The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Screening for colorectal cancer: random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing at different cut-off levels
Open accessAbstract
Immunochemical faecal occult blood testing (FIT) provides quantitative test results, which allows optimisation of the cut-off value for follow-up colonoscopy. We conducted a randomised population-based trial to determine test characteristics of FIT (OC-Sensor micro, Eiken, Japan) screening at different cut-off levels and compare these with guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening in an average risk population. A representative sample of the Dutch population (n=10 011), aged 50-74 years, was 1 : 1 randomised before invitation to gFOBT and FIT screening. Colonoscopy was offered to screenees with a positive gFOBT or FIT (cut-off 50 ng haemoglobin/ml). When varying the cut-off level between 50 and 200 ng ml(-1), the positivity rate of FIT ranged between 8.1% (95% CI: 7.2-9.1%) and 3.5% (95% CI: 2.9-4.2%), the detection rate of advanced neoplasia ranged between 3.2% (95% CI: 2.6-3.9%) and 2.1% (95% CI: 1.6-2.6%), and the specificity ranged between 95.5% (95% CI: 94.5-96.3%) and 98.8% (95% CI: 98.4-99.0%). At a cut-off value of 75 ng ml(-1), the detection rate was two times higher than with gFOBT screening (gFOBT: 1.2%; FIT: 2.5%; P<0.001), whereas the number needed to scope (NNscope) to find one screenee with advanced neoplasia was similar (2.2 vs 1.9; P=0.69). Immunochemical faecal occult blood testing is considerably more effective than gFOBT screening within the range of tested cut-off values. From our experience, a cut-off value of 75 ng ml(-1) provided an adequate positivity rate and an acceptable trade-off between detection rate and NNscope.
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
Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes
Schreuders, E. H., Ruco, A., Rabeneck, L., Schoen, R. E., Sung, J. J. Y., Young, G. P., & Kuipers, E. J. (2015) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2014-309086 · Cited by 1,328
Self-citationColonoscopy versus Fecal Immunochemical Testing in Colorectal-Cancer Screening
Quintero, E., Castells, A., Bujanda, L., Cubiella, J., Salas, D., Lanas, Á., Andreu, M., Carballo, F., Morillas, J. D., Hernández, C., et al. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1108895 · Cited by 916
Chiu, H., Chen, S. L., Yen, A. M., Chiu, S. Y., Fann, J. C., Lee, Y., Pan, S., Wu, M., Liao, C., Chen, H., et al. (2015) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.29462 · Cited by 281
Metadata
- Authors
- Hol, L., Wilschut, J. A., van Ballegooijen, M., van Vuuren, A. J., van der Valk, H., Reijerink, J. C. I. Y., van der Togt, A. C. M., Kuipers, E. J., Habbema, J. D. F., & van Leerdam, M. E.
- Venue
- British Journal of Cancer
- Published
- 2009-03-31
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1103-1110
- ISSN
- 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-1827
- OpenAlex
- W2076728125
- Cited by
- 269
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Screening for colorectal cancer: random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing at different cut-off levels. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604961
- The paper
- Hol, L., Wilschut, J. A., van Ballegooijen, M., van Vuuren, A. J., van der Valk, H., Reijerink, J. C. I. Y., van der Togt, A. C. M., Kuipers, E. J., Habbema, J. D. F., & van Leerdam, M. E. (2009). Screening for colorectal cancer: random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing at different cut-off levels. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604961
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.