Effects of Increasing Screening Age and Fecal Hemoglobin Cutoff Concentrations in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program

Performance of Faecal Immunochemical Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening at Varying Positivity Thresholds

BACKGROUND

The positivity thresholds of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening vary between countries.

AIMS

To explore the trade-off between colonoscopies performed, adverse events and lesions detected at different FIT thresholds in a Norwegian CRC screening trial.

METHODS

We included first participation in biennial FIT screening for 47,265 individuals aged 50-74 years. Individuals with FIT > 15 μg Hb/g faeces were referred for colonoscopy. We estimated the number of colonoscopies, adverse events, screen-detected CRCs, advanced adenomas and serrated lesions expected at FIT thresholds currently or recently used in other European countries ranging between 20 and 150 μg/g.

RESULTS

At the 15 μg/g threshold (Norway), 3705 participants underwent colonoscopy, of whom 203 had CRC, 1119 advanced adenomas and 256 advanced serrated lesions. Using a 47 μg/g threshold, 1826 (49.3%) individuals would have undergone colonoscopy, and 154 (75.9%) would have been diagnosed with CRC, 702 (62.7%) with advanced adenoma and 128 (50.0%) with advanced serrated lesion compared to the 15 μg/g threshold. At 150 μg/g, the corresponding figures would have been 838 (22.6%) undergoing colonoscopy, 114 (56.2%) with CRC, 345 (30.8%) advanced adenoma and 54 (21.1%) advanced serrated lesions. The detection rate of stage I CRC was 0.22% at 15 μg/g and 0.11% at 150 μg/g. Post-colonoscopy bleeding rates were 0.8% and 1.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing the FIT threshold reduces colonoscopy demand, but substantially decreases lesion detection and unfavourably changes CRC stage distribution. The risk of adverse events at colonoscopy increased with FIT threshold, requiring country-specific information on adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01538550.

Sessile serrated polyp detection rates after fecal immunochemical test or multitarget stool DNA test: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims Published studies report a higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) for FIT-DNA as compared with FIT. Data are less replete about the performance of stool-based tests for sessile serrated polyp (SSP) detection. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of FIT and FIT-DNA testing for SSP detection rate (SSPDR) in patients undergoing colonoscopy for follow up of positive noninvasive tests. Methods A comprehensive literature search of multiple databases (until September 2022) was performed to identify studies reporting SSPDR in patients with positive FIT or FIT-DNA tests. The outcome was overall colonoscopy detection of any SSPs and advanced serrated polyps (ASP: SSP ≥ 10 mm and/or dysplasia). Results Included were 482,405 patients (52.4% females) with a mean age of 62.3 ± 4.4 years from 23 studies. The pooled SSPDR for all positive stool-based tests was 5.3% and higher for FIT-DNA (15.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.3-25.7) versus FIT (4.1%, 95% CI 3.0-5.6; P = 0.0002). The overall pooled ASP detection rate was 1.4% (95% CI 0.81-2.3) and higher for FIT-DNA (3.8 %, 95% CI 1.7-8.6) compared with FIT (0.71%, 95% CI 0.36-1.4; P <0.01). SSPDR with FIT-DNA was also significantly higher than FIT when the FIT cutoff was >10 ug/g and in FIT-positive patients in studies conducted in North America ( P <0.05). Conclusions FIT-DNA outperformed FIT in both SSP and ASP detection including FIT with a lower threshold cutoff of >10 ug/g. Further comparative studies are needed to assess the impact of our findings on colorectal cancer reduction.

Sensitivity of fecal immunochemical test and risk factors for interval colorectal cancer in a French population

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) aims to detect pre-symptomatic colorectal lesions and reduce CRC mortality.

AIMS

The objectives of this study were to determine the FIT sensitivity for diagnosis of CRC, the impact of diagnostic circumstances on treatment and survival, and risk factors for interval cancer (IC).

