Faecal immunochemical testing in the COVID-19 era: balancing risk and costs

Rejection of Fecal Immunochemical Tests Within the Lower Gastrointestinal Diagnostic Pathway: A Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) helps triage primary care patients at risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Improving FIT returns has received recent attention, however uncertainty exists regarding the accurate completion of samples provided for laboratory analysis. This study aims to identify the rejection rate of returned FIT samples and determine rejection causes.

METHODS

FIT samples from symptomatic patients within South Yorkshire, Bassetlaw, and North Derbyshire are processed at a central laboratory. Tests requests are made from 225 GP practices, which serve an estimated 2 million population. This study describes a retrospective review of FIT samples received in the central laboratory between 01/09/19 and 31/12/22. Locally held data was interrogated in March 2023 to determine the number of FIT samples received and rejected during the study period. Documented reasons for rejection were explored to identify common themes.

RESULTS

Total FIT specimens received during the study period was 126 422. Of these, 5190 (4.1%) were rejected. Monthly rejection rates fell from 17.4% in September 2019 to 1.3% in December 2022 (P < .001). Sampling errors were the most frequent cause for FIT rejection (2151/5190), with other causes including: expired specimen; no sample collection date/ time, no request form, incomplete patient information and illegible handwriting.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study exploring FIT rejection rates in symptomatic primary care patients, which shows improvements in rejection rates over time. Targeted interventions could improve rejection rates further, thereby reducing NHS resource use and costs and diagnostic delays.

Can we do better? A qualitative study in the East of England investigating patient experience and acceptability of using the faecal immunochemical test in primary care

OBJECTIVES

The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is increasingly used in UK primary care to triage patients presenting with symptoms and at different levels of colorectal cancer risk. Evidence is scarce on patients' views of using FIT in this context. We aimed to explore patients' care experience and acceptability of using FIT in primary care.

DESIGN

A qualitative semi-structured interview study. Interviews were conducted via Zoom between April and October 2020. Transcribed recordings were analysed using framework analysis.

SETTING

East of England general practices.

PARTICIPANTS

Consenting patients (aged ≥40 years) who presented in primary care with possible symptoms of colorectal cancer, and for whom a FIT was requested, were recruited to the FIT-East study. Participants were purposively sampled for this qualitative substudy based on age, gender and FIT result.

RESULTS

44 participants were interviewed with a mean age 61 years, and 25 (57%) being men: 8 (18%) received a positive FIT result. Three themes and seven subthemes were identified. Participants' familiarity with similar tests and perceived risk of cancer influenced test experience and acceptability. All participants were happy to do the FIT themselves and to recommend it to others. Most participants reported that the test was straightforward, although some considered it may be a challenge to others. However, test explanation by healthcare professionals was often limited. Furthermore, while some participants received their results quickly, many did not receive them at all with the common assumption that 'no news is good news'. For those with a negative result and persisting symptoms, there was uncertainty about any next steps.

CONCLUSIONS

While FIT is acceptable to patients, elements of communication with patients by the healthcare system show potential for improvement. We suggest possible ways to improve the FIT experience, particularly regarding communication about the test and its results.

Patient-reported outcome measures show FIT as an acceptable investigation to rule out colorectal cancer in the two-week wait cohort

INTRODUCTION

Use of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for symptomatic patients is increasing. FIT is recommended as a triage tool from primary care to the two-week wait (TWW) suspected cancer pathway, but there is still little known about patient attitudes.

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore patient opinions of FIT and how it might be applied in the TWW pathway.

METHODS

A telephone survey was conducted for patients from the TWW pathway who had undergone both conventional colonic investigation and FIT. Five questions explored expectations, attitudes towards results and experience of the investigations using a Likert scale 1-5. Differences in opinion were compared using median and mode scores and visualised using bar charts.

RESULTS

One hundred and nine TWW patients agreed to answer the five questions. All had taken a stool sample for FIT, 50 underwent colonoscopy, 51 had a CT colonography and 8 underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy. Most patients (85%) scored 5 (completely satisfied) with these conventional colonic investigation methods they underwent for ruling out colorectal cancer (median 5). However, 30% of patients scored 5 (completely satisfied) if using a negative FIT to not require additional colonic investigation. The median score to perform FIT was 5 (very easy) compared with a median of 4 (easy) to undergo the other colonic investigations.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptomatic patients can perform FIT with little difficulty, and often would have been happy to avoid conventional colonic investigations with a negative result. However, shared decision-making should be employed to identify those who would be dissatisfied with relying on FIT for further investigation decisions.

