Use of a low cut-off value for the fecal immunochemical test enables better detection of proximal neoplasia

One or two faecal immunochemical tests in an organised population-based colorectal cancer screening programme in Murcia (Spain)

OBJECTIVE

Roll-out of population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is limited by availability of further investigations, particularly colonoscopy and examination of excised lesions. Our objective was to assess whether variation in number of faecal samples and threshold adjustment can optimise resource utilisation and CRC detection rate.

METHODS

Three different screening strategies were compared for the same FIT threshold using a quantitative FIT system: one FIT, positive when >20 µg Hb/g faeces; two FIT, positive when either was >20 µg Hb/g faeces; and two FIT, positive when the mean was >20 µg Hb/g faeces. We calculated changes in the size of population the provider could invite to screening for an equal number of screening positive results, and CRC and adenoma detected.

RESULTS

In our setting, Region of Murcia, south of Spain (not fully rolled out screening programme), changing the usual strategy of two FIT, positive when either to positive when the mean was >20 µg Hb/g faeces, would increase population invited by 37.81% with the same number of positive results (which would generate a CRC detection rate of 19.2%). In a fully rolled out programme, changing the strategy from one to two FIT (positive when the mean is >20 µg Hb/g faeces), would increase CRC detection rate by 4.64% with an increase of only 13.34% in positive FIT.

CONCLUSIONS

In a population-based CRC screening programme, smart use of number of FITs and positivity threshold can increase population invited and CRC detection without increasing the number of colonoscopies and pathological examinations needed.

Colorectal cancer screening programme: is the French faecal immunological test (FIT) threshold optimal?

BACKGROUND

In France, the colorectal cancer organised screening programme uses the faecal immunological test. A positive test ⩾30 μg Hb/g of stool leads to a colonoscopy for identification of potential colorectal lesions. Cut-off values vary from 20 to 47 μg Hb/g of stool in Western countries. We herein question this threshold's relevance in a French population and perform a retrospective observational study using the Parisian database between 1 April 2015 and 31 December 2018.

METHODS

Rates of participation, numbers of positive faecal immunological test (FIT), detection rates and positive predictive values for advanced adenomas and/or colorectal cancer were determined. Mean positivity values for colorectal lesions were calculated.

RESULTS

In our population, there were 4.1% positive tests and 67.6% colonoscopy results available with final reports. Positive predictive value for advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer were 30% [95% confidence interval (CI) 29.8-30.3] and 7.4% (95% CI 7.35-7.52), respectively. The mean positivity value for all positive tests in our population was 101.7 µg Hb/g of stool (95% CI 85-118.3). There were 1136 normal colonoscopies (21.4%) with a mean positivity value of 88.6 μg Hb/g of stool. Following a negative test in a first screening campaign, 40.8% of patients in our population performed a second test with a positivity rate of 1.3% and with the encounter of 81 colorectal cancers. The risk of having a positive test during the second screening campaign and finding advanced colorectal lesions significantly increased (all p < 0.001) when comparing negative FIT results ranging between 15 and 29 μg Hb/g of stool to 0 and 14 μg Hb/g of stool from the previous campaign.

CONCLUSION

Using the current positivity threshold, some patients were considered negative with a delay in colorectal cancer diagnosis, suggesting the threshold could be lowered. Also, the mean positivity value for normal colonoscopies was high, raising the question of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

PPV and Detection Rate of mt-sDNA Testing, FIT, and CT Colonography for Advanced Neoplasia: A Hierarchic Bayesian Meta-Analysis of the Noninvasive Colorectal Screening Tests

BACKGROUND. Noninvasive tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and prevention limit the need for invasive colonoscopy to follow up positive test results. However, the relative performance characteristics of available noninvasive tests have not yet been adequately compared. OBJECTIVE. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performance of the available noninvasive CRC screening tests, including multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) testing, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and CT colonography (CTC), with an emphasis on comparison of PPV and detection rate (DR) for advanced neoplasia (AN; encompassing cases of advanced adenomas and CRC). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION. After systematic searches of MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases, 10 mt-sDNA, 27 CTC, and 88 FIT published screening studies involving 25,132, 33,493, and 2,355,958 asymptomatic adults, respectively, were included. Meta-analysis with hierarchic Bayesian modeling was conducted in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA guidelines to determine test positivity rates (TPRs) leading to optical colonoscopy, as well as PPVs and DRs for both AN and CRC. Different positivity thresholds were considered for FIT and CTC. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS. Point estimates (with 95% credible intervals) from pooled Bayesian meta-analysis combining all thresholds for FIT and stratifying CTC results by a polyp size threshold of 6 mm or larger (CTC6) and 10 mm or larger (CTC10) were calculated. TPR was 13.5% (10.9-16.6%) for mt-sDNA testing, 6.4% (5.8-7.2%) for FIT, 13.4% (11.4-15.6%) for CTC6, and 6.6% (5.2-7.7%) for CTC10. AN PPV was 26.9% (95% credible interval, 21.8-33.2%) for mt-sDNA testing, 31.8% (29.3-34.5%) for FIT, 34.4% (27.2-41.0%) for CTC6, and 61.0% (54.0-70.0%) for CTC10. CRC PPV was 2.4% (1.5-3.9%) for mt-sDNA testing, 4.9% (4.3-5.3%) for FIT, 3.5% (2.5-4.8%) for CTC6, and 6.0% (4.3-8.0%) for CTC10. The DR for AN was 3.4% (95% credible interval, 2.5-4.8%) for mt-SDNA, 2.0% (1.8-2.3%) for FIT, 4.8% (4.0-6.5%) for CTC6, and 4.0% (3.0-4.6%) for CTC10. When FIT is restricted to a lower threshold (< 10 μg Hb/g feces), its performance profile is similar to that of mt-sDNA testing, although available data are limited. AN PPV odds ratios (relative to CTC10 as the reference) were 0.24 (95% credible interval, 0.17-0.33) for mt-sDNA testing, 0.30 (0.24-0.45) for FIT, and 0.33 (0.25-0.47) for CTC6. CONCLUSION. Among noninvasive CRC screening tests, CTC with a polyp size threshold of 10 mm or larger most effectively targets AN, preserving detection while also decreasing unnecessary colonoscopies compared with mt-sDNA testing and FIT. CLINICAL IMPACT. CTC performed with a polyp size threshold for colonoscopy referral set at 10 mm or larger represents the most effective and efficient noninvasive screening test for CRC prevention and detection.

