MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282914417 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(22)00121-8

Colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical testing: a community-based, cross-sectional study in average-risk individuals in Nigeria

2022· article· en· W4282914417 on OpenAlexaff
Olusegun Isaac Alatise, Anna Dare, Patrick Ayodeji Akinyemi, FB Abdulkareem, Samuel Olatoke, Gregory Knapp, T. Peter Kingham, Oluwabusayomi Roseline Ademakinwa, Ademola Adeyeye, Olayide Agodirin, Kabir B. Badmus, Mathew O. Bojuwoye, Matteo Di Bernardo, Rivka Kahn, AbdulRazzaq Oluwagbemiga Lawal, Emuobor A. Odeghe, Samson G. Ogunleye, Olalekan Olasehinde, Olajide T Olagboyega, Christina Olcese, A B Olokoba, Tosin Omoyiola, Nnamdi Orah, Adedapo Osinowo, Ganiyat K. Oyeleke, Israel Adeyemi Owoade, Katherine Randolph, Ranelle Tulloch

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Global Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthThompson Family FoundationPrevent Cancer Foundation
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyColorectal cancerInternal medicinePopulationCancerCross-sectional studyGastroenterologyEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The estimated incidence of colorectal cancer is rising in Nigeria, where most patients present with advanced disease. Earlier detection of colorectal cancer is a goal of the Nigerian National Cancer Control Plan, but the utility of fecal-based screening is unclear. This study aimed to assess the fecal immunochemical test as a colorectal cancer screening modality in average-risk individualS in Nigeria. METHODS: A population-based, cross-sectional study of qualitative fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening was done in asymptomatic, average-risk participants aged 45-75 years in three states in Nigeria (Osun, Kwara, and Lagos). Participants were invited to enrol using age-stratified and sex-stratified convenience sampling following community outreach. Exclusion criteria included a personal history of colorectal cancer or rectal bleeding in the previous 6 months, a first-degree relative with a known diagnosis of colorectal cancer, or a comorbidity that would preclude conscious sedation or general anesthesia. Participants with positive fecal immunochemical test results underwent colonoscopy, and the positive predictive value of fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas (≥10 mm, tubulovillous or villous or high-grade dysplasia) was calculated. Data on demographics and acceptability of fecal immunochemical testing and colonoscopy were collected. FINDINGS: Between January and April 2021, 2330 participants were enrolled in the study and received a fecal immunochemical test, which was returned by 2109 participants. 1677 participants tested negative and 432 tested positive. Of these 432 participants, 285 underwent a colonoscopy (235 showed no polyps or cancer, 47 had polyps identified, and three had colorectal cancer identified). Of the 47 participants who had polyps identified, 20 had advanced adenomas diagnosed. The median age was 57 years (IQR 50-63), 958 (41%) were male and 1372 (59%) were female, and 68% had at least a secondary-level education. Participants were evenly spread across wealth quintiles. The positivity rate of the fecal immunochemical test was 21% overall (432 of 2109; 95% CI 20-21%), 11% (51 of 455; 95% CI 10-12) in Lagos, 20% (215 of 1052; 95% CI 20-21) in Osun, and 28% (166 of 597; 95% CI 27-29) in Kwara. Among the patients with a positive fecal immunochemical test who completed colonoscopy, the positive predictive value for invasive colorectal cancer was 1·1% (95% CI 0·3-3·3), and 7·0% (4·5-10·8) for advanced adenoma. The acceptability of fecal immunochemical screening among participants was very high. INTERPRETATION: Colorectal cancer screening with qualitative fecal immunochemical tests in Nigeria is feasible and acceptable to average-risk asymptomatic participants. However, the low positive predictive value for advanced neoplasia and high endoscopy burden investigating false positives suggests it might not be an appropriate screening tool in this setting. FUNDING: Thompson Family Foundation, Prevent Cancer Foundation, National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Program Cancer Center.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Global HealthSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207