Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of Verification Bias on the Sensitivity of Fecal Occult Blood Testing: a Meta-Analysis

  • Reviews
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

There is controversy regarding the sensitivity of fecal occult blood tests (FOBT) for detecting colorectal cancer. Many of the published studies failed to correct for verification bias which may have increased the sensitivity.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of published studies evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of chemical-based FOBT for colorectal cancer was performed. Studies were included if both cancer and control subjects underwent confirmatory testing. We also included studies that attempted to correct for verification bias by either performing colonoscopy on all subjects regardless of the FOBT result or by using longitudinal follow-up. We then compared the sensitivity, specificity, and other diagnostic characteristics of the studies that attempted to correct for verification (n = 10) vs. those that did not correct for this bias (n = 19).

RESULTS

The pooled sensitivity of guaiac-based FOBT for colorectal cancer of studies without verification bias was significantly lower than those studies with this bias [0.36 (95% CI 0.25-0.47) vs. 0.70 (95% CI 0.60–0.80), p = 0.001]. The pooled specificity of the studies without verification bias was higher [0.96 (95% CI 0.94–0.97) vs. 0.88 (95% CI 0.84–0.91), p < 0.005]. There was no significant difference in the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves. More sensitive chemical-based FOBT methods (e.g., Hemoccult® SENSA®) had a higher sensitivity but a lower specificity than standard guaiac methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity of guaiac-based FOBT for colorectal cancer has been overestimated as a result of verification bias. This test may not be sensitive enough to serve as an effective screening option for colorectal cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics 2008. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:71–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Allison JE. Review article: faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1998;12:1–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Use of colorectal cancer tests-United States, 2002, 2004, and 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2008;57:253–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Greenwald B. From guaiac to immune fecal occult blood tests: the emergence of technology in colorectal cancer screening. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2005;28:90–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ouyang DL, Chen JJ, Getzenberg RH, Schoen RE. Noninvasive testing for colorectal cancer: a review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:1393–403.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Crespi M, Lisi D. Is colorectal cancer screening by fecal occult blood feasible? Ann Oncol. 2002;13:47–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bond JH. Fecal occult blood test screening for colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2002;12:11–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Burch JA, Soares-Weiser K, St John DJB, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of faecal occult blood tests used in screening for colorectal cancer: a systematic review. J Med Screen. 2007;14:132–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mandel JS. Colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 1997;16:263–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Simon JB. Fecal occult blood testing: clinical value and limitations. Gastroenterologist. 1998;6:66–78.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Winawer SJ, Schottenfeld D, Flehinger BJ. Colorectal cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1991;83:243–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Begg CB. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 1987;6:411–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Begg CB, Greenes RA. Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Biometrics. 1983;39:207–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Choi BC. Sensitivity and specificity of a single diagnostic test in the presence of work-up bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:581–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Greenes RA, Begg CB. Assessment of diagnostic technologies. Methodology for unbiased estimation from samples of selectively verified patients. Invest Radiol. 1985;20:751–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Punglia RS, D'Amico AV, Catalona WJ, Roehl KA, Kuntz KM. Effect of verification bias on screening for prostate cancer by measurement of prostate-specific antigen. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:335–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Begg CB, McNeil BJ. Assessment of radiologic tests: control of bias and other design considerations. Radiology. 1988;167:565–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kirby J, Roderick P. A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:1–113.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fleiss JL. The statistical basis of meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res. 1993;2:121–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Takkouche B, Cadarso-Suarez C, Spiegelman D. Evaluation of old and new tests of heterogeneity in epidemiologic meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;150:206–15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Leeflang MMG, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, Bossuyt PMM, Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working G. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:889–97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hyde CJ, Stanworth SJ, Murphy MF. Can you see the wood for the trees? Making sense of forest plots in systematic reviews 2. Analysis of the combined results from the included studies. Transfusion. 2008;48:580–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Goodacre S, Sampson F, Thomas S, van Beek E, Sutton A. