Journals / Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology / 2018 / Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 4

Diagnostic accuracy of fecal calprotectin for screening patients with colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis

Pages
397–405
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The overall diagnostic odds ratio of FC for CRC was 7.76 (95% CI, 5.41-11.12) with an area under the curve of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.84), whereas the diagnostic value of FC for colorectal adenoma was relatively inferior (area under the curve, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.51-0.59; diagnostic odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.91-1.78).Conclusion: The results imply that the FC test, as currently implemented, cannot be recommended for CRC detection.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/Aims: Fecal calprotectin (FC) is reported to have a broad diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer (CRC).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The sensitivities and specificities of the eligible studies were summarized using a bivariable random-effects model.Results: In total, 20 studies were included in the final analysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The overall diagnostic odds ratio of FC for CRC was 7.76 (95% CI, 5.41-11.12) with an area under the curve of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.84), whereas the diagnostic value of FC for colorectal adenoma was relatively inferior (area under the curve, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.51-0.59; diagnostic odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.91-1.78).Conclusion: The results imply that the FC test, as currently implemented, cannot be recommended for CRC detection.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Background/Aims: Fecal calprotectin (FC) is reported to have a broad diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer (CRC). Therefore, we explored the diagnostic value of FC for CRC using meta-analytical techniques to substantiate the assertion.Materials and Methods: An electronic search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases was conducted to identify studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of FC for CRC. The sensitivities and specificities of the eligible studies were summarized using a bivariable random-effects model.Results: In total, 20 studies were included in the final analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of FC for CRC detection were 0.83 (95% confidence interval CI, 0.77-0.88), 0.61 (95% CI, 0.54-0.68), 2.15 (95% CI, 1.82-2.55), and 0.28 (95% CI, 0.21-0.37), respectively. The overall diagnostic odds ratio of FC for CRC was 7.76 (95% CI, 5.41-11.12) with an area under the curve of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.84), whereas the diagnostic value of FC for colorectal adenoma was relatively inferior (area under the curve, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.51-0.59; diagnostic odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.91-1.78).Conclusion: The results imply that the FC test, as currently implemented, cannot be recommended for CRC detection.

🔖

Cite This Article

YE, X., HUAİ, J. (2018). Diagnostic accuracy of fecal calprotectin for screening patients with colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 4, 397–405. https://ajindex.com/articles/410136

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Mowat C, Digby J, Strachan JA, et al. Faecal haemoglobin and fae- cal calprotectin as indicators of bowel disease in patients presenting to primary care with bowel symptoms. Gut 2016; 65: 1463-9.
  2. Hogberg C, Karling P, Rutegard J, Lilja M. Diagnosing colorectal cancer and inflammatory bowel disease in primary care: The use- fulness of tests for faecal haemoglobin, faecal calprotectin, anae- mia and iron deficiency. A prospective study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2017; 52: 69-75.
  3. Turvill J, Aghahoseini A, Sivarajasingham N, et al. Faecal calpro- tectin in patients with suspected colorectal cancer: a diagnostic ac- curacy study. Br J Gen Pract 2016; 66: e499-506. Tibble J, Sigthorsson G, Foster R, Sherwood R, Fagerhol M, Bjarna- son I. Faecal calprotectin and faecal occult blood tests in the diag- nosis of colorectal carcinoma and adenoma. Gut 2001; 49: 402-8.
  4. Lehmann FS, Trapani F, Fueglistaler I, et al. Clinical and histo- pathological correlations of fecal calprotectin release in colorectal carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 4994-9. von Roon AC, Karamountzos L, Purkayastha S, et al. Diagnostic precision of fecal calprotectin for inflammatory bowel disease and colorectal malignancy. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 803-13.
  5. Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, Bossuyt PM, Cochrane Diag- nostic Test Accuracy Working G. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med 2008; 149: 889-97.
  6. Lin JF, Chen JM, Zuo JH, et al. Meta-analysis: fecal calprotectin for assessment of inflammatory bowel disease activity. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2014; 20: 1407-15.
  7. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 529-36.
  8. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwind- erman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epide- miol 2005; 58: 982-90.
  9. Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA. A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med 2001; 20: 2865-84.
  10. Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 882-93.
  11. Roseth AG, Kristinsson J, Fagerhol MK, et al. Faecal calprotectin: a novel test for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer? Scand J Gastro- enterol 1993; 28: 1073-6
  12. Kronborg O, Ugstad M, Fugleru