Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic value of occult fecal blood testing in mass colorectal cancer screening.
METHODS: A reverse passive hemagglutination reaction fecal occult blood test (RPHA-FOBT) and colorectal cancer risk factor quantitative method were used as preliminary screening for colorectal cancer. A 60-cm fiber optic colonoscopy was used to validate the preliminary screen and was used to detect colorectal cancer in a community of 75813 subjects.
RESULTS: Compared to the 60-cm fiber optic colonoscopy as a standard reference, FOBT has a sensitivity of 41.9%, specificity of 95.8%, Youden′s index of 0.38, and positive predictive value of 0.68%. These results increased with subject age from the first detection. A 3-year follow up in the target mass showed that all new cases had initially been FOBT-negative.
CONCLUSION: The value of FOBT as an indicator of colorectal cancer in mass screening is limited.
Keywords: Colorectal neoplasms/diagnosis, Occult blood, Mass screening, Risk factors, Colonoscopy
INTRODUCTION
Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) was first reported by Greegor in 1967 as a useful index in mass colorectal cancer screening[1]. Immunochemical FOBT is currently used worldwide[2-5] to detect early colorectal cancer, but the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of this method varies greatly with the differences in the selected masses. Reverse passive hemagglutination reaction fecal occult blood testing (RPHA-FOBT) was established by Zhou et al[4] in 1987. Since then, this method has been used among patients and colorectal cancer high risk populations with histories of rectal polyps or ulcers. The sensitivity for the two groups was 89% and 64%, respectively, and the positive predictive values were 100% and 1.5%, respectively. These results were statistically significantly different[6]. The value of RPHA-FOBT as a mass screening indicator and its relationship with a 3-year cumulative incidence rate (CIR) of colorectal cancer in a population aged ≥ 30 years is reported in this study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RPHA-FOBT and colorectal cancer risk factor quantitative methods[7] were implemented as a preliminary screening procedure, and a 60-cm fiber optic colonoscopy was performed as an accurate screening from May 1989 to May 1990 in Jianshan County, an area of the highest colorectal cancer incidence rate in China[8]. In this study, 75813 subjects were randomly selected from ten towns in Jianshan County. Of the 62611 subjects tested (82.6%), 43 colorectal cancer cases were identified, with a total detection rate of 68.7/10.5. A total of 70% of the 43 cases were classified as either Dukes A or B, the early stages of colorectal cancer.
The entire population studied was surveyed for colorectal cancer incidence. Fifty-three new cases were identified from May 1990 to May 1992, totaling 96 cases within 3 years from May 1989 to May 1992, making the CIR 153.3 per 105 people.
RPHA-FOBT kits were purchased from the Basic Medical Sciences Institute of Zhejiang Medical University[3,4]. Fecal samples were sent to the local hospital by the examiners, smeared on slides, and transferred to the Lab of Cancer Research Institute of Zhejiang Medical University.
RESULTS
Diagnostic value of RPHA-FOBT in mass colorectal cancer screening
FOBT sensitivities in this natural community were 43.5% in males and 40.0% and females, but the specificity was over 95%. There was no statistical significance in Youden′s index (J) between males and females (0.39 vs 0.36, u = 0.199, P > 0.05, Table 1).
Table 1.
Diagnostic value of PRHA-FOBT (passive hemagglutination reaction fecal occult blood testing) by age group
| Sex | n | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | J | PV (+) |
| Men | 30177 | 43.5 | 95.9 | 0.39 | 0.81 |
| Women | 32434 | 40 | 95.7 | 0.36 | 0.56 |
| Total | 62611 | 41.9 | 95.8 | 0.38 | 0.68 |
The total positive predictive value (PV) of RPHA-FOBT was 0.68% (Table 1). This indicated that endoscopic screening is too large of a scale for epidemiologists, as only approximately seven subjects among 1000 that screened positive with RPHA-FOBT. There was no statistical significance in the positive predictive value (0.81% vs 0.56%, χ2 = 0.583, P > 0.05) between men and women.
Relationship between age and RPHA-FOBT
Colorectal cancer prevalence rates vary with age, and the mass screening results correlated well with the prevalence rate. As the American Association of Cancer has suggested, people over the age of 40 should take the FOBT annually[9]. As shown in Table 2, the diagnostic index increased with the initial age of screening; i.e., the sensitivity rose from 43.5% to 50.0% in men, and from 40.0% to 55.6% in women, and the positive predictive value (PV+) increased by 1%.
Table 2.
