Fecal occult blood testing: clinical value and limitations.

The Gastroenterologist Pub Date : 1998-03-01
J B Simon
{"title":"Fecal occult blood testing: clinical value and limitations.","authors":"J B Simon","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Occult blood in the stool can be detected by chemical (guaiac), heme-porphyrin, or immunological methods. Each has advantages and disadvantages, with the guaiac slide test Hemoccult II (SmithKline Diagnostics) remaining the most widely used. Various technical factors affect its clinical performance, most notably whether the slides are rehydrated before processing; hydration increases test sensitivity for colorectal cancer but markedly decreases specificity, resulting in a large number of false-positive reactions that require invasive and expensive colonic workup. Newer immunological tests generally have high sensitivity, but poor specificity remains an important problem. In clinical screening situations, unhydrated Hemoccult has about 50% sensitivity for colorectal cancers and about 98% specificity. Only 5% to 10% of positive reactions prove due to cancer, however, so the large majority of reactive tests are false positives; this is an important weakness of occult blood screening. Slide hydration detects more tumors, but the predictive value of a positive test for cancer drops to only about 2%, which greatly diminishes the appeal of hydration. Sensitivity of occult blood tests for benign colonic polyps is poor, and most polyps found during workup of a positive reaction are actually detected by chance because of high prevalence in the general population. Controlled clinical trials have now documented that periodic occult blood screening produces a relatively small but significant mortality benefit from colorectal cancer--about 15% to 18% for biennial testing with unhydrated Hemoccult. Aggressive annual screening with hydrated Hemoccult may lower mortality by more than 30% but at a very high cost because of poor specificity and very low predictive value. Regular occult blood testing beginning at age 50 has been endorsed by many professional organizations because of the documented mortality benefit, but poor compliance, high costs, and ethical uncertainties seriously temper its justification. Whether to implement widespread occult blood screening remains a difficult societal decision.</p>","PeriodicalId":79381,"journal":{"name":"The Gastroenterologist","volume":"6 1","pages":"66-78"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Gastroenterologist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Occult blood in the stool can be detected by chemical (guaiac), heme-porphyrin, or immunological methods. Each has advantages and disadvantages, with the guaiac slide test Hemoccult II (SmithKline Diagnostics) remaining the most widely used. Various technical factors affect its clinical performance, most notably whether the slides are rehydrated before processing; hydration increases test sensitivity for colorectal cancer but markedly decreases specificity, resulting in a large number of false-positive reactions that require invasive and expensive colonic workup. Newer immunological tests generally have high sensitivity, but poor specificity remains an important problem. In clinical screening situations, unhydrated Hemoccult has about 50% sensitivity for colorectal cancers and about 98% specificity. Only 5% to 10% of positive reactions prove due to cancer, however, so the large majority of reactive tests are false positives; this is an important weakness of occult blood screening. Slide hydration detects more tumors, but the predictive value of a positive test for cancer drops to only about 2%, which greatly diminishes the appeal of hydration. Sensitivity of occult blood tests for benign colonic polyps is poor, and most polyps found during workup of a positive reaction are actually detected by chance because of high prevalence in the general population. Controlled clinical trials have now documented that periodic occult blood screening produces a relatively small but significant mortality benefit from colorectal cancer--about 15% to 18% for biennial testing with unhydrated Hemoccult. Aggressive annual screening with hydrated Hemoccult may lower mortality by more than 30% but at a very high cost because of poor specificity and very low predictive value. Regular occult blood testing beginning at age 50 has been endorsed by many professional organizations because of the documented mortality benefit, but poor compliance, high costs, and ethical uncertainties seriously temper its justification. Whether to implement widespread occult blood screening remains a difficult societal decision.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
粪便隐血检测:临床价值及局限性。
粪便隐血可通过化学方法(愈伤愈木)、血红素-卟啉或免疫方法检测。每种方法都有优点和缺点,其中愈创木载玻片测试Hemoccult II (SmithKline Diagnostics)仍然是最广泛使用的。各种技术因素影响其临床性能,最显著的是切片在加工前是否复水;水合作用增加了结直肠癌检测的敏感性,但显著降低了特异性,导致大量假阳性反应,需要进行侵入性和昂贵的结肠检查。较新的免疫测试通常具有高灵敏度,但特异性差仍然是一个重要问题。在临床筛查中,未水化隐匿血对结直肠癌的敏感性约为50%,特异性约为98%。然而,只有5%到10%的阳性反应被证明是由于癌症,因此绝大多数阳性检测都是假阳性;这是潜血筛查的一个重要弱点。玻片水合作用检测出更多的肿瘤,但对癌症的阳性检测的预测值仅下降到2%左右,这大大降低了水合作用的吸引力。隐血检查对良性结肠息肉的敏感性较差,由于在一般人群中发病率高,大多数在阳性反应的检查中发现的息肉实际上是偶然发现的。对照临床试验现已证明,定期隐血筛查对结直肠癌的死亡率降低相对较小,但效果显著——两年一次的无水隐血筛查约为15%至18%。积极的年度水合隐匿血筛查可以降低30%以上的死亡率,但由于特异性差和预测价值很低,成本很高。从50岁开始定期进行潜血检测已经得到了许多专业组织的认可,因为有证据表明,潜血检测可以降低死亡率,但依从性差、成本高以及道德上的不确定性严重削弱了其正当性。是否实施广泛的隐血筛查仍然是一个困难的社会决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Irritable bowel syndrome. Clostridium Difficile Disease The technical aspects of biofeedback therapy for defecation disorders. Common pediatric esophageal disorders. Pathophysiology and treatment of hepatorenal syndrome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1