METHODS

This population-based study evaluated the 2016-2017 CRC screening campaign in Finistère, France. CRCs were classified according to diagnostic circumstances: screen-detected CRC (SD-CRC), CRC with delayed diagnosis, IC after negative FIT (FIT-IC), post-colonoscopy CRC, CRC in non-responders and CRC in the excluded population.

RESULTS

This study included 909 CRCs: 248 SD-CRCs (6% of positive FIT) and 60 FIT-ICs (0.07% of negative FIT). The FIT sensitivity for CRC was 80.5% (CI95%: 76.1-84.9) at the threshold of 30 µg hemoglobin/g feces used in France. In multivariate analysis, proximal (OR:6.73) and rectal locations (OR:7.52) were associated with being diagnosed with FIT-IC rather than SD-CRC. The FIT positivity threshold maximizing the sum of sensitivity and specificity was found to be 17 µg/g, with 14 additional CRCs diagnosed compared to the current threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms the good sensitivity of FIT. A decrease of the FIT detection threshold could optimize sensitivity.

Factors associated with positive predictive value of preliminary screening in a two-step screening strategy for colorectal neoplasms in China

BACKGROUND

The positive predictive value (PPV) of high risk factor questionnaire (HRFQ) plus fecal immunochemical test (FIT) as preliminary screening strategy for colorectal-related neoplasia is relatively low. We aim to explore independent factors associated with PPVs of HRFQ combined FIT for selecting high risk individuals for colonoscopy.

METHODS

A total of 6971 residents were enrolled in a community-based screening program. Participants who had positive results of HRFQ and/or FIT and subsequently received colonoscopy were involved. The associations of socio-demographic factors, lifestyle behaviors, and high risk factors of colorectal cancer with PPVs of HRFQ, FIT, and their combination were evaluated by multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Among 572 involved cases, 249 (43.5%) colorectal neoplasms were detected by colonoscopy, including 71 advanced adenoma (12.4%) and 9 colorectal cancer (CRC) (1.6%). The PPVs of preliminary screening were 43.5% for total colorectal neoplasms, 14.0% for advanced neoplasm, and 1.6% for CRC. Adding positive HRFQ to FIT could improve the PPV from 3.5 to 8.0% for detecting CRC. Preliminarily screened positive individuals who were males [adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.95, 95% CI 1.31, 2.90; p  < 0.001], elders (> 60 years) (AOR: 1.70, 95% CI 1.17, 2.46; p  = 0.005), or ex-/current smokers (AOR: 3.04, 95% CI 1.31, 7.09; p  = 0.10) had higher odds of PPVs of detecting colorectal neoplasms.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining HRFQ and FIT could largely improve PPVs for screening advanced neoplasm and CRC. Gender and age-specific FIT cut-off values as well as initiating ages for CRC screening might be recommended to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of current screening algorithm.

Evidence-Based Selection on the Appropriate FIT Cut-Off Point in CRC Screening Programs in the COVID Pandemic

Background: The COVID pandemic has forced the closure of many colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. Resuming these programs is a priority, but fewer colonoscopies may be available. We developed an evidence-based tool for decision-making in CRC screening programs, based on a fecal hemoglobin immunological test (FIT), to optimize the strategy for screening a population for CRC.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data collected at a regional CRC screening program between February/2014 and November/2018. We investigated two different scenarios: not modifying vs. modifying the FIT cut-off value. We estimated program outcomes in the two scenarios by evaluating the numbers of cancers and adenomas missed or not diagnosed in due time (delayed).

Results: The current FIT cut-off (20-μg hemoglobin/g feces) led to 6,606 colonoscopies per 100,000 people invited annually. Without modifying this FIT cut-off value, when the optimal number of individuals invited for colonoscopies was reduced by 10–40%, a high number of CRCs and high-risk adenomas (34–135 and 73–288/100.000-people invited, respectively) will be undetected every year. When the FIT cut-off value was increased to where the colonoscopy demand matched the colonoscopy availability, the number of missed lesions per year was remarkably reduced (9–36 and 29–145/100.000 people, respectively). Moreover, the unmodified FIT scenario outcome was improved by prioritizing the selection process based on sex (males) and age, rather than randomly reducing the number invited.