Diagnostic value of PRHA-FOBT (reversed passive hemagglutination reaction fecal occult blood testing) by age group
| Age (yrs) | Sex | Case/mass | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PV(+) (%) |
| 30-39 | Men | 23/30177 | 43.5 | 95.9 | 0.81 |
| Women | 20/32434 | 40 | 95.7 | 0.56 | |
| Total | 43/62611 | 41.9 | 95.8 | 0.68 | |
| 40-49 | Men | 22/19026 | 40.9 | 95.9 | 1.15 |
| Women | 18/20517 | 38.9 | 95.6 | 0.77 | |
| Total | 40/39543 | 40 | 95.8 | 0.94 | |
| 50-59 | Men | 19/10891 | 47.4 | 95.9 | 1.96 |
| Women | 15/12497 | 46.7 | 95.3 | 1.18 | |
| Total | 34/23388 | 47.1 | 95.6 | 1.52 | |
| ≥ 60 | Men | 8/4856 | 50 | 95.2 | 1.68 |
| Women | 9/6219 | 55.6 | 94.8 | 1.53 | |
| Total | 17/11075 | 52.9 | 95 | 1.6 |
Follow-up of the target population
We surveyed 62611 subjects for three years to observe the long-term values of the RPHA-FOBT results for colorectal cancer. We compared the one-year CIR (CIR1) and three-year CIR (CIR3) in FOBT-positive and -negative subjects in females and males. Because FOBT-positive subjects underwent endoscopic screening, there was no change between CIR1 and CIR3 of the FOBT-positive subjects (u = 0), while there were statistically significant differences between CIR1 and CIR3 of FOBT-negative females and males. In FOBT-negative males and females, the CIR3 was 2.3 and 1.9 times higher than CIR1, respectively. These results demonstrate that many colorectal cancer patients were misdiagnosed because of their negative FOBT results (Table 3), and the false negative rate was very high.
Table 3.
CIR1 and CIR3 (One-year cumulative incidence rate and three-year cumulative incidence rate) by sex and RPHA-FOBT (reversed passive hemagglutination reaction fecal occult blood testing) Results
| Sex |
FOBT (+) |
FOBT (-) |
||||||
| n | CIR1 | CIR3 | u1 | n | CIR1 | CIR3 | u1 | |
| Men | 1236 | 809.1 | 809.1 | 0 | 28941 | 44.9 | 148.6 | 4.01b |
| Women | 1417 | 564.6 | 564.6 | 0 | 31017 | 38.7 | 112.3 | 3.35b |
| Total | 2653 | 678.5 | 678.5 | 0 | 59958 | 41.7 | 130.1 | 5.55b |
P < 0.01; 1u = (|x1 - x2|)/( x1 + x2)1/2.
DISCUSSION
We used RPHA-FOBT and the colorectal cancer risk factor quantitative method as preliminary screening procedures, and a 60-cm fiber optic colonoscopy, which could reach the splenocolic curve, as the accuracy screening procedure in FOBT-positive subjects and the high risk population indicated by the quantitative method. We determined the FOBT diagnostic values by comparing the results from FOBT to the results of the 60-cm fiberoptic colonoscopy. It was previously reported[10] that 82% of 3147 Chinese colorectal cancer patients had their cancer initiate in the colon below the splenocolic curve, suggesting that approximately 20% of cases cannot be identified by this method. However, because of its ease of use and simple preparation, it is still considered a relatively reliable and practical method for reference standard. We examined more than 3000 subjects by 60-cm fiberoptic colonoscopy in our study, and no new cases were identified during a 3-year follow up.
There have not been any similar reports in China about the application of RPHA-FOBT and its value in mass screening. In some studies abroad[2,5,6,11], the sensitivity of immunochemical FOBT ranged from 33% to 50%, which was similar to our results (Table 1). However, our results differed from the previous studies among a special population using the same materials and methods[3,4], suggesting that more than 50% of cases in a normal population cannot be detected using FOBT. The specificity of RPHA-FOBT is over 95%, but when estimated together with other diagnostic indexes, such as the Youden′s index (0.39 in males, 0.36 in females in this study), its practical value for screening colorectal cancer was limited.
PV(+), the percentage of patients among FOBT-positive subjects, is another useful index to estimate the diagnostic value of FOBT. Hardcastle et al[12] identified 618 FOBT-positive subjects in 27651 individuals, among which 65 subjects were colorectal cancer patients, giving a PV(+) of 10.5%, which is higher than results (PV(+) 4.8%) reported by Kewenter et al[13]. The PV(+) reported by Gregorio et al[6] was 7.5%, while the PV(+) in our study (0.68%), which was significantly lower than previous reports.
