Yield and efficiency of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for advanced colorectal neoplasia alone vs. with risk factors or risk prediction models: a descriptive systematic review
4 affiliations
- 1Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN USA
- 2Center of Innovation, Health Services Research and Development, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN USA
- 3Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, IN USA
- 4University Library, Indiana University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN USA
Abstract
Background: Using the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) with risk factors for advanced colorectal neoplasia (AN – the combination of colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous polyps) could improve the yield of colonoscopy in both screening and diagnostic settings. In this systematic review, we evaluated: (1) yield and efficiency of FIT alone vs. FIT plus risk factors for screening and among FIT positive individuals; (2) study quality for these two settings.
Methods: Following literature searches of Ovid MEDLINE and Embase from January 2010 to March 2026, two reviewers independently identified published English-language studies that evaluated FIT performance with and without risk factors among average-risk adults aged ≥ 40 years undergoing screening colonoscopy and among FIT positive subjects, independently extracted descriptive and numerical data, and evaluated study quality. We compared colonoscopy yield and efficiency of FIT alone versus FIT with risk prediction models and risk factors in screening and diagnostic studies.
Results: From 1891 articles, we identified 9 screening studies and 10 diagnostic studies for a positive FIT. Both groups of studies were homogeneous in design and of good quality. In the nine screening studies, age, sex, BMI, family history of CRC, and smoking were most often used with varying model metrics and varying degrees of discrimination, and with modest-to-moderate improvements in efficiency at the cost of missing a proportion of AN. Among the ten diagnostic studies, the combination of fecal hemoglobin, age, sex, and smoking had the greatest improvement on yield and efficiency, but also missed a small proportion of AN.
Conclusions: In the screening setting, the yield of colonoscopy for AN improves when risk factors are used to stratify who is first screened with FIT vs. colonoscopy. In the diagnostic setting, risk factors help prioritize FIT-positive patients for diagnostic colonoscopy because of high risk for AN.
Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-026-05013-y.
Related
- Fecal Immunochemical Test Outreach for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers
- Prediction Models for Delayed Bleeding After Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.
- Reconstructive Strategies for Chronic Extensor Pollicis Longus Ruptures: A Systematic Review and Descriptive Pooled Analysis
- Mapping the complement-targeted landscape in igA nephropathy: a systematic review with structured descriptive synthesis
- Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Tests—From Efficacy to Implementation
BibTeX
@article{imperiale2026yield,
title = {{Yield and efficiency of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for advanced colorectal neoplasia alone vs. with risk factors or risk prediction models: a descriptive systematic review}},
author = {Thomas F. Imperiale and Marissa Godfrey and Melissa R. Thomas and Vasu Sheel and Rachel Hinrichs},
journal = {BMC Gastroenterology},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
doi = {10.1186/s12876-026-05013-y},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-026-05013-y},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Yield and efficiency of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for advanced colorectal neoplasia alone vs. with risk factors or risk prediction models: a descriptive systematic review
AU - Thomas F. Imperiale
AU - Marissa Godfrey
AU - Melissa R. Thomas
AU - Vasu Sheel
AU - Rachel Hinrichs
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/07/01
JO - BMC Gastroenterology
DO - 10.1186/s12876-026-05013-y
UR - https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-026-05013-y
AB - Background: Using the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) with risk factors for advanced colorectal neoplasia (AN – the combination of colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous polyps) could improve the yield of colonoscopy in both screening and diagnostic settings. In this systematic review, we evaluated: (1) yield and efficiency of FIT alone vs. FIT plus risk factors for screening and among FIT positive individuals; (2) study quality for these two settings. Methods: Following literature searches of Ovid MEDLINE and Embase from January 2010 to March 2026, two reviewers independently identified published English-language studies that evaluated FIT performance with and without risk factors among average-risk adults aged ≥ 40 years undergoing screening colonoscopy and among FIT positive subjects, independently extracted descriptive and numerical data, and evaluated study quality. We compared colonoscopy yield and efficiency of FIT alone versus FIT with risk prediction models and risk factors in screening and diagnostic studies. Results: From 1891 articles, we identified 9 screening studies and 10 diagnostic studies for a positive FIT. Both groups of studies were homogeneous in design and of good quality. In the nine screening studies, age, sex, BMI, family history of CRC, and smoking were most often used with varying model metrics and varying degrees of discrimination, and with modest-to-moderate improvements in efficiency at the cost of missing a proportion of AN. Among the ten diagnostic studies, the combination of fecal hemoglobin, age, sex, and smoking had the greatest improvement on yield and efficiency, but also missed a small proportion of AN. Conclusions: In the screening setting, the yield of colonoscopy for AN improves when risk factors are used to stratify who is first screened with FIT vs. colonoscopy. In the diagnostic setting, risk factors help prioritize FIT-positive patients for diagnostic colonoscopy because of high risk for AN. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-026-05013-y.
SN - 1471-230X
ER -