Conclusions: Assuming a mismatch between the availability and demand for annual colonoscopies, increasing the FIT cut-off point was more effective than randomly reducing the number of people invited. Using specific risk factors to prioritize access to colonoscopies should be also considered.

The Addition of Other Fecal Biomarkers Does Not Improve the Diagnostic Accuracy of Immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Test Alone in a Colorrectal Cancer Screening Cohort

Background: Screening with fecal occult blood test reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality, and is currently implemented in most countries. However, around 40% of screening colonoscopies are normal. Thus, strategies to avoid these colonoscopies are highly necessary. Adding other fecal biomarkers, such as fecal calprotectin (FC), lactoferrin, and transferrin may be useful, but evidence is scarce.

Aims: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of fecal occult blood immunochemical test (FIT), FC, and a one-step combo card test for the simultaneous semi-qualitative detection of human hemoglobin (hHb), transferrin (hTf), calprotectin (hCp) and lactoferrin (hLf) in a CRC screening program population.

Methods: Single-center, prospective observational study, enrolling patients included in a CRC screening program, referred for a colonoscopy due to a positive FIT test. Participants collected a stool sample prior to bowel preparation, and FIT, FC and the combo semi-qualitative tests were performed on the sample. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and area under receiver operator curve (AUC) for diagnosis of advanced neoplasia, advanced adenoma and CRC were estimated for each biomarker and their combinations. The primary endpoint of the study was to assess whether these biomarkers could improve the diagnostic accuracy of FIT alone.

Results: 336 consecutive patients (64% males) were recruited. Advanced neoplasia was found in 129/336 (38.4%) patients, and of these, 22/336 (6.5%) were diagnosed of CRC. 153/336 (45.5%) colonoscopies were completely normal. The AUC for the diagnosis of advanced neoplasia were 0.725 (95%CI 0.665–0.784) for FIT, 0.477 (95%CI 0.413–0.541) for FC and 0.732 (95%CI 0.674–0.791) for the combination of both (FIT + FC) quantitative tests. The AUCs for the combo test were 0.70 (95%CI 0.641–0.760) for hHb, 0.625 (95%CI 0.562–0.698) for hTf, 0.532 (95%CI 0.469–0.595) for hCp, 0.531 (95%CI 0.466–0.595 ) for hLf and 0.681 (95%CI 0.620–0.741) for the combination of the four biomarkers.

Conclusion: In average-risk population, FIT appears to be the best fecal marker for the diagnosis of CRC and advanced adenoma. None of the other biomarkers explored or their combinations provided a better diagnostic accuracy. Only hTF showed an acceptable diagnostic accuracy. FC and hLF were not useful in this setting.

Future Prospects of Colorectal Cancer Screening: Characterizing Interval Cancers

Tumors that are not detected by screening tests are known as interval cancers and are diagnosed clinically after a negative result in the screening episode but before the next screening invitation. Clinical characteristics associated with interval colorectal cancers have been studied, but few molecular data are available that describe interval colorectal cancers. A better understanding of the clinical and biological characteristics associated with interval colorectal cancer may provide new insights into how to prevent this disease more effectively. This review aimed to summarize the current literature concerning interval colorectal cancer and its epidemiological, clinical, and molecular features.

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.

Correlation of Fecal Immunochemical Testing Levels With Pathology Results in a National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program

INTRODUCTION

Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) positivity is determined by a threshold decided by individual screening programs. Data are limited on correlation between FIT levels and pathology identified at colonoscopy. Our aim was to examine the correlation between FIT levels and pathology identified in a national colorectal cancer screening program.

