No abstract

HemeSelect and a combination test in which HemeSelect is used to confirm positive Hemoccult II Sensa results improve on Hemoccult II in screening patients for colorectal carcinoma.

The FIT has high sensitivity and specificity for detecting left-sided colorectal cancer, and it may be a useful replacement for the GT.

Subjects with moderate to severe COPD did not benefit from treatment with infliximab. Although not statistically significant, more cases of cancer and pneumonia were observed in the infliximab-treated subjects. The impact of infliximab on malignancy risk in patients with COPD needs to be further elucidated.

Background Stool DNA testing is a new approach to colorectal cancer detection. Few data are available from the screening setting. Objective To compare stool DNA and fecal blood testing for detection of screen-relevant neoplasia (curable-stage cancer, high-grade dysplasia, or adenomas >1 cm). Design Blinded, multicenter, cross-sectional study. Setting Communities surrounding 22 participating academic and regional health care systems in the United States. Participants 4482 average-risk adults. Measurements Fecal blood and DNA markers. Participants collected 3 stools, smeared fecal blood test cards and used same-day shipment to a central facility. Fecal blood cards (Hemoccult and HemoccultSensa, Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, California) were tested on 3 stools and DNA assays on 1 stool per patient. Stool DNA test 1 (SDT-1) was a precommercial 23-marker assay, and a novel test (SDT-2) targeted 3 broadly informative markers. The criterion standard was colonoscopy. Results Sensitivity for screen-relevant neoplasms was 20% by SDT-1, 11% by Hemoccult (P = 0.020), 21% by HemoccultSensa (P = 0.80); sensitivity for cancer plus high-grade dysplasia did not differ among tests. Specificity was 96% by SDT-1, compared with 98% by Hemoccult (P < 0.001) and 97% by HemoccultSensa (P = 0.20). Stool DNA test 2 detected 46% of screen-relevant neoplasms, compared with 16% by Hemoccult (P < 0.001) and 24% by HemoccultSensa (P < 0.001). Stool DNA test 2 detected 46% of adenomas 1 cm or larger, compared with 10% by Hemoccult (P < 0.001) and 17% by HemoccultSensa (P < 0.001). Among colonoscopically normal patients, the positivity rate was 16% with SDT-2, compared with 4% with Hemoccult (P = 0.010) and 5% with HemoccultSensa (P = 0.030). Limitations Stool DNA test 2 was not performed on all subsets of patients without screen-relevant neoplasms. Stools were collected without preservative, which reduced detection of some DNA markers. Conclusion Stool DNA test 1 provides no improvement over HemoccultSensa for detection of screen-relevant neoplasms. Stool DNA test 2 detects significantly more neoplasms than does Hemoccult or HemoccultSensa, but with more positive results in colonoscopically normal patients. Higher sensitivity of SDT-2 was particularly apparent for adenomas.

No abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. CRC incidence and mortality can be reduced through screening. However, in the United States, screening participation remains suboptimal, particularly among underserved populations such as the uninsured, recent immigrants, and racial/ethnic minority groups. Increasing screening rates among underserved populations will reduce the US burden of CRC. In this commentary focusing on underserved populations, we highlight the public health impact of CRC screening, list key challenges to screening the underserved, and review promising approaches to boost screening rates. We identify four key policy and research priorities to increase screening among underserved populations: 1) actively promote the message, "the best test is the one that gets done"; 2) develop and implement methods to identify unscreened individuals within underserved population groups for screening interventions; 3) develop and implement approaches for organized screening delivery; and 4) fund and enhance programs and policies that provide access to screening, diagnostic follow-up, and CRC treatment for underserved populations. This commentary represents the consensus of a diverse group of experts in cancer control and prevention, epidemiology, gastroenterology, and primary care from across the country who formed the Coalition to Boost Screening among the Underserved in the United States. The group was organized and held its first annual working group meeting in conjunction with the World Endoscopy Organization's annual Colorectal Cancer Screening Committee meeting during Digestive Disease Week 2012 in San Diego, California.

There is a wide choice of fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) for colorectal cancer screening. Goal: To highlight the issues applicable when choosing a FOBT, in particular which FOBT is best suited to the range of screening scenarios. Four scenarios characterize the constraints and expectations of screening programs: (1) limited colonoscopy resource with a need to constrain test positivity rate; (2) a priority for maximum colorectal neoplasia detection with little need to constrain colonoscopy workload; (3) an “adequate” endoscopy resource that allows balancing the benefits of detection with the burden of service provision; and (4) a need to maximize participation in screening. Guaiac-based FOBTs (gFOBTs) have significant deficiencies, and fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for hemoglobin have emerged as better tests. gFOBTs are not sensitive to small bleeds, specificity can be affected by diet or drugs, participant acceptance can be low, laboratory quality control opportunities are limited, and they have a fixed hemoglobin concentration cutoff determining positivity. FITs are analytically more specific, capable of quantitation and hence provide flexibility to adjust cutoff concentration for positivity and the balance between sensitivity and specificity. FITs are clinically more sensitive for cancers and advanced adenomas, and because they are easier to use, acceptance rates are high. Conclusions: FOBT must be chosen carefully to meet the needs of the applicable screening scenario. Quantitative FIT can be adjusted to suit Scenarios 1, 2 and 3, and for each, they are the test of choice. FITs are superior to gFOBT for Scenario 4 and gFOBT is only suitable for Scenario 1.