As Gregorio et al[6] reported, the PV(+)s of FOBT were 3% and 9%, respectively, in population less than or more than 60 years old. The difference was significant, but the difference in PV(+) between sexes was not significant (male 7%, female 10%), similar to our results (Table 2). Results in our study suggested that the older the initial age of screening, the higher the rate of PV(+). The PV(+) in our study was lower than in previous other reports. The PV(+) would increase if we defined older initial ages of the screened population to reduce the workload in the screening.
The long-term value of FOBT as a colorectal cancer diagnostic index is not perfect. The CIR1 and CIR3 values were similar in FOBT-positive male and female subjects, but compared to CIR1, the CIR3 in FOBT-negative males and females was approximately 3.3 and 2.9 times higher (P < 0.01). The results in Table 3 show that these FOBT-negative subjects should also be monitored to quickly identify and treat new cases.
In summary, when used alone, FOBT is not a satisfactory indicator in mass colorectal cancer screening. Therefore, it is necessary to search for and develop new testing methods, or “concentrate” the target mass. We recommend that the initial age of screening should serve as an important factor in mass colorectal cancer screening.
Footnotes
Kun Chen, male, was born on August 23, 1960, and graduated from the School of Public Health, Zhejiang Medical University, with a Master’s degree in public health. He is an associate professor, and Deputy Director of the school and Director of the Epidemiology department, where he studies tumor epidemiology. He has published 35 papers.
Supported by the National “8th 5-year” Science and Technology Development Projects (No.85-914-01).
Original title: China National Journal of New Gastroenterology (1995-1997) renamed World Journal of Gastroenterology (1998-)
S- Editor: Filipodia L- Editor: Jennifer E- Editor: Hu S
References
- 1.Greegor DH. Occult blood testing for detection of asymptomatic colon cancer. Cancer. 1971;28:131–134. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(197107)28:1<131::aid-cncr2820280125>3.0.co;2-i. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hardcastle JD. The prospects for mass population screening in colorectal cancer. Cancer Surv. 1989;8:123–138. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Yu H. [Evaluation of RPHA fecal occult blood test in screening for colorectal cancer] Zhonghua Zhongliu Zazhi. 1990;12:108–110. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Zhou PH, Zhang WZ. [Experimental study on reverse passive hemagglutination for the detection of human fecal occult blood] Zhonghua Yixue Zazhi. 1987;67:671–672. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Khubchandani IT, Karamchandani MC, Kleckner FS, Sheets JA, Stasik JJ, Rosen L, Riether RD. Mass screening for colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 1989;32:754–758. doi: 10.1007/BF02562123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Gregorio DI, Lolachi P, Hansen H. Detecting colorectal cancer with a large scale fecal occult blood testing program. Public Health Rep. 1992;107:331–335. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Chen K, Jiao DA, Yu H, Zhou L, Zheng S, Ma XY, et al. A study of quantitative method in mass screening colorectal cancer. Chinese Journal of Oncology. 1993;15:37–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Investigation and analysis of malignant tumors death in China. Beijing: The Press of People's Health; 1979. Cancer prevention & control office for the Minister of Health; p. 198. [Google Scholar]
- 9.The U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services. Maryland: William & Wilkins; 1989. p. 4. [Google Scholar]
- 10.National Cooperative Group on Pathology and Prognosis of Colorectal Cancer [Study of Dukes’ staging of colorectal carcinoma by the prognosis. National Cooperative Group on Pathology and Prognosis of Colorectal Cancer] Zhonghua Zhongliu Zazhi. 1986;8:144–145. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Simon JB. Occult blood screening for colorectal carcinoma: a critical review. Gastroenterology. 1985;88:820–837. doi: 10.1016/0016-5085(85)90158-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Hardcastle JD, Thomas WM, Chamberlain J, Pye G, Sheffield J, James PD, Balfour TW, Amar SS, Armitage NC, Moss SM. Randomised, controlled trial of faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer. Results for first 107,349 subjects. Lancet. 1989;1:1160–1164. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(89)92750-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Kewenter J, Björk S, Haglind E, Smith L, Svanvik J, Ahrén C. Screening and rescreening for colorectal cancer. A controlled trial of fecal occult blood testing in 27,700 subjects. Cancer. 1988;62:645–651. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19880801)62:3<645::aid-cncr2820620333>3.0.co;2-#. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]