Diagnostic Accuracy of FOBT and Colorectal Cancer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis

Abdul Rahman Ramdzan; Muhammad Aklil Abd Rahim; Aznida Mohamad Zaki; Zuraidah Zaidun; Azmawati Mohammed Nawi

doi:10.5334/aogh.2466

Diagnostic Accuracy of FOBT and Colorectal Cancer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis

Annals of Global Health

Volume 85 (2019): Issue 1

By: Abdul Rahman Ramdzan , Muhammad Aklil Abd Rahim , Aznida Mohamad Zaki , Zuraidah Zaidun and Azmawati Mohammed Nawi

Open Access

|May 2019

Abstract

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer related death in the world after lung cancer. Early detection of CRC leads to improvement in cancer survival rate. In recent years, efforts have been made to discover a non-invasive screening marker of higher sensitivity and specificity. Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and genetic testing become alternative modalities to screen CRC in the population other than colonoscopy. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of FOBT and genetic testing as screening tools in colorectal cancer.

Methods: A literature search of PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus was carried out. The search strategy was restricted to human subjects and studies are published in English. Data on sensitivity and specificity were extracted and pooled. Heterogeneity was assumed at significance level of p < 0.10 and was tested by chi squared. Degree of heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic, and values of less than 25% is considered as homogenous. All analyses were performed using the software Meta-Disc.

Results: A total of eleven studies were suitable for data synthesis and analysis. Five studies were analyzed for the accuracy of genetic testing, the pooled estimate for sensitivity and specificity were 71% (95% CI: 66, 75%) and 95% (95% CI: 93, 97%) respectively. Another group of studies which had been evaluated for the accuracy of FOBT, the pooled sensitivity was 31% (95% CI: 25, 38%) while the pooled specificity was 87% (95% CI: 86, 89%).

Conclusions: FOBTs is recommended to use as population-based screening tools for colorectal cancer while genetic testing should be focusing on patients with moderate and high risk individuals.

