Diagnostic Accuracy Of Fecal Occult Blood Tests For Detecting Proximal Versus Distal Colorectal Neoplasia: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis

Ming Lu; Xiaohu Luo; Ni Li; Hongda Chen; Min Dai

doi:10.2147/CLEP.S213677

Diagnostic Accuracy Of Fecal Occult Blood Tests For Detecting Proximal Versus Distal Colorectal Neoplasia: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis

Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Oct 25:11:943-954. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S213677. eCollection 2019.

Authors

Ming Lu^#¹, Xiaohu Luo^#², Ni Li¹, Hongda Chen¹, Min Dai¹

Affiliations

¹ National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, People's Republic of China.
² Department of Toxicant Occupational Disease Testing Laboratory, Xuzhou Cancer Hospital, Xuzhou 221000, People's Republic of China.

^# Contributed equally.

Abstract

Objective: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the differences of diagnostic performance of fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) in detecting advanced colorectal neoplasms located in the proximal versus distal colorectum.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for eligible articles published before August 17, 2018. Two independent reviewers conducted study assessment and data extraction. Diagnosis-related indicators of FOBT for detecting proximal and distal colorectal neoplasms were summarized, and further stratified by the type of FOBT (guaiac-based FOBT (gFOBT) and immunochemical FOBT (iFOBT)). Pooled sensitivities and specificities were calculated using a random effect model. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted and area under the curves were calculated.

Results: Overall, 31 studies meeting the inclusion criteria were included in this review. For gFOBT, we found no site-specific difference (proximally vs distally located) of pooled sensitivities observed in the colorectal cancer (CRC), advanced adenomas, and advanced neoplasms groups. As for iFOBT, pooled sensitivities for detecting CRC located in the distal colon/rectum were comparable with that in the proximal colon (proximal vs distal, 0.67, 95% CI 0.62-0.72 vs 0.72, 95% CI 0.68-0.75), while higher pooled sensitivities for detecting advanced adenomas and advanced neoplasms located in the distal colon/rectum than for detecting those in the proximal colon were observed for iFOBT with the values of 0.24 (95% CI 0.22-0.25) vs 0.32 (95% CI 0.30-0.34) and 0.25 (95% CI 0.23-0.28) vs 0.38 (95% CI 0.36-0.40), respectively. Summary receiver operating characteristic curve analyses showed similar patterns for both types of FOBT regarding the diagnostic accuracy for detecting colorectal neoplasms according to the anatomical sites of the colorectum.

Conclusion: iFOBT had higher sensitivity for detecting advanced adenomas and advanced neoplasia located in the distal colon/rectum than that for those in the proximal colon.

Keywords: colorectal cancer; screening test; sensitivity.

Publication types

Review

Grants and funding

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation (81703309) and CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Science (2017-I2M-1-006). The sponsor had no role in the study design, in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data.