Replicate and repeat faecal immunochemical tests in symptomatic patients: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Faecal Immunochemical tests (FITs) in the assessment of patients presenting with symptoms have generally used a single sample. Little evidence pertains to the use of replicate, where a number of tests are done prior to decision-making or repeat FIT, where additional FIT are performed following clinical decision-making. Overwhelmingly, research has focussed on FIT to help identify colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of this review is to assess the available literature concerning replicate and repeat FIT in symptomatic patients to help generate consensus and guide future research.

METHODS

The terms 'faecal immunochemical test' or 'FIT' were combined with 'multiple' or 'repeat'. EMBASE, Medline and PubMed database and other searches were conducted. All papers published in English were included with no exclusion date limits until November 2021.

RESULTS

Of the 161 initial papers screened, seven were included for review. Qualitative and quantitative FIT outcomes were assessed in the studies. The primary aims of most related to whether replicate FIT increased diagnostic yield of CRC, with colonoscopy used as the reference standard. One publication assessed the impact of a new COVID-adapted pathway on CRC detection. No consensus on replicate FIT was apparent. Some concluded that FITs may help minimise missed CRC diagnoses: others showed no increase in diagnostic yield of CRC.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence on replicate and repeat FIT is both minimal and conflicting. FIT is a superb clinical tool, but significant gaps surrounding application remain. Further studies relating to replicate and repeat FIT are required.

The impact of COVID-19 pandemic in the diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer patients

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed an unprecedented challenge to healthcare systems worldwide, causing downscaling of almost all other activities, especially in its early stages. Currently, the availability of vaccines along with the spread of new viral variants has modified the epidemiology of the disease, and the previous activity is being gradually resumed in most healthcare facilities. In this review, we have summarized the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic in the diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Population-based screening with either colonoscopy or fecal occult blood tests has proven to reduce CRC incidence and mortality, so screening programs have been implemented in most western countries. However, during the first COVID-19 wave, most of these programs had to be disrupted temporarily. In this review, we have thoroughly analyzed the consequences of these disruptions of screening programs as well as of the forced delays in diagnostic and therapeutic services on CRC prognosis, although its exact impact cannot be exactly measured yet. In any way, strategies to minimize its effect, such as catch-up strategies expanding the colonoscopy capacity or using fecal occult blood concentration and other risk factors to prioritize patients, are urgently needed. The COVID-19 pandemic has also led to a change in CRC patient presentation, with an overall temporary decreased incidence due to postponed diagnoses, but with more patients presenting in need of an emergency admission or with symptoms. Finally, changes in treatment approaches in CRC patients have been reported during the pandemic, namely a drop in the proportion of laparoscopic surgeries or a rise in short-term radiotherapy courses. We have therefore aimed to summarize the available evidence to guide the healthcare professionals treating CRC patients to choose the best treatment options in the current pandemic situation.

The present and future of gastroenterology and hepatology: an international SWOT analysis (the GASTROSWOT project)

GASTROSWOT is a strategic analysis of the current and projected states of the different subspecialties in gastroenterology that aims to provide guidance for research, clinical, and financial planning in gastroenterology. We executed a consensus-based international strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis. Four general coordinators, six field coordinators, and 12 experts participated in the study. SWOTs were provided for the following fields: neurogastroenterology, functional gastrointestinal disorders, and upper gastrointestinal diseases; inflammatory bowel disease; pancreatology and biliary diseases; endoscopy; gastrointestinal oncology; and hepatology. The GASTROSWOT analysis highlights the following in the current state of the field of gastroenterology: the incidence and complexity of several gastrointestinal diseases, including malignancies, are increasing; the COVID-19 pandemic has affected patient care on several levels; and with the advent of technical innovations in gastroenterology, a well trained workforce and strategic planning are required to optimise health-care utilisation. The analysis calls attention to the following in the future of gastroenterology: artificial intelligence and the use of big data will speed up discovery and smarter health-care provision in the field; the growth and diversification of gastroenterological specialties will improve specialised care for patients, but could promote fragmentation of care and health system inefficiencies; and furthermore, thoughtful planning is needed to reach an effective balance between the need for subspecialists and the value of general gastroenterology services.

