2001
DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(00)00387-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of the optimum cut-off point in immunochemical occult blood testing in screening for colorectal cancer

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

2
47
3
2

Year Published

2005
2005
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
2
47
3
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Several studies have suggested that immunochemical FOBT (I-FOBT) is more sensitive and specific than G-FOBT Saito et al, 2000;Zappa et al, 2001; Levi et al, 2006;Guittet et al, 2007), requiring no dietary restrictions, and might substantially improve screening cost effectiveness Saito et al, 2000). Further progress in I-FOBT use was made by the introduction of the latex agglutination test (LAT), a quantitative and fully automated test (Yamamoto et al, 1990), which made it possible to choose the positivity cutoff values to optimise the balance between sensitivity and specificity, though the debate about the optimal cutoff point continues (Itoh et al, 1996;Castiglione et al, 2000;Nakama et al, 2001;Edwards, 2005;Vilkin et al, 2005). Sensitivity of G-FOBT and a previously used I-FOBT (reversed passive haemagglutination (RPHA)) for CRC, based on proportional interval cancer incidence, was determined previously (Zappa et al, 2001).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several studies have suggested that immunochemical FOBT (I-FOBT) is more sensitive and specific than G-FOBT Saito et al, 2000;Zappa et al, 2001; Levi et al, 2006;Guittet et al, 2007), requiring no dietary restrictions, and might substantially improve screening cost effectiveness Saito et al, 2000). Further progress in I-FOBT use was made by the introduction of the latex agglutination test (LAT), a quantitative and fully automated test (Yamamoto et al, 1990), which made it possible to choose the positivity cutoff values to optimise the balance between sensitivity and specificity, though the debate about the optimal cutoff point continues (Itoh et al, 1996;Castiglione et al, 2000;Nakama et al, 2001;Edwards, 2005;Vilkin et al, 2005). Sensitivity of G-FOBT and a previously used I-FOBT (reversed passive haemagglutination (RPHA)) for CRC, based on proportional interval cancer incidence, was determined previously (Zappa et al, 2001).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Considering economic aspects, we took advantage of q-FIT to achieve an increase in test sensitivity by decreasing the cut-off value and, with respect to specificity; we chose the best cut-off point using a q-FIT. The technology of q-FIT ensures ideal sensitivity/specificity ratio by virtue of the quantitative results [18][19][20][21] . The lower proportion of complete colonoscopies in our survey was due to the exclusion of patients with poor preparation who were not willing to undergo repeated colonoscopy within the specified time-frame.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Physiologic blood loss from the gastrointestinal tract has been estimated to be 0.32±0.09 mg/g stool (20). Nakama et al (21) reported that 150 ng/ml of fecal hemoglobin was the optimal cut-off point when carrying out the OC-hemodia test as a means of screening for colorectal cancer, but no significant difference was observed in the specificities between 50 and 150 ng/ml. In our study, a positive FOBT result was defined as > 100 ng/ml fecal hemoglobin.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%