The discriminatory capability of existing scores to predict advanced colorectal neoplasia: A prospective colonoscopy study of 5,899 screening participants

32Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

We evaluated the performance of seven existing risk scoring systems in predicting advanced colorectal neoplasia in an asymptomatic Chinese cohort. We prospectively recruited 5,899 Chinese subjects aged 50-70 years in a colonoscopy screening programme(2008-2014). Scoring systems under evaluation included two scoring tools from the US; one each from Spain, Germany, and Poland; the Korean Colorectal Screening(KCS) scores; and the modified Asia Pacific Colorectal Screening(APCS) scores. The c-statistics, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values(PPVs), and negative predictive values(NPVs) of these systems were evaluated. The resources required were estimated based on the Number Needed to Screen(NNS) and the Number Needed to Refer for colonoscopy(NNR). Advanced neoplasia was detected in 364 (6.2%) subjects. The German system referred the least proportion of subjects (11.2%) for colonoscopy, whilst the KCS scoring system referred the highest (27.4%). The c-statistics of all systems ranged from 0.56-0.65, with sensitivities ranging from 0.04-0.44 and specificities from 0.74-0.99. The modified APCS scoring system had the highest c-statistics (0.65, 95% C.I. 0.58-0.72). The NNS (12-19) and NNR (5-10) were similar among the scoring systems. The existing scoring systems have variable capability to predict advanced neoplasia among asymptomatic Chinese subjects, and further external validation should be performed.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wong, M. C. S., Ching, J. Y. L., Ng, S., Lam, T. Y. T., Luk, A. K. C., Wong, S. H., … Sung, J. J. Y. (2016). The discriminatory capability of existing scores to predict advanced colorectal neoplasia: A prospective colonoscopy study of 5,899 screening participants. Scientific Reports, 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20080

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free