REducing Colonoscopies in patients without significant bowEl DiseasE: the RECEDE Study - protocol for a prospective diagnostic accuracy study

INTRODUCTION

Demand for colonoscopies and CT colonography (CTC) is exceeding capacity in National Health Service Trusts. In many patients colonoscopies and CTCs show no significant bowel disease (SBD). Faecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) is being introduced to prioritise patients for colonoscopies but is insufficient to identify non-SBD patients meaning colonoscopy and CTC demand remains high. The REducing Colonoscopies in patients without significant bowEl DiseasE (RECEDE) study aims to test urine volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis alongside FIT to improve detection of SBD and to reduce the number of colonoscopies and CTCs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre, prospective diagnostic accuracy study evaluating whether stool FIT plus urine VOC compared with stool FIT alone improves detection of SBD in patients referred for colonoscopy or CTC due to persistent lower gastrointestinal symptoms. To ensure SBD is not missed, the dual test requires a high sensitivity, set at 97% with 95% CI width of 5%. Our assumption is that to achieve this sensitivity requires 200 participants with SBD. Further assuming 19% of all participants will have SBD and 55% of all participants will return both stool and urine samples we will recruit 1915 participants. The thresholds for FIT and VOC results diagnosing SBD have been pre-set. If either FIT or VOC exceeds the respective threshold, the participant will be classed as having suspected SBD. As an exploratory analysis we will be testing different thresholds. The reference comparator will be a complete colonoscopy or CTC. Secondary outcomes will look at optimising the FIT and VOC thresholds for SBD detection. An economic evaluation, using a denovo decision analytic model, will be carried out determine the costs, benefits and overall cost-effectiveness of FIT +VOC vs FIT followed by colonoscopy.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained by Liverpool Central Research Ethics Committee (20/NW/0346).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

RECEDE is registered on Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04516785 & ISRCTN14982373. This protocol was written and published before results of the trial were available.

Combining faecal immunochemical testing with blood test results for colorectal cancer risk stratification: a consecutive cohort of 16,604 patients presenting to primary care

BACKGROUND

Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are used to triage primary care patients with symptoms that could be caused by colorectal cancer for referral to colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to determine whether combining FIT with routine blood test results could improve the performance of FIT in the primary care setting.

METHODS

Results of all consecutive FITs requested by primary care providers between March 2017 and December 2020 were retrieved from the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Demographic factors (age, sex), reason for referral, and results of blood tests within 90 days were also retrieved. Patients were followed up for incident colorectal cancer in linked hospital records. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of FIT alone, FIT paired with blood test results, and several multivariable FIT models, were compared.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-nine colorectal cancers were diagnosed (0.8%). Sensitivity and specificity of FIT alone at a threshold of 10 μg Hb/g were 92.1 and 91.5% respectively. Compared to FIT alone, blood test results did not improve the performance of FIT. Pairing blood test results with FIT increased specificity but decreased sensitivity. Multivariable models including blood tests performed similarly to FIT alone.

CONCLUSIONS

FIT is a highly sensitive tool for identifying higher risk individuals presenting to primary care with lower risk symptoms. Combining blood test results with FIT does not appear to lead to better discrimination for colorectal cancer than using FIT alone.

Comparison of the QuikRead go® point-of-care faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin with the FOB Gold Wide® laboratory analyser to diagnose colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients

OBJECTIVES

Faecal immunochemical testing for haemoglobin (FIT) is used to triage patients for colonic investigations. Point-of-care (POC) FIT devices on the market have limited data for their diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer (CRC). Here, a POC FIT device is compared with a laboratory-based FIT system using patient collected samples from the urgent referral pathway for suspected CRC.

METHODS

A prospective, observational cohort study. Patients collected two samples from the same stool. These were measured by POC QuikRead go^® (Aidian Oy, Espoo, Finland) and laboratory-based FOB Gold Wide^® (Sentinel Diagnostics, Italy). Faecal haemoglobin <10 μg haemoglobin/g of faeces was considered as negative. At this threshold, comparisons between the two systems were made by calculating percentage agreement and Cohen's kappa coefficient. Proportion of negative results were compared with Chi squared testing. Sensitivities for CRC were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 629 included patients provided paired samples for FIT to compare the QuikRead go^® and FOB Gold Wide^®. The agreement around the negative threshold was 83.0% and Cohen's kappa coefficient was 0.54. The QuikRead go^® reported 440/629 (70.0% of samples) as negative compared to 523/629 (83.1%) for the FOB Gold Wide^®, this difference was significant (p-value<0.001). Sensitivities for CRC detection by the QuikRead go^® and FOB Gold Wide^® were 92.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 68.5-98.7%) and 100% (CI: 78.5-100%) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Both systems were accurate in their ability to detect CRC. Whilst good agreement around the negative threshold was identified, more patients would be triaged to further colonic investigation if using the QuikRead go^®.

Diagnostic accuracy of point of care faecal immunochemical testing using a portable high-speed quantitative analyser for diagnosis in 2-week wait patients

AIM

Laboratory-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is the gold standard for detecting the presence of blood in the stool. The aim was to perform a diagnostic accuracy study to confirm if a point of care (POC) analyser for FIT could be safely used as an adjunct in the triage and management of 2-week wait (TWW) colorectal patients.