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for deep vein thrombosis. BMC Med Imaging. 2005;5:6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PMM, Heisterkamp SH. Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 2002;21:1525–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Irwig L, Macaskill P, Glasziou P, Fahey M. Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:119–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:667–76.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993;12:1293–316.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rosman AS, Korsten MA. Application of summary receiver operating characteristics (sROC) analysis to diagnostic clinical testing. Adv Med Sci. 2007;52:76–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Walter SD. Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for diagnostic test data. Stat Med. 2002;21:1237–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Crowley ML, Freeman LD, Mottet MD, et al. Sensitivity of guaiac-impregnated cards for the detection of colorectal neoplasia. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1983;5:127–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Farrands PA, O'Regan D, Taylor I. An assessment of occult blood testing to determine which patients with large bowel symptoms require urgent investigation. Br J Surg. 1985;72:835–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Greenberg PD, Bertario L, Gnauck R, et al. A prospective multicenter evaluation of new fecal occult blood tests in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:1331–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Guittet L, Bouvier V, Mariotte N, et al. Comparison of a guaiac based and an immunochemical faecal occult blood test in screening for colorectal cancer in a general average risk population. Gut. 2007;56:210–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hoepffner N, Shastri YM, Hanisch E, et al. Comparative evaluation of a new bedside faecal occult blood test in a prospective multicentre study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;23:145–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hope RL, Chu G, Hope AH, Newcombe RG, Gillespie PE, Williams SJ. Comparison of three faecal occult blood tests in the detection of colorectal neoplasia. Gut. 1996;39:722–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Jeanson A, Jamart J, Maisin JM, et al. Assessment of the new immunological test Hemoblot for detecting occult blood in faeces. Eur J Cancer Prev. 1994;3:407–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kimmig JM, Strauch M, Hallen M. Negative Haemoccult test in malignant and premalignant lesions of the colon. Validation of the Haemoccult test with total colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 1989;21:136–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Leicester RJ, Lightfoot A, Millar J, Colin-Jones DG, Hunt RH. Accuracy and value of the Hemoccult test in symptomatic patients. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1983;286:673–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Lenhard K, Bommer GT, Asutay S, et al. Analysis of promoter methylation in stool: a novel method for the detection of colorectal cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:142–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Li S, Wang H, Hu J, et al. New immunochemical fecal occult blood test with two-consecutive stool sample testing is a cost-effective approach for colon cancer screening: results of a prospective multicenter study in Chinese patients. Int J Cancer. 2006;118:3078–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Miyoshi H, Oka M, Sugi K, Saitoh O, Katsu K, Uchida K. Accuracy of detection of colorectal neoplasia using an immunochemical occult blood test in symptomatic referred patients: comparison of retrospective and prospective studies. Intern Med. 2000;39:701–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Nakama H, Kamijo N. Accuracy of immunological fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med. 1994;23:309–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Niv Y, Sperber AD. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of fecal occult blood testing (Hemoccult II) for colorectal neoplasia in symptomatic patients: a prospective study with total colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 1995;90:1974–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Norfleet RG. Effect of diet on fecal occult blood testing in patients with colorectal polyps. Dig Dis Sci. 1986;31:498–501.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Pye G, Marks CG, Martin S, Marks V, Jackson J, Hardcastle JD. An evaluation of Fecatwin/Feca EIA; a faecal occult blood test for detecting colonic neoplasia. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1989;15:446–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Thomas WM, Hardcastle JD, Jackson J, Pye G. Chemical and immunological testing for faecel occult blood: a comparison of two tests in symptomatic patients. Br J Cancer. 1992;65:618–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Tibble J, Sigthorsson G, Foster R, Sherwood R, Fagerhol M, Bjarnason I. Faecal calprotectin and faecal occult blood tests in the diagnosis of colorectal carcinoma and adenoma. Gut. 2001;49:402–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Williams JA, Hunter R, Coles ME, Thomas DW, Huber TW. An assessment of an immunochemical test for human haemoglobin in the detection of colonic polyps. Aust N Z J Surg. 1985;55:485–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Williams JA, Hunter R, Smith M, Coles ME, Hubert TW, Thomas DW. Evaluation of an immunological test for occult bleeding from colorectal neoplasia. Aust N Z J Surg. 1982;52:617–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Ahlquist DA, Sargent DJ, Loprinzi CL, et al. Stool DNA and occult blood testing for screen detection of colorectal neoplasia. