced neoplasms groups. As for iFOBT, pooled sensitivities for detecting CRC located in the distal colon/rectum were comparable with that in the proximal colon (proximal vs distal, 0.67, 95% CI 0.62–0.72 vs 0.72, 95% CI 0.68–0.75), while higher pooled sensitivities for detecting advanced adenomas and advanced neoplasms located in the distal colon/rectum than for detecting those in the proximal colon were observed for iFOBT with the values of 0.24 (95% CI 0.22–0.25) vs 0.32 (95% CI 0.30–0.34) and 0.25 (95% CI 0.23–0.28) vs 0.38 (95% CI 0.36–0.40), respectively. Summary receiver operating characteristic curve analyses showed similar patterns for both types of FOBT regarding the diagnostic accuracy for detecting colorectal neoplasms according to the anatomical sites of the colorectum.
Conclusion: iFOBT had higher sensitivity for detecting advanced adenomas and advanced neoplasia located in the distal colon/rectum than that for those in the proximal colon.
Keywords: sensitivity, colorectal cancer, screening test
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]