7/30/2019 fobt_spec

1/2

Log In Register eMedicine MedGenMed

Latest News CME Conferences Resource Centers Journals & Reference Experts & Viewpoints

Search Medscape, eMedicine, MEDLINE and Drug Reference Search

From Medscape Gastroenterology

Viewpoints

Sensitivity and Specificity of a Quantitative

Immunochemical FOBT for Colorectal NeoplasiaPosted 04/10/2007

David A. Johnson, MD, FACG, FACPAuthor Information

A Quantitative Immunochemical Fecal Occult BloodTest for Colorectal Neoplasia

Levi Z, Rozen P, Hazazi R, et alAnn Intern Med. 2007;146:244-255

Summary

The screening rates for colorectal cancer, although increasing as aresult of enhanced insurance coverage and patient education, remain low relative to other well-established

screening programs. It has been shown that stool-based testing for occult blood reduces colorectal cancerincidence and related mortality. This type of testing relies on the guaiac-based detection of the peroxidaseactivity of hemoglobin. The drawbacks of this testing strategy include a relatively poor sensitivity for colorectalcancer (even poorer for precancerous adenomas) and a poor specificity. Therefore, it is associated with ahigh rate of false-positive results. Additionally, the test is not specific for human hemoglobin and thus, foodcontaining hemoglobin (red meats) or other foods with pseudoperoxidase activity may yield positive results.

Immunochemical fecal occult blood tests (I-FOBT) were developed with the goal of improving specificity andeliminating the cross-reactivity for dietary influences of hemoccult-based FOBT. I-FOBT involves the use ofone or more monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies to detect human hemoglobin. This test, which reportsfindings qualitatively (ie, as positive or negative), has been recommended as a replacement for FOBT by theAmerican Cancer Society, although it has not yet been recommended as such by the Multisociety ColorectalTask Force Guidelines group nor has it become an established clinical practice in the United States. Oneunique aspect of the I-FOBT is that it allows for variation of the threshold for detection of human hemoglobinand therefore may offer varying ranges of sensitivity and specificity.

This prospective cross-sectional study involved 1000 consecutive ambulatory patients, some of whom weresymptomatic, who were undergoing elective colonoscopy in Israel. The hemoglobin content of 3 bowelmovements was measured and the highest value of these 3 stools was taken as the reportable result andcompared with the colonoscopic findings. Forty-nine patients were excluded because of incompletecolonoscopy. Polyps were removed and analyzed by pathologists blinded to the I-FOBT results. Clinicallysignificant neoplasia was defined as colon cancer or advanced polyps ( 1 cm or with 20% villous histology,or any high-grade dysplasia).

The patients submitted I-FOBT results from 3 daily or consecutive stool samples before the colonoscopy.There were no restrictions on diet or medications other than discontinuing aspirin and anticoagulant therapy,when present. The diagnostic value of the I-FOBT was assessed using thresholds for detection at themanufacturer's suggested threshold for detection of 100 ng/mL of buffer, as well as at different thresholdsranging from 50 ng/mL to 200 ng/mL. At the 100-ng/mL fecal hemoglobin threshold, the sensitivity and

Printer-Friendly Email This Discuss This

Assess clinically focused productinformation on Medscape.

Click Here for ProductInfosites -- Information fromIndustry.

Information from Industry

Page 1 of 2Quantitative Immunochemical FOBT for Colorectal Neoplasia

12/5/2007http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/553935

7/30/2019 fobt_spec

2/2

specificity for detection of colorectal cancer was 88% and 90%, respectively, and for detection of "significantneoplasia" was 62% and 93%, respectively. Variation of the threshold to 75 ng/mL of buffer improved thesensitivity for detection of cancer and significant neoplasia to 94% and 67%, respectively, but at the trade-offof a reduced specificity of 88% and 91%, respectively.

The correlation coefficients between any two of the 3 I-FOBT samples showed a range of 0.553 to 0.599.These moderate correlations presumably reflect the variability in day-to-day blood loss from the colonneoplasm and are analogous to the variability seen in testing with the guaiac-based FOBT. To eliminate work-

up bias in those patients who were symptomatic or had a positive FOBT, the cancers discovered in theseindividuals was removed from the analysis. This lowered the cancer detection sensitivity slightly from 94% to90% but removed patients that might be deemed "higher risk" from the true "average-risk" population.

Viewpoint

Although this study was not conducted in a pure "screening" population, the removal of patients undergoingdirected testing because of clinical reasons makes the remaining population more reflective of true screening.Despite this adjustment, however, there was no significant loss in the sensitivity -- which was remarkably highfor colorectal cancer compared with previous FOBT reports.

The unique feature of having variable thresholds to choose from may allow the physician to adjust thethresholds to suit the patient's clinical characteristics. For example, if an elderly patient with multiple medicalproblems were being considered for screening but there was some hesitancy regarding performing apotentially unnecessary colonoscopy, the threshold could be set to maximize specificity, albeit at arecognizable potential loss in specificity. Although we are not yet at this point, it is conceivable that these

types of discussions between patients and their care providers may occur in the future. For example: "Withthis threshold for blood detection, you have an (X) % chance of cancer or advanced adenoma." Anotheradvantage of I-FOBT is that this test is automated, precluding the variability of test interpretation that isevident with FOBT.

Before one might think this new test to be "perfect," further validation of these high rates of success is clearlywarranted. The question remains in this physician's mind as to how such high rates are achieved, as bleedingfrom cancers, much less polyps, is quite sporadic and variable -- thus accounting for the lower success ratesachieved with fecal blood detection tests to date.

A recent study from France[1] compared the performance of FOBT and I-FOBT among 10,673 average-riskpatients. These authors found that at a threshold of 75 ng/mL, there was a slight gain in the positive predictivevalue for cancer detection with I-FOBT vs FOBT (8.7 vs 7.3) but an even greater gain in the positive predictivevalue for advanced adenomas (49.2 vs 27.7, respectively). However, not every patient with a positive testunderwent colonoscopy. Therefore, although I-FOBT may appear to be "better" than FOBT, it will be up to the

insurers to pay for this more expensive test (cost: $18-$30; Medicare reimbursement: $22 compared withstandard FOBT [cost: $1-$3; Medicare reimbursement $4.72]) and it will be up to guideline committees toconsider how this test will be profiled in the growing "menu" of nonendoscopic screening options for colorectalcancer.

Abstract URL:http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/17310048

References | Related Links

Medscape Gastroenterology. 2007; 2007 Medscape

Printer- Friendly Email This

About Medscape Privacy & Ethics Terms of Use WebMD Health WebMD Corporate Help

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright 1994-2007 by Medscape. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

Search Medscape, eMedicine, MEDLINE and Drug Reference Search

Page 2 of 2Quantitative Immunochemical FOBT for Colorectal Neoplasia

12/5/2007http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/553935