404
Views
23
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Gastrointestinal Cancer

A comparison of qualitative and quantitative fecal immunochemical tests in the Korean national colorectal cancer screening program

, , , &
Pages 461-466 | Received 20 Dec 2011, Accepted 16 Feb 2012, Published online: 19 Mar 2012
 

Abstract

Objective. The National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) has since 2004 provided annual colorectal cancer screening using the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for individuals aged 50 years or older. The aim of this study was to examine the positivity and detection rates of the FIT and to compare the detection rates of the qualitative and quantitative FITs in participants in the 2009 NCSP. Methods. We analyzed positivity and detection rates according to FIT type (qualitative and quantitative). We used a multinomial logistic regression to analyze the odds ratio of “benign” or “suspicious cancer and cancer” compared to “normal,” adjusted for gender, age, health insurance type, region of residence, hospital type, and FIT type. Results. Of the 1,181,904 participants, 72.8% received a qualitative and 27.2% a quantitative FIT. The positivity rates were 8.1% for the qualitative and 2.5% for the quantitative FIT. The detection rate was 5.2% for the qualitative and 14.4% for the quantitative FIT. The odds ratio of a “suspicious cancer and cancer” versus a “normal” result was 2.73 (95% CI = 2.22–3.35) for the quantitative compared to qualitative FIT, after adjustment. Conclusions. The positivity rate of the qualitative FIT was around three times higher than that of the quantitative FIT. However, the odds ratio for detection of “suspicious cancer and cancer” versus “normal” of the quantitative FIT was about three times higher than that of the qualitative FIT. These findings suggest that quality control may be important, particularly for the qualitative FIT.

Acknowledgments

Support for this research was provided by the National Cancer Control Research Institute, grant 1010200.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.