A comparative effectiveness trial of two faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT). Assessment of test performance and adherence in a single round of a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer

Basilio Passamonti; Morena Malaspina; Callum G Fraser; Beatrice Tintori; Angela Carlani; Valentina D'Angelo; Paola Galeazzi; Eugenio Di Dato; Loretta Mariotti; Simonetta Bulletti; Maria Rosaria D'Amico; Daniela Gustinucci; Nadia Martinelli; Nicoletta Spita; Elena Cesarini; Tiziana Rubeca; Mariadonata Giaimo; Nereo Segnan; Carlo Senore

doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312716

A comparative effectiveness trial of two faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT). Assessment of test performance and adherence in a single round of a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer

Basilio Passamonti, Morena Malaspina (Lead / Corresponding author), Callum G Fraser, Beatrice Tintori, Angela Carlani, Valentina D'Angelo, Paola Galeazzi, Eugenio Di Dato, Loretta Mariotti, Simonetta Bulletti, Maria Rosaria D'Amico, Daniela Gustinucci, Nadia Martinelli, Nicoletta Spita, Elena Cesarini, Tiziana Rubeca, Mariadonata Giaimo, Nereo Segnan, Carlo Senore

Population Health and Genomics

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

29 Citations (Scopus)

448 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Aim: To compare acceptability and diagnostic accuracy of a recently available faecal immunochemical test (FIT) system (HM-JACKarc) with the FIT routinely used in an established screening programme (OC-Sensor).

Design: Randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN20086618) within a population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme. Subjects eligible for invitation in the Umbria Region (Italy) programme were randomised (ratio 1:1) to be screened using one of the FIT systems.

Results: Screening uptake among the 48 888 invitees was the same for both systems among subjects invited in the first round and higher with OC-Sensor than with HM-JACKarc (relative risk (RR): 1.03; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.04) among those invited in subsequent rounds. Positivity rate (PR) was similar with OC-Sensor (6.5%) as with HM-JACKarc (6.2%) among subjects performing their first FIT screening and higher with OC-Sensor (5.6%, RR: 1.25, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.40) than with HM-JACKarc (4.4%) among those screened in previous rounds. Positive predictive value (PPV) (OC-Sensor: 25.9%, HM-JACKarc: 25.6%) and detection rate (DR) (OC-Sensor: 1.40%; HM-JACKarc: 1.42%) for advanced neoplasia (AN: CRC + advanced adenoma) were similar among subjects performing their first FIT screening. The differences in the AN PPV (OC-Sensor: 20.3%, HM-JACKarc: 22.6%) and DR (OC-Sensor: 0.96%, HM-JACKarc: 0.83%) among those screened in previous rounds were not statistically significant. The number needed to scope to detect one AN was 3.9 (95% CI 5.8 to 2.9) and 3.9 (95% CI 5.5 to 2.9) at first and 4.9 (95% CI 5.8 to 4.2) and 4.4 (95% CI 5.3 to 3.7) at subsequent screening, with OC-Sensor and HM-JACKarc, respectively.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that acceptability and diagnostic performance of HM-JACKarc and of OC-Sensor systems are similar in a screening setting.

Trial registration number: ISRCTN20086618; Results.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	485-496
Number of pages	12
Journal	Gut
Volume	67
Issue number	3
Early online date	8 Feb 2018
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312716
Publication status	Published - Mar 2018

Keywords

Aged
Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis
Comparative Effectiveness Research
Early Detection of Cancer/methods
Feces/chemistry
Female
Hemoglobins/analysis
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data
Predictive Value of Tests
Colorectal Cancer Screening
Screening
Cancer Prevention

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Gastroenterology

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312716

Author Accepted ManuscriptAccepted author manuscript, 777 KB

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A comparative effectiveness trial of two faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT). Assessment of test performance and adherence in a single round of a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

Passamonti, B., Malaspina, M., Fraser, C. G., Tintori, B., Carlani, A., D'Angelo, V., Galeazzi, P., Di Dato, E., Mariotti, L., Bulletti, S., D'Amico, M. R., Gustinucci, D., Martinelli, N., Spita, N., Cesarini, E., Rubeca, T., Giaimo, M., Segnan, N., & Senore, C. (2018). A comparative effectiveness trial of two faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT). Assessment of test performance and adherence in a single round of a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer. Gut, 67(3), 485-496. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312716

