4.7 Article

Effect of oral anticoagulants on the outcome of faecal immunochemical test

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 110, Issue 5, Pages 1334-1337

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2014.38

Keywords

faecal immunochemical test; FIT; oral anticoagulant; advanced neoplasia; colorectal cancer screening

Categories

Funding

  1. Asociacion Espanola contra el Cancer (Fundacion Cientifica)
  2. Asociacion Espanola contra el Cancer (Junta de Barcelona)
  3. Instituto de Salud Carlos III [PI08/90717]
  4. Agencia de Gestio d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca [2009SGR849]
  5. Instituto de Salud Carlos III
  6. Obra Social de Kutxa, Diputacion Foral de Gipuzkoa [DFG 07/5]
  7. Departamento de Sanidad del Gobierno Vasco, EITB-Maratoia [BIO 07/CA/19]
  8. Accion Transversal contra el Cancer del CIBERehd
  9. Direccion Xeral de Innovacion e Xestion da Saude Publica, Conselleria de Sanidade, Xunta de Galicia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: We aimed to evaluate whether oral anticoagulants (OACs) alter faecal immunochemical test (FIT) performance in average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Methods: Individuals aged 50-69 years were invited to receive one FIT sample (cutoff 75 ng ml(-1)) between November 2008 and June 2011. Results: Faecal immunochemical test was positive in 9.3% (21 out of 224) of users of OAC and 6.2% (365 out of 5821) of non-users (P-trend = 0.07). The positive predictive value (PPV) for advanced neoplasia (AN) in non-users was 50.4% vs 47.6% in users (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.3-1.8; P = 0.5). The PPV for AN in OAC more antiplatelets (aspirin or clopidogrel) was 75% (odds ratio, 2; 95% CI, 0.4-10.8; P = 0.4). Conclusions: Oral anticoagulant did not significantly modify the PPV for AN in this population-based colorectal screening program. The detection rate of advanced adenoma was higher in the combination OAC more antiplatelets.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available