The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
Accuracy of fecal occult blood screening for colorectal neoplasia. A prospective study using Hemoccult and HemoQuant tests
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To define the validity of fecal blood as a marker for colorectal neoplasia in the screening setting and to compare yields by Hemoccult and HemoQuant fecal occult blood screening tests. DESIGN: A multicenter masked comparison of fecal blood test results against structural colorectal evaluations and longitudinal follow-up, serving as criterion standards, in nonreferred subjects at risk for colorectal neoplasia. SETTING: Communities, primary care centers, referral centers. PARTICIPANTS: Two groups: (1) 1217 patients aged at least 18 years undergoing routine structural surveillance evaluations following curative resection of a colorectal tumor and (2) 12312 relatives of colorectal cancer patients aged at least 50 years. INTERVENTIONS: Blinded Hemoccult II and HemoQuant testing on three mailed-in stool samples per subject. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Sensitivity of fecal blood tests for colorectal neoplasia. RESULTS: In the postresection group, surveillance evaluations revealed 46 malignant colorectal neoplasms and 402 polyps. At matched specificity, sensitivity of either test for cancer was 26% (95% confidence interval, 13% to 39%). Hemoccult was positive in 21% of intraluminal recurrences, 33% of all new primary tumors, and 29% of Dukes A or B cancers; HemoQuant was elevated in 24%, 28%, and 29%, respectively. Sensitivity for polyps 1.0 cm or larger was 13% by Hemoccult and 11% by HemoQuant. In the group of relatives, estimated sensitivity for cancer at 1 to 3 years of follow-up was 25% to 33% by Hemoccult, not significantly different from the 29% to 43% by HemoQuant. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our observations in the screening setting, fecal blood appears to be a poor marker for colorectal neoplasia. Most cancers and the vast majority of polyps will be missed. Hemoccult and HemoQuant are similarly insensitive.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Fecal DNA versus Fecal Occult Blood for Colorectal-Cancer Screening in an Average-Risk Population
Imperiale, T. F., Ransohoff, D. F., Itzkowitz, S. H., Turnbull, B. A., & Ross, M. E. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa033403 · Cited by 803
A Comparison of Fecal Occult-Blood Tests for Colorectal-Cancer Screening
Allison, J. E., Tekawa, I. S., Ransom, L. J., & Adrain, A. L. (1996) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199601183340304 · Cited by 622
Ultra-sensitive liquid biopsy of circulating extracellular vesicles using ExoScreen
Yoshioka, Y., Kosaka, N., Konishi, Y., Ohta, H., Okamoto, H., Sonoda, H., Nonaka, R., Yamamoto, H., Ishii, H., Mori, M., et al. (2014) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms4591 · Cited by 598
Rex, D. (2000) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9270(00)00851-0 · Cited by 553
Colorectal Cancer Screening: Scientific Review
Walsh, J. M. E., & Terdiman, J. P. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.289.10.1288 · Cited by 419
Metadata
- Authors
- Ahlquist, D. A.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association
- Published
- 1993-03-10
- Volume
- 269
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1262-1267
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4248989886
- Cited by
- 286
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Accuracy of fecal occult blood screening for colorectal neoplasia. A prospective study using Hemoccult and HemoQuant tests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.269.10.1262
- The paper
- Ahlquist, D. A. (1993). Accuracy of fecal occult blood screening for colorectal neoplasia. A prospective study using Hemoccult and HemoQuant tests. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.269.10.1262
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.