@article{ad6fcca18d86449b85370c8bb98ced3e,

title = "A comparative effectiveness trial of two faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT). Assessment of test performance and adherence in a single round of a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer",

abstract = "Aim: To compare acceptability and diagnostic accuracy of a recently available faecal immunochemical test (FIT) system (HM-JACKarc) with the FIT routinely used in an established screening programme (OC-Sensor).Design: Randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN20086618) within a population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme. Subjects eligible for invitation in the Umbria Region (Italy) programme were randomised (ratio 1:1) to be screened using one of the FIT systems.Results: Screening uptake among the 48 888 invitees was the same for both systems among subjects invited in the first round and higher with OC-Sensor than with HM-JACKarc (relative risk (RR): 1.03; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.04) among those invited in subsequent rounds. Positivity rate (PR) was similar with OC-Sensor (6.5%) as with HM-JACKarc (6.2%) among subjects performing their first FIT screening and higher with OC-Sensor (5.6%, RR: 1.25, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.40) than with HM-JACKarc (4.4%) among those screened in previous rounds. Positive predictive value (PPV) (OC-Sensor: 25.9%, HM-JACKarc: 25.6%) and detection rate (DR) (OC-Sensor: 1.40%; HM-JACKarc: 1.42%) for advanced neoplasia (AN: CRC + advanced adenoma) were similar among subjects performing their first FIT screening. The differences in the AN PPV (OC-Sensor: 20.3%, HM-JACKarc: 22.6%) and DR (OC-Sensor: 0.96%, HM-JACKarc: 0.83%) among those screened in previous rounds were not statistically significant. The number needed to scope to detect one AN was 3.9 (95% CI 5.8 to 2.9) and 3.9 (95% CI 5.5 to 2.9) at first and 4.9 (95% CI 5.8 to 4.2) and 4.4 (95% CI 5.3 to 3.7) at subsequent screening, with OC-Sensor and HM-JACKarc, respectively.Conclusions: Our results suggest that acceptability and diagnostic performance of HM-JACKarc and of OC-Sensor systems are similar in a screening setting.Trial registration number: ISRCTN20086618; Results.",

keywords = "Aged, Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis, Comparative Effectiveness Research, Early Detection of Cancer/methods, Feces/chemistry, Female, Hemoglobins/analysis, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data, Predictive Value of Tests, Colorectal Cancer Screening, Screening, Cancer Prevention",

author = "Basilio Passamonti and Morena Malaspina and Fraser, {Callum G} and Beatrice Tintori and Angela Carlani and Valentina D'Angelo and Paola Galeazzi and {Di Dato}, Eugenio and Loretta Mariotti and Simonetta Bulletti and D'Amico, {Maria Rosaria} and Daniela Gustinucci and Nadia Martinelli and Nicoletta Spita and Elena Cesarini and Tiziana Rubeca and Mariadonata Giaimo and Nereo Segnan and Carlo Senore",

note = "The study was funded by the Umbria Regional Health Authority Kyowa Medex and Menarini provided the faecal immunochemical test used in the study.",

year = "2018",

month = mar,

doi = "10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312716",

language = "English",

volume = "67",

pages = "485--496",

journal = "Gut",

issn = "0017-5749",

publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

number = "3",

}

Passamonti, B, Malaspina, M, Fraser, CG, Tintori, B, Carlani, A, D'Angelo, V, Galeazzi, P, Di Dato, E, Mariotti, L, Bulletti, S, D'Amico, MR, Gustinucci, D, Martinelli, N, Spita, N, Cesarini, E, Rubeca, T, Giaimo, M, Segnan, N & Senore, C 2018, 'A comparative effectiveness trial of two faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT). Assessment of test performance and adherence in a single round of a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer', Gut, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 485-496. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312716

A comparative effectiveness trial of two faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT). Assessment of test performance and adherence in a single round of a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer. / Passamonti, Basilio; Malaspina, Morena (Lead / Corresponding author); Fraser, Callum G et al.
In: Gut, Vol. 67, No. 3, 03.2018, p. 485-496.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparative effectiveness trial of two faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT). Assessment of test performance and adherence in a single round of a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer

AU - Passamonti, Basilio

AU - Malaspina, Morena

AU - Fraser, Callum G

AU - Tintori, Beatrice

AU - Carlani, Angela

AU - D'Angelo, Valentina

AU - Galeazzi, Paola

AU - Di Dato, Eugenio

AU - Mariotti, Loretta

AU - Bulletti, Simonetta

AU - D'Amico, Maria Rosaria

AU - Gustinucci, Daniela

AU - Martinelli, Nadia

AU - Spita, Nicoletta

AU - Cesarini, Elena

AU - Rubeca, Tiziana

AU - Giaimo, Mariadonata

AU - Segnan, Nereo

AU - Senore, Carlo

N1 - The study was funded by the Umbria Regional Health Authority Kyowa Medex and Menarini provided the faecal immunochemical test used in the study.

