Home Medicine A new sampling device for faecal immunochemical testing: haemoglobin stability is still an open issue
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

A new sampling device for faecal immunochemical testing: haemoglobin stability is still an open issue

  • Elisa Gnatta EMAIL logo , Martina Zaninotto , Maria Grazia Epifani , Andrea Padoan , Romelda Gjini and Mario Plebani
Published/Copyright: February 7, 2014

Abstract

Background: The detection of faecal occult blood is a fundamental step in making an early diagnosis of colorectal cancer. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the stability of haemoglobin in faeces collected with two sampling devices specific for faecal immunochemical testing (FOB Gold Tube Screen and FOB Gold Tube NG) that contain different preservative buffers (buffer H, BH, and buffer N, BN, respectively).

Methods: Fifteen true positive faecal samples were collected with both devices. A pool from each sample was made. Each pool was portioned and stored at +4°C, +21°C and +32°C for 10 days. One aliquot of each pool stored at each of the respective temperatures was tested at five time intervals between sampling and analysis. The same procedure was followed for three synthetic haemoglobin solutions in both buffers.

Results: The percentage of cumulative faecal haemoglobin decrease (HbCD%) was evaluated. No significant difference was found between BH and BN in HbCD% at +4°C (p=0.106); at +21°C and +32°C, HbCD% was lower in BH than in BN samples (p=0.002 and p=0.001, respectively) whereas no difference was found between samples stored in BH at +4°C and +21°C. The synthetic haemoglobin degradation percentage was always ≤7.1% for both buffers except for BN at +32°C (about 60%).

Conclusions: Synthetic haemoglobin solutions behave differently from the true faecal samples. At +21°C and +32°C BH preserves the haemoglobin better than BN, independent of the haemoglobin concentration. BH, allowing sample stability at both +4°C and +21°C, is more suitable for screening procedures.


Corresponding author: Elisa Gnatta, Department of Laboratory Medicine, University-Hospital, Via Giustiniani 2, Padua, Italy, Phone: +39 04 98212801, E-mail:

References

1. Center MM, Jemal A, Smith RA, Ward E. Worldwide variations in colorectal cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2009;59:366–78.10.3322/caac.20038Search in Google Scholar PubMed

2. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 2009;59:225–49.10.3322/caac.20006Search in Google Scholar PubMed

3. Cappell MS. The pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and diagnosis of colon cancer and adenomatous polyps. Med Clin North Am 2005;89:1–42.10.1016/j.mcna.2004.08.011Search in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Halloran SP, Launoy G, Zappa M, International Agency for Research on Cancer. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal screening and diagnosis. First Edition-Faecal occult blood testing. Endoscopy 2012;44(Suppl 3):SE65–87.10.1055/s-0032-1309791Search in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Watson E, Towler B, Irwig L. Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (Hemoccult): an update. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:1541–9.10.1111/j.1572-0241.2008.01875.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

6. Fraser CG. Fecal occult blood tests. Life savers or outdated colorectal screening tools? Clin Lab News 2011;37:8–10.Search in Google Scholar

7. Logan RF, Patnick J, Nickerson C, Coleman L, Rutter MD, von Wagner C, English Bowel Cancer Screening Evaluation Committee. Outcomes of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England after the first 1 million tests. Gut 2012;61:1439–46.10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300843Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

8. Young GP, Fraser CG, Halloran SP, Cole S. Guaiac-based faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening – an obsolete strategy? Gut 2012;6:959–60.10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301810Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

9. Hol L, van Leerdam ME, van Ballegooijen M, van Vuuren AJ, van Dekken H, Reijerink JC, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: randomised trial comparing guaiac-based and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gut 2010;59:62–8.10.1136/gut.2009.177089Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Van Rossum LG, van Rijn AF, Laheij RJ, van Oijen MG, Fockens P, van Krieken HH, et al. Random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer in a screening population. Gastroenterology 2008;135:82–90.10.1053/j.gastro.2008.03.040Search in Google Scholar PubMed

11. Park DI, Ryu S, Kim YH, Lee SH, Lee CK, Eun CS, et al. Comparison of guaiac-based and quantitative immunochemical fecal occult blood testing in a population at average risk undergoing colorectal cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:2017–25.10.1038/ajg.2010.179Search in Google Scholar PubMed

12. Fraser CG. A future for faecal haemoglobin measurements in the medical laboratory. Ann Clin Biochem 2012;49:518–26.10.1258/acb.2012.012065Search in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Brown LF, Fraser CG. Effect of delay in sampling on haemoglobin determined by faecal immunochemical tests. Ann Clin Biochem 2008;45:604–5.10.1258/acb.2008.008024Search in Google Scholar PubMed