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:441–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Allison JE, Feldman R, Tekawa IS. Hemoccult screening in detecting colorectal neoplasm: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value. Long-term follow-up in a large group practice setting. Ann Intern Med. 1990;112:328–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Allison JE, Tekawa IS, Ransom LJ, Adrain AL. A comparison of fecal occult-blood tests for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:155–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Imperiale TF, Ransohoff DF, Itzkowitz SH, Turnbull BA, Ross ME, Colorectal Cancer Study G. Fecal DNA versus fecal occult blood for colorectal-cancer screening in an average-risk population. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2704–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kristinsson J, Nygaard K, Aadland E, et al. Screening of first degree relatives of patients operated for colorectal cancer: evaluation of fecal calprotectin vs. hemoccult II. Digestion. 2001;64:104–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study G. One-time screening for colorectal cancer with combined fecal occult-blood testing and examination of the distal colon. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:555–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Murakami R, Otani T, Nakanishi K, et al. Diagnostic validity of fecal occult blood tests for detecting gastroenterological cancers. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1992;83:141–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Robinson MH, Kronborg O, Williams CB, et al. Faecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy in the surveillance of subjects at high risk of colorectal neoplasia. Br J Surg. 1995;82:318–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Sung JJY, Chan FKL, Leung WK, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer in Chinese: comparison of fecal occult blood test, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2003;124:608–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Williams CB, Macrae FA, Bartram CI. A prospective study of diagnostic methods in adenoma follow-up. Endoscopy. 1982;14:74–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Levi Z, Hazazi R, Rozen P, Vilkin A, Waked A, Niv Y. A quantitative immunochemical faecal occult blood test is more efficient for detecting significant colorectal neoplasia than a sensitive guaiac test. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;23:1359–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Smith A, Young GP, Cole SR, Bampton P. Comparison of a brush-sampling fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin with a sensitive guaiac-based fecal occult blood test in detection of colorectal neoplasia. Cancer. 2006;107:2152–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Wong BCY, Wong WM, Cheung KL, et al. A sensitive guaiac faecal occult blood test is less useful than an immunochemical test for colorectal cancer screening in a Chinese population. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003;18:941–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Allison JE, Sakoda LC, Levin TR, et al. Screening for colorectal neoplasms with new fecal occult blood tests: update on performance characteristics. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1462–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Cheng T-I, Wong J-M, Hong C-F, et al. Colorectal cancer screening in asymptomaic adults: comparison of colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood tests. Taiwan Yi Xue Hui Za Zhi. 2002;101:685–90.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Bradley M, et al. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictivity of the Hemoccult test in screening for colorectal cancers. The University of Minnesota's Colon Cancer Control Study. Gastroenterology. 1989;97:597–600.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Hunink MGM. Adjusting for bias in diagnostic reports. Am J Med. 2002;112:322–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Heresbach D, Manfredi S, D'Halluin PN, Bretagne J-F, Branger B. Review in depth and meta-analysis of controlled trials on colorectal cancer screening by faecal occult blood test. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;18:427–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Towler B, Irwig L, Glasziou P, Kewenter J, Weller D, Silagy C. A systematic review of the effects of screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, hemoccult. Br Med J. 1998;317:559–65.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Ransohoff DF, Lang CA. Screening for colorectal cancer with the fecal occult blood test: a background paper. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:811–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S.Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:627-37.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:130–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Davila RE, Rajan E, Baron TH, et al. ASGE guideline: colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63:546–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2008. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:739–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding Source

Department of Veterans Affairs.

Conflict of interest

None disclosed.

Author participation

Both authors had access to the data and a role in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Gastroenterology and Medicine Program, James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 130 W. Kingsbridge Road, Bronx, NY, 10468, USA

    Alan S. Rosman MD & Mark A. Korsten MD

  2. Mount Sinai School of Medicine (NYU), New York, NY, USA

    Alan S. Rosman MD & Mark A. Korsten MD

Authors
  1. Alan S. Rosman MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark A. Korsten MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan S. Rosman MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rosman, A.S., Korsten, M.A. Effect of Verification Bias on the Sensitivity of Fecal Occult Blood Testing: a Meta-Analysis. J GEN INTERN MED 25, 1211–1221 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1375-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1375-0

KEY WORDS

Search

Navigation