Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Jun;39(6):1000-1007.
doi: 10.1111/jgh.16523. Epub 2024 Feb 29.

Performance of the Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening score in stratifying the risk of advanced colorectal neoplasia: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Mai Ngoc Luu  1   2 , Nhi Ai Trinh  3 , Truc Le Thanh Tran  4 , Thinh Phuong Dang  5 , Toru Hiyama  6 , Duc Trong Quach  1   2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Performance of the Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening score in stratifying the risk of advanced colorectal neoplasia: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Mai Ngoc Luu et al. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jun.

Abstract

Background and aim: This study systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed the performance of the Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening (APCS) score and its incorporation with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in stratifying the risk of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN).

Methods: We systematically searched for relevant articles in 12 electronic databases and registers on October 20, 2021, and updated the search to September 1, 2023. Random-effect models were used to obtain the pooled performance statistics of the APCS score for ACN risk.

Results: From the 101 records screened, 13 eligible studies in the Asia-Pacific region involving 69 762 subjects who had undergone colonoscopy were enrolled. The pooled prevalences of ACN in the average-risk (AR) tier (APCS 0-1), moderate-risk (MR) tier (APCS 2-3), and high-risk (HR) tier (APCS ≥ 4) groups were 0.9%, 3.1%, and 8.1%, respectively. Compared with the combined AR-MR group, the HR group was significantly associated with a higher ACN risk (pooled diagnostic odds ratio: 2.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.35-3.45, P < 0.001). The APCS score showed a sensitivity of 0.42 (95% CI: 0.40-0.44) and a specificity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.85-0.86) for predicting the ACN risk, with a weighted area under the curve of 0.642 (95% CI: 0.610-0.657). The combination of the APCS score and FIT substantially improved ACN risk identification, demonstrating pooled diagnostic odds ratios of 4.02 (95% CI: 2.50-6.49) in the AR-MR groups and 5.44 (95% CI: 1.89-15.63) in the MR-HR groups.

Conclusions: The APCS score could effectively stratify the ACN risk in the Asia-Pacific population. Incorporating FIT further improves its performance in identifying high-risk subjects who should be prioritized for colonoscopy screenings.

Keywords: APCS; Asia–Pacific; advanced colorectal neoplasia; colorectal neoplasms; fecal immunochemical test.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Hisabe T, Hirai F, Matsui T. Development and progression of colorectal cancer based on follow‐up analysis. Digest. Endosc. 2014; 26: 73–77.
    1. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N. Engl. J. Med. 1993; 329: 1977–1981.
    1. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long‐term prevention of colorectal‐cancer deaths. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012; 366: 687–696.
    1. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ. Initial management and follow‐up surveillance of patients with colorectal adenomas. Gastroenterol. Clin. North Am. 1997; 26: 85–101.
    1. Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA et al. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi‐Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2017; 112: 1016–1030.