METHODS

The Point of Care Faecal Immunochemical Testing (POC FIT) prospective observational cohort study was designed for TWW patients at a regional referral centre. Between July 2019 and March 2020, patients were invited to perform and bring a FIT sample to clinic. FIT was completed within the clinic appointment using a POC quantitative analyser that has a 2-min processing time (QuikRead go®). Patients and clinicians were blinded to results within the clinic appointment. The results were compared with subsequent diagnostic outcomes. Faecal haemoglobin of <10 µg haemoglobin/g of faeces was considered a negative result. Sensitivities for colorectal cancer (CRC) and combined serious bowel disease (SBD) were calculated using this pre-determined cut-off.

RESULTS

A total of 553 patients were included for analytical comparison with diagnostic outcomes. There were 14 (2.5%) patients with CRC and 52 (9.4%) with SBD. The sensitivities for CRC and SBD were 92.9% (95% CI 68.5%-98.7%) and 76.9% (95% CI 63.9%-86.3%) respectively. 379 (68.5%) patients had a negative FIT result (negative predictive value for CRC was 99.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

This POC FIT device is a useful adjunct to better manage TWW patients. The high observed sensitivity for CRC offers opportunities, within a single consultation, for improved triage and rationalization of investigation for those with bowel symptoms.

Inequalities in the decline and recovery of pathological cancer diagnoses during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

The restructuring of healthcare systems to cope with the demands of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a reduction in clinical services such as cancer screening and diagnostics.

METHODS

Data from the four Northern Ireland pathology laboratories were used to assess trends in pathological cancer diagnoses from 1st March to 12th September 2020 overall and by cancer site, sex and age. These trends were compared to the same timeframe from 2017 to 2019.

RESULTS

Between 1st March and 12th September 2020, there was a 23% reduction in cancer diagnoses compared to the same time period in the preceding 3 years. Although some recovery occurred in August and September 2020, this revealed inequalities across certain patient groups. Pathological diagnoses of lung, prostate and gynaecological malignancies remained well below pre-pandemic levels. Males and younger/middle-aged adults, particularly the 50-59-year-old patient group, also lagged behind other population demographic groups in terms of returning to expected numbers of pathological cancer diagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a critical need to protect cancer diagnostic services in the ongoing pandemic to facilitate timely investigation of potential cancer cases. Targeted public health campaigns may be needed to reduce emerging inequalities in cancer diagnoses as the COVID-19 pandemic continues.

The impact of the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer services in England and Wales: A national survey

AIM

The object of this work was to study how National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales aimed to maintain effective and safe colorectal cancer (CRC) services during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020).

METHOD

A national survey was performed among all 148 hospitals providing CRC services. Information was collected about changes in referrals, diagnostic, staging and therapeutic procedures, as well as whether there was access to a 'cold site' (a hospital facility free of COVID-19). Clinicians in each hospital were also asked to give the 'single most important lesson learned' about keeping services safe and effective.

RESULTS

Full responses were received from 123 (83%) hospitals, and information about 'cold sites' was available for 146 (99%). Eighty hospitals (54%) had access to a 'cold site' and this was increased in regions with higher COVID-19 infection rates (p <0.001). Of the 123 responding hospitals, 105 (85%) indicated that referrals of patients with suspected CRC had dropped by at least 30%, and 69 (56%) indicated that treatment plans were altered in at least 50% of CRC patients. However, 'cold site' availability protected the capacity for diagnostic colonoscopy (p = 0.013) and CRC resection (p = 0.010). Many 'lessons learned' highlighted the importance of adequate structural service organization, often mentioning 'cold sites' and regional coordination as examples, good communication and triage of patients based on clinical urgency.

CONCLUSION

Access to 'cold sites', as well as regional coordination, clear communication and strong leadership, were found to be pivotal in maintaining capacity for diagnosis and treatment of CRC during the COVID-19 surge.

Predicting endoscopic activity recovery in England after COVID-19: a national analysis

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a substantial reduction in gastrointestinal endoscopies, creating a backlog of procedures. We aimed to quantify this backlog nationally for England and assess how various interventions might mitigate the backlog.

Methods

We did a national analysis of data for colonoscopies, flexible sigmoidoscopies, and gastroscopies from National Health Service (NHS) trusts in NHS England's Monthly Diagnostic Waiting Times and Activity dataset. Trusts were excluded if monthly data were incomplete. To estimate the potential backlog, we used linear logistic regression to project the cumulative deficit between actual procedures performed and expected procedures, based on historical pre-pandemic trends. We then made further estimations of the change to the backlog under three scenarios: recovery to a set level of capacity, ranging from 90% to 130%; further disruption to activity (eg, second pandemic wave); or introduction of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) triaging.

