A randomised comparison of two faecal immunochemical tests in population-based colorectal cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer screening programmes are implemented worldwide; many are based on faecal immunochemical testing (FIT). The aim of this study was to evaluate two frequently used FITs on participation, usability, positivity rate and diagnostic yield in population-based FIT screening. DESIGN: Comparison of two FITs was performed in a fourth round population-based FIT-screening cohort. Randomly selected individuals aged 50-74 were invited for FIT screening and were randomly allocated to receive an OC -Sensor (Eiken, Japan) or faecal occult blood (FOB)-Gold (Sentinel, Italy) test (March-December 2014). A cut-off of 10 µg haemoglobin (Hb)/g faeces (ie, 50 ng Hb/mL buffer for OC-Sensor and 59 ng Hb for FOB-Gold) was used for both FITs. RESULTS: In total, 19 291 eligible invitees were included (median age 61, IQR 57-67; 48% males): 9669 invitees received OC-Sensor and 9622 FOB-Gold; both tests were returned by 63% of invitees (p=0.96). Tests were non-analysable in 0.7% of participants using OC-Sensor vs 2.0% using FOB-Gold (p<0.001). Positivity rate was 7.9% for OC-Sensor, and 6.5% for FOB-Gold (p=0.002). There was no significant difference in diagnostic yield of advanced neoplasia (1.4% for OC-Sensor vs 1.2% for FOB-Gold; p=0.15) or positive predictive value (PPV; 31% vs 32%; p=0.80). When comparing both tests at the same positivity rate instead of cut-off, they yielded similar PPV and detection rates. CONCLUSIONS: The OC-Sensor and FOB-Gold were equally acceptable to a screening population. However, FOB-Gold was prone to more non-analysable tests. Comparison between FIT brands is usually done at the same Hb stool concentration. Our findings imply that for a fair comparison on diagnostic yield between FIT's positivity rate rather than Hb concentration should be used. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR5385; Results.

Monitoring cognitive change in multiple sclerosis using a computerized cognitive battery.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive monitoring that can detect short-term change in multiple sclerosis is challenging. Computerized cognitive batteries such as the CogState Brief Battery can rapidly assess commonly affected cognitive domains. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to establish the acceptability and sensitivity of the CogState Brief Battery in multiple sclerosis patients compared to controls. We compared the sensitivity of the CogState Brief Battery to that of the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test over 12 months. METHODS: Demographics, Expanded Disability Status Scale scores, depression and anxiety scores were compared with CogState Brief Battery and Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test performances of 51 patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, 19 with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis and 40 healthy controls. Longitudinal data in 37 relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients were evaluated using linear mixed models. RESULTS: Both the CogState Brief Battery and the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test discriminated between multiple sclerosis and healthy controls at baseline (p<0.001). CogState Brief Battery tasks were more acceptable and caused less anxiety than the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (p<0.001). In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients, reaction time slowed over 12 months (p<0.001) for the CogState Brief Battery Detection (mean change -34.23 ms) and Identification (-25.31 ms) tasks. Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test scores did not change over this time. CONCLUSIONS: The CogState Brief Battery is highly acceptable and better able to detect cognitive change than the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test. The CogState Brief Battery could potentially be used as a practical cognitive monitoring tool in the multiple sclerosis clinic setting.