METHODS

FIT levels (n = 9,271) were analyzed and correlated with patient demographics and pathology identified, including adenomas, sessile serrated lesions, number/size of adenomas, and presence of dysplasia. Levels were divided into 2 categories: FIT levels were defined as "high" or "low" based on whether they were above or below the median (479 ngHb/mL). Multivariate analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 8,084 patients (87%) underwent colonoscopy. Those younger than 65 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.267, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.107-1.45, P = 0.001), those with an adenoma >10 mm (OR 1.736, 95% CI 01.512-1.991, P < 0.001), and those with left-sided adenomas (OR 1.484, 95% CI 1.266-1.74, P < 0.001) had higher FIT levels. Cancers (OR 2.8, 95% CI 2.09-3.75, P < 0.001) and high-grade dysplasia (OR 1.356, 95% CI 1.08-1.7, P = 0.008) had higher FIT levels, but varied greatly. The number of adenomas was not significant.

DISCUSSION

In this study, FIT levels were high for left-sided and large adenomas, suggesting that FIT has poor sensitivity for detection of diminutive and right-sided neoplasia. FIT levels had no association with gender and declined with age. Adenoma burden did not correlate with FIT levels; this is a novel finding. FIT levels vary greatly even in those with advanced neoplasia; therefore, FIT is unlikely to be useful as a risk stratification tool.

Incidence of Interval Colorectal Cancer After Negative Results From First-Round Fecal Immunochemical Screening Tests, by Cutoff Value and Participant Sex and Age

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We evaluated the incidence of interval cancers between the first and second rounds of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with the FOB-Gold fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and the effects of different cutoff values and patient sex and age.

METHODS

We collected data from participants in a population-based CRC screening program in the Netherlands who had a negative result from a first-round of FIT screening. We calculated the cumulative incidence of interval cancer after a negative result from a FIT and the sensitivity of the FIT for detection of CRC at a low (15 μg Hb/g feces) and high (47 μg Hb/g feces) cutoff value.

RESULTS

Among the 485,112 participants with a negative result from a FIT, 544 interval cancers were detected; 126 were in the 111,800 participants with negative results from a FIT with the low cutoff value and 418 were in the 373,312 FIT participants with negative results from a FIT with the high cutoff value. The mean age of participants tested with the low cutoff value was 72.0 years and the mean age of participants tested the high cutoff value was 66.7 years. The age-adjusted 2-year cumulative incidence of interval cancer after a negative result from a FIT were 9.5 per 10,000 persons at the low cutoff value vs 13.8 per 10,000 persons at the high cutoff value (P < .005). The age-adjusted sensitivity of the FIT for CRC were 90.5% for the low cutoff value vs 82.9% for the high cutoff (P < .0001). The FIT identified men with CRC with 87.4% sensitivity and women with CRC with 82.6% sensitivity (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of data from a FIT population-based screening program in the Netherlands, we found that incidence of interval CRC after a negative result from a FIT to be low. Although the sensitivity of detection of CRC decreased with a higher FIT cutoff value, it remained above 80%.

Lower Abnormal Fecal Immunochemical Test Cut-Off Values Improve Detection of Colorectal Cancer in System-Level Screens

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Noninvasive tests used in colorectal cancer screening, such as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), are more acceptable but detect neoplasias with lower levels of sensitivity than colonoscopy. We investigated whether lowering the cut-off concentration of hemoglobin for designation as an abnormal FIT result increased the detection of advanced neoplasia in a mailed outreach program.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study of 17,017 uninsured patients, age 50 to 64 years, who were not current with screening and enrolled in a safety-net system in Texas. We reduced the cut-off value for an abnormal FIT result from 20 or more to 10 or more μg hemoglobin/g feces a priori. All patients with abnormal FIT results were offered no-cost diagnostic colonoscopy. We compared proportions of patients with abnormal FIT results and neoplasia yield for standard vs lower cut-off values, as well as absolute hemoglobin concentration distribution among 5838 persons who completed the FIT. Our primary aim was to determine the effects of implementing a lower hemoglobin concentration cut-off value on colonoscopy demand and yield, specifically colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced neoplasia detection, compared with the standard, higher, hemoglobin concentration cut-off value.