References

World Health Organization (WHO). Cancer; fact sheet no 297 2014. Available from: http://www.who.int/medacentre/factsheets/fs297/en.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
American Cancer Society. Colorectal Cancer Facts & Figures 2011–2013; 2013.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sung JJ, Ng SC, Chan FK, et al. An updated Asia Pacific Consensus Recommendations on colorectal cancer screening. Gut. 2015; 64(1): 121–32. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306503
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cairns SR, Scholefield JH, Steele RJ, et al. Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in moderate- and high-risk groups (update from 2002). Gut. 2010; 59(5): 666–89. DOI: 10.1136/gut.2009.179804
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ministry of Health. Clinical Guidelines Practice: Management of Colorectal Cancer. Malaysia Health Technology Assessment Section (MaHTAS) 2017.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Von Karsa L, Patnick J, Segnan N, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: Overview and introduction to the full supplement publication. Endoscopy. 2013; 45(1): 51–9. DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1325997
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Liles E, Beil TL and Fu R. Screening for colorectal cancer: A targeted, updated systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Annals of internal medicine. 2008; 149(9): 638–58. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-149-9-200811040-00245
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Qaseem A, Denberg TD, Hopkins RH, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: A guidance statement from the American College of Physicians. Annals of internal medicine. 2012; 156(5): 378–86. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-5-201203060-00010
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, Schoenfeld PS, Burke CA and Inadomi JM. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected]. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2009; 104(3): 739–50. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2009.104
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA, et al. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Jama. 2016; 315(23): 2576–94. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.3332
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zhu MM, Xu XT, Nie F, Tong JL, Xiao SD and Ran ZH. Comparison of immunochemical and guaiac-based fecal occult blood test in screening and surveillance for advanced colorectal neoplasms: A meta-analysis. Journal of digestive diseases. 2010; 11(3): 148–60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-2980.2010.00430.x
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Irwig L, Towler B and Watson E. Screening for colorectal cancer using the fecal occult blood test, Hemoccult. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2007; 1: Cd001216. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001216.pub2
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ministry of Health. Health Technology Assessment Section (MaHTAS) MDD, Ministry of Health Malaysia. Immunochemical Faecal Occult Blood Test (IFOBT) For Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening. MOH/P/PAK/233. 12(TR). 2011.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fuzi SAM, Sabirin J and Hussain S. Health Technology Assessment Report- Immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Test (IFOBT) For Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening; 2012.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: A joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA: A cancer journal for clinicians. 2008; 58(3): 130–60. DOI: 10.3322/CA.2007.0018
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Taylor DP, Burt RW, Williams MS, Haug PJ and Cannon-Albright LA. Population-based family history—specific risks for colorectal cancer: A constellation approach. Gastroenterology. 2010; 138(3): 877–85. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.11.044
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Giardiello FM, Allen JI, Axilbund JE, et al. Guidelines on genetic evaluation and management of Lynch syndrome: A consensus statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Diseases of the colon and rectum. 2014; 57(8): 1025–48. DOI: 10.1097/DCR.000000000000000
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vasen HF, Watson P, Mecklin JP and Lynch HT. New clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) proposed by the International Collaborative group on HNPCC. Gastroenterology. 1999; 116(6): 1453–6. DOI: 10.1016/S0016-5085(99)70510-X
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Boland CR, Hamilton SR, et al. A National Cancer Institute Workshop on Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer Syndrome: Meeting highlights and Bethesda guidelines. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1997; 89(23): 1758–62. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/89.23.1758
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Umar A, Boland CR, Terdiman JP, et al. Revised Bethesda guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2004; 96(4): 261–8. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djh034
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nieuwenhuis MH, Vogt S, Jones N, et al. Evidence for accelerated colorectal adenoma-carcinoma progression in MUTYH-associated polyposis? Gut. 2012; 61(5): 734–8. DOI: 10.1136/gut.2010.229104
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kievit W, de Bruin JH, Adang EM, et al. Current clinical selection strategies for identification of hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer families are inadequate: A meta-analysis. Clin Genet. 2004; 65(4): 308–16. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2004.00220.x
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kastrinos F, Balmana J and Syngal S. Prediction models in Lynch syndrome. Fam Cancer. 2013; 12(2): 217–28. DOI: 10.1007/s10689-013-9632-0
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Griffith GL, Edwards RT and Gray J. Cancer genetics services: A systematic review of the economic evidence and issues. British journal of cancer. 2004; 90(9): 1697–703. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601792
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Liu Z, Yao Z, Li C, et al. A step-by-step guide to the systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic and prognostic test accuracy evaluations. British journal of cancer. 2013; 108(11): 2299–303. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.185
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PMM and Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: A tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2003; 3(1): 25. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-3-25
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Whiting PF, Weswood ME, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PNM and Kleijnen J. Evaluation of QUADAS: A tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC medical research methodology. 2006; 6: 9. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-9
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hirai HW, Tsoi KK, Chan JY, et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: Fecal occult blood tests show lower colorectal cancer detection rates in the proximal colon in colonoscopy-verified diagnostic studies. Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics. 2016; 43(7): 755–64. DOI: 10.1111/apt.13556
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Shapiro JA, Bobo JK, Church TR, et al. A Comparison of Fecal Immunochemical and High-Sensitivity Guaiac Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2017; 112(11): 1728–35. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2017.285
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jucá MJ, Assuncão PRT and Hasten-Reiter Júnior HN. Fecal occult blood test and flexible rectosigmoidoscopy: Tools for the screening of colorectal neoplasms in asymptomatic patients. Journal of Coloproctology. 2015; 35(1): 35–41. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcol.2015.01.002
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Elsafi SH, Alqahtani NI, Zakary NY and Al Zahrani EM. The sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios of fecal occult blood test for the detection of colorectal cancer in hospital settings. Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology. 2015; 8: 279–84. DOI: 10.2147/CEG.S86419
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lohsiriwat V. Accuracy of self-checked fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer in Thai patients. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. 2014; 15(18): 7981–4. DOI: 10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.18.7981
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Redwood D, Provost E, Asay E, et al. Comparison of fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer screening in an Alaska native population with high prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection, 2008–2012. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2014; 11(4). DOI: 10.5888/pcd11.130281
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Yeasmin F, Ali M, Rahman M, Sultana T, Rahman MQ and Ahmed A. A comparative study of chemical and immunological method of fecal occult blood test in the diagnosis of occult lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Bangladesh Medical Research Council Bulletin. 2014; 39(2): 52–6. DOI: 10.3329/bmrcb.v39i2.19641
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Xie L, Jiang X, Li Q, et al. Diagnostic value of methylated Septin9 for colorectal cancer detection. Frontiers in Oncology. 2018 July; 8. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00247
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Johnson DH, Taylor WR, Aboelsoud MM, et al. DNA methylation and mutation of small colonic neoplasms in Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn’s Colitis: Implications for surveillance. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. 2016; 22(7): 1559–67. DOI: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000000795
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kanth P, Bronner MP, Boucher KM, et al. Gene signature in sessile serrated polyps identifies colon cancer subtype. Cancer Prevention Research. 2016; 9(6): 456–65. DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-15-0363
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dvorak K, Aggeler B, Palting J, McKelvie P, Ruszkiewicz A and Waring P. Immunohistochemistry with the anti-BRAF V600E (VE1) antibody: Impact of pre-analytical conditions and concordance with DNA sequencing in colorectal and papillary thyroid carcinoma. Pathology. 2014; 46(6): 509–17. DOI: 10.1097/PAT.0000000000000119
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Amiot A, Mansour H, Baumgaertner I, et al. The detection of the methylated Wif-1 gene is more accurate than a fecal occult blood test for colorectal cancer screening. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9(7). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099233
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.2466 | Journal eISSN: 2214-9996

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Published on: May 15, 2019

Published by: Ubiquity Press

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2019 Abdul Rahman Ramdzan, Muhammad Aklil Abd Rahim, Aznida Mohamad Zaki, Zuraidah Zaidun, Azmawati Mohammed Nawi, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 85 (2019): Issue 1