Detailed Information

Cited 3 time in webofscience Cited 3 time in scopus
Metadata Downloads

Identifying the optimal strategy for screening of advanced colorectal neoplasia

Authors
Jung, Yoon SukPark, Chan HyukKim, Nam HeePark, Jung HoPark, Dong IlSohn, Chong Il
Issue Date
May-2017
Publisher
Blackwell Publishing Inc.
Keywords
advanced colorectal neoplasia; Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening; colorectal cancer; fecal immunochemical test; screening; sigmoidoscopy
Citation
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, v.32, no.5, pp 1003 - 1010
Pages
8
Indexed
SCI
SCIE
SCOPUS
Journal Title
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Volume
32
Number
5
Start Page
1003
End Page
1010
URI
https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/4232
DOI
10.1111/jgh.13634
ISSN
0815-9319
1440-1746
Abstract
Background and Aim To guide selection of optimal screening strategies for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN), we evaluated the screening performances of sigmoidoscopy, fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and the Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening (APCS) system, as well as combinations of these techniques. Methods We reviewed the records of participants who had undergone a colonoscopy and FIT as part of a comprehensive health-screening program. Results of sigmoidoscopy were estimated from lesions under colonoscopic examination. The screening strategies were classified as sigmoidoscopy-based, FIT-based, and APCS-based. The sensitivity and reduction of number needed to colonoscope (NNScope) of each screening strategy were assessed. Results Of 23 023 participants, 398 (1.7%) had ACRN. To predict the presence of ACRN, sigmoidoscopy was the most effective method (odds ratio [OR]: 22.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.26–29.07), followed by FIT (OR: 7.18, 95% CI: 5.28–9.68) and APCS (high risk [≥4] OR: 2.59, 95% CI: 1.87–3.58; moderate risk [2–3] OR: 1.66, 95% CI: 1.28–2.17). Regarding sigmoidoscopy-based strategies, “sigmoidoscopy positive alone” and “sigmoidoscopy positive or APCS ≥4” were optimal strategies (reduction of NNScope: 79–86%; sensitivity: 73–78%). In the case of FIT-based strategies, “FIT positive or APCS ≥4” was the optimal strategy (reduction of NNScope: 72%; sensitivity: 37%). With regard to the APCS system only, “APCS ≥2” and “APCS ≥4” were recommended as sensitivity-preferred and reduction in NNScope-preferred strategies, respectively. Conclusions The performance in ACRN prediction differs among screening methods (sigmoidoscopy, FIT, and APCS). Among the various single or combined screening strategies, several specific strategies can be chosen depending on medical resources, financial budgets, and screenee preference.
Files in This Item
Go to Link
Appears in
Collections
서울 의과대학 > 서울 내과학교실 > 1. Journal Articles

qrcode

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Altmetrics

Total Views & Downloads

BROWSE