RESULTS

The proportions of patients with abnormal FIT results were 12.3% at the 10 or more μg hemoglobin/g feces and 6.6% at the standard 20 or more μg hemoglobin/g feces cut-off value (P = .0013). Detection rates for the lower vs the standard threshold were 10.2% vs 12.7% for advanced neoplasia (P = .12) and 0.9% vs 1.2% for CRC (P = .718). The positive predictive values were 18.9% for the lower threshold vs 24.4% for the standard threshold for advanced neoplasia (P = .053), and 1.7% vs 2.4% for CRC (P = .659). The number needed to screen to detect 1 case with advanced neoplasia was 45 at the lower threshold compared with 58 at the standard threshold; the number needed to scope to detect 1 case with advanced neoplasia increased from 4 to 5. Most patients with CRC (72.7%) or advanced adenoma (67.3%) had hemoglobin concentrations of 20 or more μg/g feces. In the group with 10 to 19 μg hemoglobin/g feces, there were 3 patients with CRC (3 of 11; 27.3%) and 36 with advanced adenoma (36 of 110; 32.7%) who would not have been detected at the standard positive threshold (advanced neoplasia Pcomparison < .001). The proportion of patients found to have no neoplasia after an abnormal FIT result (false positives) was not significantly higher with the lower cut-off value (44.4%) than the standard cut-off value (39.1%) (P = .1103).

CONCLUSIONS

In a prospective study of 17,017 uninsured patients, we found that reducing the abnormal FIT result cut-off value (to ≥10 μg hemoglobin/g feces) might increase detection of advanced neoplasia, but doubled the proportion of patients requiring a diagnostic colonoscopy. If colonoscopy capacity permits, health systems that use quantitative FITs should consider lowering the abnormal cut-off value to optimize CRC detection and prevention. (ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT01946282.).

Multiple rounds of one sample versus two sample faecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer screening requires successive rounds for maximum preventive effect. Advanced neoplasia can bleed intermittently and thus might be missed by single faecal sampling. Few studies have been done on two sample FIT (2-FIT) screening over multiple rounds. Therefore, we compared multiple rounds of one sample FIT (1-FIT) with 2-FIT screening with respect to participation, positive predictive value (PPV), diagnostic yield, and interval colorectal cancer.

METHODS

In this population-based study, a random selection of asymptomatic individuals aged 50-74 years in the Rotterdam-Rijnmond region, Netherlands, were invited by post for four rounds (every 2 years) of 1-FIT or 2-FIT screening. Key exclusion criteria were a history or colorectal cancer or inflammatory bowel disease, colon imaging in the previous 2 years, and life expectancy of less than 5 years. Per round, invitees received one or two FITs to sample either one or two consecutive bowel movements. OC-Sensor Micro (Eiken Chemical Co., Ltd, Japan) FITs were used by all participants, except the fourth round of screening for the 1-FIT cohort, for which participants used either an OC-Sensor or a FOB-Gold (Sentinel Diagnostics, Milan, Italy). A faecal haemoglobin cutoff concentration of 10 μg/g of faeces in at least one test was used for referral for colonoscopy.

FINDINGS

Between 2006 and 2015, of 10 008 invited individuals for the 1-FIT cohort, 9787 were eligible for inclusion, of whom 7310 participated at least once in four successive rounds. Of 3197 invited individuals for the 2-FIT cohort, 3131 were eligible for inclusion, and 2269 participated at least once in four successive rounds. In the 1-FIT screening cohort, 74·7% (7310 of 9787) of invitees participated at least once versus 72·5% (2269 of 3131) of invitees in the 2-FIT cohort (p=0·013). Among participants who participated at least once, the cumulative positivity rate over four rounds was 19·2% (1407 of 7310) for the 1-FIT cohort versus 28·5% (647 of 2269) for the 2-FIT cohort (p<0·0001). The cumulative PPV for advanced neoplasia was 33·0% (432 of 1308 colonoscopies) for the 1-FIT cohort versus 24·2% (147 of 607 colonoscopies) for the 2-FIT cohort (p<0·0001). The cumulative diagnostic yield of advanced neoplasia among invited individuals was 4·4% (432 of 9787) for 1-FIT versus 4·7% (147 of 3131) for 2-FIT screening (p=0·46)). FIT interval colorectal cancers were detected in eight (0·1%) of 7310 participants in the 1-FIT cohort and two (0·1%) of 2269 with 2-FIT screening (p=1·00).