14. Grazzini G, Ventura L, Zappa M, Ciatto S, Confortini M, Rapi S, et al. Influence of seasonal variations in ambient temperatures on performance of immunochemical faecal occult blood test for colorectal cancer screening: observational study from the Florence district. Gut 2010;59:1511–5.10.1136/gut.2009.200873Search in Google Scholar PubMed

15. Young GP, Sinatra MA, St John DJ. Influence of delay in stool sampling on fecal occult blood test sensitivity. Clin Chem 1996;42:1107–8.10.1093/clinchem/42.7.1107Search in Google Scholar

16. Fraser CG, Halloran SP, Allison JE, Young GP. Making colorectal cancer screening FITTER for purpose with quantitative faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT). Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;20:1–3.10.1515/cclm-2013-0408Search in Google Scholar PubMed

17. Van Rossum LG, van Rijn AF, van Oijen MG, Fockens P, Laheij RJ, Verbeek AL, et al. False negative fecal occult blood tests due to delayed sample return in colorectal cancer screening. Int J Cancer 2009;125:746–50.10.1002/ijc.24458Search in Google Scholar PubMed

18. Lee CS, O’Gorman P, Walsh P, Qasim A, McNamara D, O’Morain, et al. Immunochemical faecal occult blood tests have superior stability and analytical performance characteristics over guaiac-based tests in a controlled in vitro study. J Clin Pathol 2011;64:524–8.10.1136/jcp.2010.085399Search in Google Scholar PubMed

19. Guittet L, Guillaume E, Levillain R, Beley P, Tichet J, Lantieri O, et al. Analytical comparison of three quantitative immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20:1492–501.10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0594Search in Google Scholar PubMed

20. Levi Z, Rozen P, Hazazi R, Vilkin A, Waked A, Maoz E, et al. A quantitative immunochemical fecal occult blood test for colorectal neoplasia. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:244–55.10.7326/0003-4819-146-4-200702200-00003Search in Google Scholar PubMed

21. Fraser CG, Allison JE, Halloran SP, Young GP. A proposal to standardize reporting units for fecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:810–4.10.1093/jnci/djs190Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2013-12-13
Accepted: 2014-1-12
Published Online: 2014-2-7
Published in Print: 2014-8-1

©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Colorectal cancer and screening programs: not only analytical issues
  4. Reviews
  5. Laboratory diagnostics of inherited platelet disorders
  6. Reticulated platelets: analytical aspects and clinical utility
  7. Genetics and Molecular Diagnostics
  8. Advanced tools for BRCA1/2 mutational screening: comparison between two methods for large genomic rearrangements (LGRs) detection
  9. General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  10. Establishing, harmonizing and analyzing critical values in a large academic health center
  11. Standardization of DiaSorin and Roche automated third generation PTH assays with an International Standard: impact on clinical populations
  12. First fully automated immunoassay for anti-Müllerian hormone
  13. A multicenter evaluation of dysthyroxinemia in a defined patient cohort
  14. New biomarkers in diagnosis of early onset preeclampsia and imminent delivery prognosis
  15. Soluble Fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 to placental growth factor ratio in mid-pregnancy as a predictor of preterm preeclampsia in asymptomatic pregnant women
  16. Development of a new immunoassay for the detection of ethyl glucuronide (EtG) in meconium: validation with authentic specimens analyzed using LC-MS/MS. Preliminary results
  17. Optimizing centrifugation of coagulation samples in laboratory automation
  18. Evaluation of the automated coagulation analyzer CS-5100 and its utility in high throughput laboratories
  19. A new sampling device for faecal immunochemical testing: haemoglobin stability is still an open issue
  20. Reference Values
  21. Faecal haemoglobin concentrations vary with sex and age, but data are not transferable across geography for colorectal cancer screening
  22. Cancer Diagnostics
  23. Enhanced miR-182 transcription is a predictor of poor overall survival in colorectal adenocarcinoma patients
  24. Importance of promoter methylation of GATA4 and TP53 genes in endometrioid carcinoma of endometrium
  25. Frequent methylation of HOXA9 gene in tumor tissues and plasma samples from human hepatocellular carcinomas
  26. Letters to the Editor
  27. Further comments on “Critical review of laboratory investigations in clinical practice guidelines: proposals for the description of investigation”
  28. A questionnaire study among nurses: awareness of blood and urine sample collection procedures
  29. Measurement uncertainty and clinical interpretation of measurement results
  30. Laboratory automation: how will you select the boarding assays?
  31. Improvement and evaluation of a 1,2-dioleoylglycerol method for measuring pancreatic lipase catalytic activity in serum
  32. The novel variant p.Ser465Leu in the PCSK9 gene does not account for the decreased LDLR activity in members of a FH family
  33. 1,5 Anhydroglucitol serum concentration as a biomarker for screening gestational diabetes in early pregnancy
  34. A rare condition: IgE type monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance
  35. Laboratory analysis of intraosseous blood: bad to the bone?
Downloaded on 9.3.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2013-1074/html
Scroll to top button