Thresholds adjustments and impact on clinical performance of three FIT assays in a colorectal cancer screening program.
1/5 보강
PICO 자동 추출 (휴리스틱, conf 3/4)
유사 논문P · Population 대상 환자/모집단
600 participants from the Quebec CRC-SP received collection kits from three different manufacturers to sample the same fresh stool.
I · Intervention 중재 / 시술
collection kits from three different manufacturers to sample the same fresh stool
C · Comparison 대조 / 비교
추출되지 않음
O · Outcome 결과 / 결론
[CONCLUSIONS] Threshold adjustment using a positivity rate harmonization strategy render differences in clinical performance statistically nonsignificant and leads to a stable colonoscopy rate between manufacturers. CRC screening programs should determine adjusted thresholds when changing FIT suppliers or when using multiple assays.
[OBJECTIVES] Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) from various manufacturers yield different results, leading to variable positivity rates and clinical performance.
APA
Dubé J, Plantefève R, et al. (2026). Thresholds adjustments and impact on clinical performance of three FIT assays in a colorectal cancer screening program.. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 64(3), 706-716. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2025-0546
MLA
Dubé J, et al.. "Thresholds adjustments and impact on clinical performance of three FIT assays in a colorectal cancer screening program.." Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, vol. 64, no. 3, 2026, pp. 706-716.
PMID
41207907 ↗
Abstract 한글 요약
[OBJECTIVES] Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) from various manufacturers yield different results, leading to variable positivity rates and clinical performance. These differences can influence the healthcare costs of a colorectal cancer screening program (CRC-SP), specifically when switching among FIT manufacturers. The analytical and clinical performance of three FITs was investigated to determine adjusted thresholds using positivity rate harmonization.
[METHODS] A cohort of 6,600 participants from the Quebec CRC-SP received collection kits from three different manufacturers to sample the same fresh stool. Participants with positive results were referred for a colonoscopy which was considered positive if advanced neoplasia (AN) was detected. Positivity rates were determined for each FIT at an unadjusted threshold. Adjusted thresholds were determined using a positivity rate harmonization strategy. Clinical performance was then evaluated for each supplier at unadjusted and adjusted thresholds.
[RESULTS] Among 5,513 participants who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 327 underwent colonoscopy. The FIT positivity rates at unadjusted thresholds differed between manufacturers. The adjusted thresholds determined to yield the same positivity rate were different for each FIT. A total of 69 participants were diagnosed with AN. Significant differences in concordance, discordance, sensitivity, and specificity were observed when using the unadjusted threshold. After applying adjusted thresholds, differences in clinical performance between manufacturers were no longer statistically significant.
[CONCLUSIONS] Threshold adjustment using a positivity rate harmonization strategy render differences in clinical performance statistically nonsignificant and leads to a stable colonoscopy rate between manufacturers. CRC screening programs should determine adjusted thresholds when changing FIT suppliers or when using multiple assays.
[METHODS] A cohort of 6,600 participants from the Quebec CRC-SP received collection kits from three different manufacturers to sample the same fresh stool. Participants with positive results were referred for a colonoscopy which was considered positive if advanced neoplasia (AN) was detected. Positivity rates were determined for each FIT at an unadjusted threshold. Adjusted thresholds were determined using a positivity rate harmonization strategy. Clinical performance was then evaluated for each supplier at unadjusted and adjusted thresholds.
[RESULTS] Among 5,513 participants who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 327 underwent colonoscopy. The FIT positivity rates at unadjusted thresholds differed between manufacturers. The adjusted thresholds determined to yield the same positivity rate were different for each FIT. A total of 69 participants were diagnosed with AN. Significant differences in concordance, discordance, sensitivity, and specificity were observed when using the unadjusted threshold. After applying adjusted thresholds, differences in clinical performance between manufacturers were no longer statistically significant.
[CONCLUSIONS] Threshold adjustment using a positivity rate harmonization strategy render differences in clinical performance statistically nonsignificant and leads to a stable colonoscopy rate between manufacturers. CRC screening programs should determine adjusted thresholds when changing FIT suppliers or when using multiple assays.
🏷️ 키워드 / MeSH 📖 같은 키워드 OA만
🏷️ 같은 키워드 · 무료전문 — 이 논문 MeSH/keyword 기반
- A Phase I Study of Hydroxychloroquine and Suba-Itraconazole in Men with Biochemical Relapse of Prostate Cancer (HITMAN-PC): Dose Escalation Results.
- Self-management of male urinary symptoms: qualitative findings from a primary care trial.
- Clinical and Liquid Biomarkers of 20-Year Prostate Cancer Risk in Men Aged 45 to 70 Years.
- Diagnostic accuracy of Ga-PSMA PET/CT versus multiparametric MRI for preoperative pelvic invasion in the patients with prostate cancer.
- Comprehensive analysis of androgen receptor splice variant target gene expression in prostate cancer.
- Clinical Presentation and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Surgery for Thyroid Cancer.