INTERPRETATION

Four rounds of 2-FIT screening with a low faecal haemoglobin cutoff level did not result in a significant increase in diagnostic yield or a decrease in interval colorectal cancers compared with 1-FIT, despite higher colonoscopy demand. Therefore, 1-FIT colorectal cancer screening programmes should be preferred.

FUNDING

None.

Incidence of faecal occult blood test interval cancers in population-based colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are replacing guaiac faecal occult blood tests (gFOBTs) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Incidence of interval colorectal cancer (iCRC) following a negative stool test result is not yet known. We aimed to compare incidence of iCRC following a negative FIT or gFOBT.

DESIGN

We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, PubMed and Google Scholar from inception to 12 December 2017 for citations related to CRC screening based on stool tests. We included studies on FIT or gFOBT iCRC in average-risk screening populations. Main outcome was pooled incidence rate of iCRCs per 100 000 person-years (p-y). Pooled incidence rates were obtained by fitting random-effect Poisson regression models.

RESULTS

We identified 7 426 records and included 29 studies. Meta-analyses comprised data of 6 987 825 subjects with a negative test result, in whom 11 932 screen-detected CRCs and 5 548 gFOBT or FIT iCRCs were documented. Median faecal haemoglobin (Hb) positivity cut-off used was 20 (range 10-200) µg Hb/g faeces in the 17 studies that provided FIT results. Pooled incidence rates of iCRC following FIT and gFOBT were 20 (95% CI 14 to 29; I²=99%) and 34 (95% CI 20 to 57; I²=99%) per 100 000 p-y, respectively. Pooled incidence rate ratio of FIT versus gFOBT iCRC was 0.58 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.07; I²=99%) and 0.36 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.75; I²=10%) in sensitivity analysis. For every FIT iCRC, 2.6 screen-detected CRCs were found (ratio 1:2.6); for gFOBT, the ratio between iCRC and screen-detected CRC was 1:1.2. Age below 60 years and the third screening round were significantly associated with a lower iCRC rate.

CONCLUSION

A negative gFOBT result is associated with a higher iCRC incidence than a negative FIT. This supports the use of FIT over gFOBT as CRC screening tool.

Effect of anticoagulants and NSAIDs on accuracy of faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Most colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes are nowadays based on faecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Eligible subjects often use oral anticoagulants (OACs) or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which could possibly stimulate bleeding from both benign and premalignant lesions in the colon. The aim of this meta-analysis was to study the effect of OACs and NSAIDs use on FIT performance.

DESIGN

A systematic search was conducted until June 2017 to retrieve studies from PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of science, Cochrane Central and Google Scholar. Studies were included when reporting on FIT results in users versus non-users of OACs and/or NSAIDs in average risk CRC screening populations. Primary outcome was positive predictive value for advanced neoplasia (PPV_AN) of FIT in relation to OACs/NSAIDs use. Values were obtained by conducting random-effect forest plots.

RESULTS

Our literature search identified 2022 records, of which 8 studies were included. A total of 3563 participants with a positive FIT were included. Use of OACs was associated with a PPV_AN of 37.6% (95% CI 33.9 to 41.4) compared with 40.3% (95% CI 38.5 to 42.1) for non-users (p=0.75). Pooled PPV_AN in aspirin/NSAID users was 38.2% (95% CI 33.8 to 42.9) compared with 39.4% (95% CI 37.5 to 41.3) for non-users (p=0.59).

CONCLUSION

FIT accuracy is not affected by OACs and aspirin/NSAIDs use. Based on the current literature, withdrawal of OACs or NSAIDs before FIT screening is not recommended. Future studies should focus on duration of use, dosage and classes of drugs in association with accuracy of FIT to conduct more specific guideline recommendations.

