% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Hoffmeister:301542,
      author       = {M. Hoffmeister$^*$ and T. Seum$^*$ and L. Ludwig$^*$ and H.
                      Brenner$^*$},
      title        = {{P}erformance of a smartphone-based stool test for use in
                      colorectal cancer screening: population-based study.},
      journal      = {Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology},
      volume       = {nn},
      issn         = {1542-3565},
      address      = {New York, NY},
      publisher    = {Elsevier Science},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2025-01063},
      pages        = {nn},
      year         = {2025},
      note         = {#EA:C070#LA:C070# / epub},
      abstract     = {Non-invasive colorectal cancer (CRC) screening bears high
                      potential for increasing participation if implemented in a
                      straightforward way. We have evaluated the feasibility and
                      diagnostic performance of a smartphone-based fecal
                      immunochemical test (FIT) for CRC screening and compared its
                      performance of with a laboratory-based FIT.Individuals
                      scheduled for a screening colonoscopy in gastroenterology
                      practices in Southern Germany enrolled into the BLITZ study
                      between 2021 and 2023 were offered a smartphone-based FIT
                      and a laboratory FIT. The smartphone-based FIT consists of a
                      rapid test and a smartphone app. The app quantitatively
                      evaluates the result of the rapid test using the smartphone
                      camera.. The feasibility of the smartphone-based FIT was
                      evaluated in a self-administered questionnaire. The
                      comparative performance of the two FITs was evaluated by
                      sensitivity, specificity and receiver-operator curve (ROC)
                      measures.Of 654 study participants who were offered both a
                      smartphone-based FIT in addition to the laboratory FIT, 361
                      $(55\%)$ made use of the smartphone-based FIT, 274 $(76\%)$
                      of those had a valid smartphone-based FIT, and 643 $(98\%)$
                      used the laboratory FIT. Overall $89\%$ considered the
                      smartphone-based FIT as a useful alternative offer to the
                      laboratory FIT. The reasons why the smartphone-based FIT was
                      not used were mostly technical (app- or smartphone-related,
                      $47\%),$ or reflecting more general concerns or attitudes
                      towards such a test $(44\%).$ The smartphone-based FIT
                      showed a sensitivity for advanced neoplasms $(28\%,$ $95\%$
                      confidence interval $13-47\%)$ similar to the laboratory FIT
                      $(34\%,$ $18-54\%)$ at an identical specificity $(92\%,$
                      $87-95\%).The$ smartphone-based FIT could serve as an
                      alternative in addition to currently offered laboratory
                      FITs. drks.de, DRKS00008737.},
      keywords     = {FIT (Other) / colonoscopy (Other) / digital prevention
                      (Other) / early detection (Other) / self-test (Other)},
      cin          = {C070 / HD01},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)C070-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)HD01-20160331},
      pnm          = {313 - Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention (POF4-313)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:40403947},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.cgh.2025.04.027},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/301542},
}