Performance of a quantitative fecal immunochemical test for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is easier to use and more sensitive than the guaiac fecal occult blood test, but it is unclear how to optimize FIT performance. We compared the sensitivity and specificity for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia between single-sample (1-FIT) and two-sample (2-FIT) FIT protocols at a range of hemoglobin concentration cutoffs for a positive test.

METHODS

We recruited 2,761 average-risk men and women ages 49-75 referred for colonoscopy within a large nonprofit, group-model health maintenance organization (HMO), and asked them to complete two separate single-sample FITs. We generated receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves to compare sensitivity and specificity estimates for 1-FIT and 2-FIT protocols among those who completed both FIT kits and colonoscopy. We similarly compared sensitivity and specificity between hemoglobin concentration cutoffs for a single-sample FIT.

RESULTS

Differences in sensitivity and specificity between the 1-FIT and 2-FIT protocols were not statistically significant at any of the pre-specified hemoglobin concentration cutoffs (10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 μg/g). There was a significant difference in test performance of the one-sample FIT between 50 ng/ml (10 μg/g) and each of the higher pre-specified cutoffs. Disease prevalence was low.

CONCLUSIONS

A two-sample FIT is not superior to a one-sample FIT in detection of advanced adenomas; the one-sample FIT at a hemoglobin concentration cutoff of 50 ng/ml (10 μg/g) is significantly more sensitive for advanced adenomas than at higher cutoffs. These findings apply to a population of younger, average-risk patients in a U.S. integrated care system with high rates of prior screening.

Recommendations on Fecal Immunochemical Testing to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia: A Consensus Statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

The use of the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is supported by randomized trials demonstrating effectiveness in cancer prevention and widely recommended by guidelines for this purpose. The fecal immunochemical test (FIT), as a direct measure of human hemoglobin in stool has a number of advantages relative to conventional FOBT and is increasingly used relative to that test. This review summarizes current evidence for FIT in colorectal neoplasia detection and the comparative effectiveness of FIT relative to other commonly used CRC screening modalities. Based on evidence, guidance statements on FIT application were developed and quality metrics for program implementation proposed.

Recommendations on Fecal Immunochemical Testing to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia: A Consensus Statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

The use of the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is supported by randomized trials demonstrating effectiveness in cancer prevention and widely recommended by guidelines for this purpose. The fecal immunochemical test (FIT), as a direct measure of human hemoglobin in stool has a number of advantages relative to conventional FOBT and is increasingly used relative to that test. This review summarizes current evidence for FIT in colorectal neoplasia detection and the comparative effectiveness of FIT relative to other commonly used CRC screening modalities. Based on evidence, guidance statements on FIT application were developed and quality metrics for program implementation proposed.

Does Low Threshold Value Use Improve Proximal Neoplasia Detection by Fecal Immunochemical Test?

BACKGROUND

Several studies have reported that the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) less sensitively detects proximal advanced neoplasia (AN) compared to distal AN. Low threshold value use may improve proximal AN detection.

AIM

To investigate whether FIT diagnostic accuracy for AN is different according to AN location and to compare FIT accuracy in proximal AN detection using different threshold values.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted in a university hospital in Korea from June 2013 to May 2015. Out of 34,547 participants who underwent FITs, 3990 subjects aged ≥50 years who also underwent colonoscopies were analyzed. The FIT diagnostic accuracy for AN with differing locations (proximal vs. distal) and threshold values (20, 15, and 10 mcg Hb/g feces) were assessed.

RESULTS

The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of FIT in AN detection were 42.2, 84.3, 24.1, and 92.5 %, respectively. The FIT sensitivity for proximal AN detection was significantly lower than that for distal AN detection (32.7 and 49.0 %, respectively; P = 0.001). Lowering FIT threshold values tended to increase the sensitivity for proximal AN, whereas it significantly decreased the specificity for proximal AN. As a result, there was no significant difference in the accuracy for proximal AN detection (80.1, 79.3, and 78.1 % for 20, 15, and 10 mcg Hb/g feces, respectively; P = 0.107).

CONCLUSIONS

FIT was less sensitive in proximal AN detection than distal AN detection. Lowering the FIT cutoff threshold did not increase the accuracy for proximal AN detection. New biomarker development for colorectal cancer screening is required to improve proximal ACRN diagnostic accuracy.