Findings

We included data from Jan 1, 2018, to Oct 31, 2020, from 125 NHS trusts. 10 476 endoscopy procedures were done in April, 2020, representing 9·5% of those done in April, 2019 (n=110 584), before recovering to 105 716 by October, 2020 (84·5% of those done in October, 2019 [n=125 072]). Recovering to 100% capacity on the current trajectory would lead to a projected backlog of 162 735 (95% CI 143 775–181 695) colonoscopies, 119 025 (107 398–130 651) flexible sigmoidoscopies, and 194 087 (172 564–215 611) gastroscopies in January, 2021, attributable to the pandemic. Increasing capacity to 130% would still take up to June, 2022, to eliminate the backlog. A further 2-month interruption would add an extra 15·4%, a 4-month interruption would add an extra 43·8%, and a 6-month interruption would add an extra 82·5% to the potential backlog. FIT triaging of cases that are found to have greater than 10 μg haemoglobin per g would reduce colonoscopy referrals to around 75% of usual levels, with the backlog cleared in early 2022.

Interpretation

Our work highlights the impact of the pandemic on endoscopy services nationally. Even with mitigation measures, it could take much longer than a year to eliminate the pandemic-related backlog. Urgent action is required by key stakeholders (ie, individual NHS trusts, Clinical Commissioning Groups, British Society of Gastroenterology, and NHS England) to tackle the backlog and prevent delays to patient management.

Funding

Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS) at University College London, National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, and DATA-CAN, Health Data Research UK.

Safety in Endoscopy for Patients and Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is still wreaking havoc in many parts of the world and poses a great burden to healthcare systems worldwide. Mitigation and suppression strategies have been implemented globally but the disease has proven to be difficult to contain. Initially many elective gastrointestinal endoscopies were cancelled to reduce the risk of infection and conserve personal protective equipment, but many endoscopy units are now faced with the dilemma of resuming endoscopy service during the pandemic as indefinitely postponing diagnostic procedures may lead to a delay in the diagnosis and treatment of malignancies. Further concerns are surfacing as COVID-19 is now known to affect the gastrointestinal tract and may potentially be spread via the fecal-oral route. Until more effective drugs and vaccines are available, it is unlikely that the pandemic will wind down in the near future. Maintaining a balance between protecting healthcare workers and patients from being infected on the one hand and providing timely and effective clinical care on the other will become increasingly important as the pandemic persists. In this narrative review, the risk of COVID-19 infection for healthcare workers and patients undergoing endoscopy, and recommendations on maintaining safe, high-quality endoscopy practice will be discussed.

Choice of faecal immunochemical test matters: comparison of OC-Sensor and HM-JACKarc, in the assessment of patients at high risk of colorectal cancer

Objectives

Currently, NICE recommends the use of faecal immunochemical test (FIT) at faecal haemoglobin concentrations (f-Hb) of 10 μg Hb/g faeces to stratify for colorectal cancer (CRC) risk in symptomatic populations. This f-Hb cut-off is advised across all analysers, despite the fact that a direct comparison of analyser performance, in a clinical setting, has not been performed.

Methods

Two specimen collection devices (OC-Sensor, OC-S; HM-JACKarc, HM-J) were sent to 914 consecutive individuals referred for follow up due to their increased risk of CRC. Agreement of f-Hb around cut-offs of 4, 10 and 150 µg Hb/g faeces and CRC detection rates were assessed. Two OC-S devices were sent to a further 114 individuals, for within test comparisons.

Results

A total of 732 (80.1%) individuals correctly completed and returned two different FIT devices, with 38 (5.2%) CRCs detected. Median f-Hb for individuals diagnosed with and without CRC were 258.5 and 1.8 µg Hb/g faeces for OC-S and 318.1 and 1.0 µg Hb/g faeces for HM-J respectively. Correlation of f-Hb results between OC-S/HM-J over the full range was rho=0.74, p<0.001. Using a f-Hb of 4 µg Hb/g faeces for both tests found an agreement of 88.1%, at 10 µg Hb/g faeces 91.7% and at 150 µg Hb/g faeces 96.3%. A total of 114 individuals completed and returned two OC-S devices; correlation across the full range was rho=0.98, p<0.001.

Conclusions

We found large variations in f-Hb when different FIT devices were used, but a smaller variation when the same FIT device was used. Our data suggest that analyser-specific f-Hb cut-offs are applied with regard to clinical decision making, especially at lower f-Hb.