PY - 2018/3

Y1 - 2018/3

N2 - Aim: To compare acceptability and diagnostic accuracy of a recently available faecal immunochemical test (FIT) system (HM-JACKarc) with the FIT routinely used in an established screening programme (OC-Sensor).Design: Randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN20086618) within a population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme. Subjects eligible for invitation in the Umbria Region (Italy) programme were randomised (ratio 1:1) to be screened using one of the FIT systems.Results: Screening uptake among the 48 888 invitees was the same for both systems among subjects invited in the first round and higher with OC-Sensor than with HM-JACKarc (relative risk (RR): 1.03; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.04) among those invited in subsequent rounds. Positivity rate (PR) was similar with OC-Sensor (6.5%) as with HM-JACKarc (6.2%) among subjects performing their first FIT screening and higher with OC-Sensor (5.6%, RR: 1.25, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.40) than with HM-JACKarc (4.4%) among those screened in previous rounds. Positive predictive value (PPV) (OC-Sensor: 25.9%, HM-JACKarc: 25.6%) and detection rate (DR) (OC-Sensor: 1.40%; HM-JACKarc: 1.42%) for advanced neoplasia (AN: CRC + advanced adenoma) were similar among subjects performing their first FIT screening. The differences in the AN PPV (OC-Sensor: 20.3%, HM-JACKarc: 22.6%) and DR (OC-Sensor: 0.96%, HM-JACKarc: 0.83%) among those screened in previous rounds were not statistically significant. The number needed to scope to detect one AN was 3.9 (95% CI 5.8 to 2.9) and 3.9 (95% CI 5.5 to 2.9) at first and 4.9 (95% CI 5.8 to 4.2) and 4.4 (95% CI 5.3 to 3.7) at subsequent screening, with OC-Sensor and HM-JACKarc, respectively.Conclusions: Our results suggest that acceptability and diagnostic performance of HM-JACKarc and of OC-Sensor systems are similar in a screening setting.Trial registration number: ISRCTN20086618; Results.

AB - Aim: To compare acceptability and diagnostic accuracy of a recently available faecal immunochemical test (FIT) system (HM-JACKarc) with the FIT routinely used in an established screening programme (OC-Sensor).Design: Randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN20086618) within a population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme. Subjects eligible for invitation in the Umbria Region (Italy) programme were randomised (ratio 1:1) to be screened using one of the FIT systems.Results: Screening uptake among the 48 888 invitees was the same for both systems among subjects invited in the first round and higher with OC-Sensor than with HM-JACKarc (relative risk (RR): 1.03; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.04) among those invited in subsequent rounds. Positivity rate (PR) was similar with OC-Sensor (6.5%) as with HM-JACKarc (6.2%) among subjects performing their first FIT screening and higher with OC-Sensor (5.6%, RR: 1.25, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.40) than with HM-JACKarc (4.4%) among those screened in previous rounds. Positive predictive value (PPV) (OC-Sensor: 25.9%, HM-JACKarc: 25.6%) and detection rate (DR) (OC-Sensor: 1.40%; HM-JACKarc: 1.42%) for advanced neoplasia (AN: CRC + advanced adenoma) were similar among subjects performing their first FIT screening. The differences in the AN PPV (OC-Sensor: 20.3%, HM-JACKarc: 22.6%) and DR (OC-Sensor: 0.96%, HM-JACKarc: 0.83%) among those screened in previous rounds were not statistically significant. The number needed to scope to detect one AN was 3.9 (95% CI 5.8 to 2.9) and 3.9 (95% CI 5.5 to 2.9) at first and 4.9 (95% CI 5.8 to 4.2) and 4.4 (95% CI 5.3 to 3.7) at subsequent screening, with OC-Sensor and HM-JACKarc, respectively.Conclusions: Our results suggest that acceptability and diagnostic performance of HM-JACKarc and of OC-Sensor systems are similar in a screening setting.Trial registration number: ISRCTN20086618; Results.

KW - Aged

KW - Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis

KW - Comparative Effectiveness Research

KW - Early Detection of Cancer/methods

KW - Feces/chemistry

KW - Female

KW - Hemoglobins/analysis

KW - Humans

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data

KW - Predictive Value of Tests

KW - Colorectal Cancer Screening

KW - Screening

KW - Cancer Prevention

U2 - 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312716

DO - 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312716

M3 - Article

C2 - 27974550

SN - 0017-5749

VL - 67

SP - 485

EP - 496

JO - Gut

JF - Gut

IS - 3

ER -

Passamonti B, Malaspina M, Fraser CG, Tintori B, Carlani A, D'Angelo V et al. A comparative effectiveness trial of two faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT). Assessment of test performance and adherence in a single round of a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer. Gut. 2018 Mar;67(3):485-496. Epub 2018 Feb 8. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312716