Participant-Related Risk Factors for False-Positive and False-Negative Fecal Immunochemical Tests in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) may reduce CRC-related mortality but its effectiveness is influenced by the limited accuracy of FIT. Identifying individuals at increased risk of a false FIT result could improve screening, but the available evidence is conflicting. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on risk factors for false-positive and false-negative FIT results in CRC screening.

METHODS

A systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library identified publications (before 29 January 2017) on risk factors (known at time of FIT invitation) associated with false FIT results (presence/absence of advanced neoplasia) in a CRC screening setting. Risk of bias was assessed using QUIPS. In meta-analysis, summary relative risk ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each risk factor.

RESULTS

Of 518 records identified, 14 studies with 54,499 participants in total were included for analysis. In meta-analysis, male sex was associated with a significantly lower risk of false-positivity (RR 0.84, CI 0.74-0.94), whereas participants using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) had a higher risk (RR 1.16, CI 1.06-1.27). The use of anticoagulants was most frequently studied, without a significant effect on FIT positivity. Males (RR 1.83, CI 1.53-2.19), participants with a family history for CRC (RR 1.61, CI 1.19-2.15), hyperglycemia (RR 1.29, CI 1.02-1.65), hypertension (RR 1.50, CI 1.14-1.98), obesity (RR 1.38, CI 1.11-1.71), and (former) smokers (RR 1.93, CI 1.52-2.45) were all at significantly higher risk for false-negative results. Age was not found to have a systematic effect on either FIT false-positivity or false-negativity in meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple risk factors, known at time of FIT invitation, are associated with false FIT results in CRC screening. This information can be used to identify populations risking false reassurance after a negative result or unnecessary colonoscopy after a positive result, and to further optimize CRC screening effectiveness.

Positive predictive values of fecal immunochemical tests used in the STOP CRC pragmatic trial

Annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is cost-effective for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, FIT positivity rates and positive predictive value (PPV) can vary substantially, with false-positive (FP) results adding to colonoscopy burden without improving cancer detection. Our objective was to describe FIT PPV and the factors associated with FP results among patients undergoing CRC screening. In an ongoing pragmatic clinical trial of mailed-FIT outreach, clinics delivered one of three FIT brands (InSure, OC-Micro, and Hemosure). Patients who had a positive FIT result and a follow-up colonoscopy were included in this analysis (N = 1130). Patients' demographic and medical histories were abstracted from electronic health records (EHR). Associations with a FP result (ie, a positive FIT result with no evidence of advanced neoplasia during follow-up colonoscopy) were evaluated for FIT brand and patient factors using mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression. The mean proportion of FIT-positive results ranged from 8% in centers using the OC-Micro test to 21% for Hemosure. PPVs for advanced neoplasia were 0.30 to 0.17, respectively (P for χ2  = 0.08). In multivariable-adjusted models, use of Hemosure was associated with greater odds of a FP result than OC-Micro (OR = 2.00, 95% CI: 0.47-8.56) or InSure (OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 0.44-6.68). However, only female sex (OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.19-2.10) and history of a colorectal condition (OR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.13-4.15) were significantly associated with FP. In conclusion, FIT positivity varied by brand, and FP results differed by patient factors available through the EHR. These results can be used to minimize the frequency of FP results, reducing patient distress and colonoscopy burden.

Triage for selection to colonoscopy?

Implementation of population screening for colorectal cancer by direct colonoscopy or follow-up colonoscopy after a positive fecal blood test has challenged the overall capacity of bowel examinations. Certain countries are facing serious colonoscopy capacity constraints, which have led to waiting lists and long-time latency of follow-up examinations. Various options for improvement are considered, including increased cut-off values of the fecal blood tests. Results from major clinical studies of blood-based, cancer-associated biomarkers have led to focus, however, on a triage concept for improved selection to colonoscopy. The triage test may include subject age, concentration of hemoglobin in a feces test and a combination of certain blood-based cancer associated biomarkers. Recent results have indicated that triage may reduce the requirements for colonoscopy by around 30%. Such results may be advantageous for the capacity, the heath budgets and in particular, the subjects, who do not need an unnecessary, unpleasant and risk-associated bowel examination.