1
|
Ball AJ, Aziz I, Sargur RB, Merriman L, Kurien M. Rejection of Fecal Immunochemical Tests Within the Lower Gastrointestinal Diagnostic Pathway: A Cohort Study. J Prim Care Community Health 2024; 15:21501319241228161. [PMID: 38348481 PMCID: PMC10865951 DOI: 10.1177/21501319241228161] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2023] [Revised: 01/03/2024] [Accepted: 01/05/2024] [Indexed: 02/15/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alex J. Ball
- Department of Gastroenterology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK
| | - Imran Aziz
- Department of Gastroenterology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK
- Division of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine & Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK
| | - Ravishankar B. Sargur
- Department of Allergy and Immunology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK
| | | | - Matthew Kurien
- Department of Gastroenterology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK
- Division of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine & Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Chandrapalan S, Arasaradnam RP. Faecal haemoglobin for colorectal cancer detection: is the evidence base complete enough for use as a triage tool? Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 8:970. [PMID: 37837973 DOI: 10.1016/s2468-1253(23)00320-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2023] [Revised: 09/13/2023] [Accepted: 09/14/2023] [Indexed: 10/16/2023]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ramesh P Arasaradnam
- Institute of Precision Diagnostics and Translational Medicine, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK; Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK; Health, Biological and Experimental Sciences, University of Coventry, Coventry, UK; School of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Snudden CM, Calanzani N, Archer S, Honey S, Pannebakker MM, Faher A, Chang A, Hamilton W, Walter FM. 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. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e072359. [PMID: 37316310 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072359] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/16/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claudia M Snudden
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Natalia Calanzani
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Stephanie Archer
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Stephanie Honey
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Merel M Pannebakker
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Anissa Faher
- School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Aina Chang
- School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Willie Hamilton
- University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Fiona M Walter
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Maclean W, Whyte MB, Farkas N, Benton SC, Rockall T, Jourdan I. Patient-reported outcome measures show FIT as an acceptable investigation to rule out colorectal cancer in the two-week wait cohort. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2023; 105:336-341. [PMID: 35639078 PMCID: PMC10066637 DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2022.0025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- W Maclean
- Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| | | | - N Farkas
- Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| | - SC Benton
- Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| | - T Rockall
- Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| | - I Jourdan
- Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Farkas NG, Fraser CG, Maclean W, Jourdan I, Rockall T, Benton SC. Replicate and repeat faecal immunochemical tests in symptomatic patients: A systematic review. Ann Clin Biochem 2023; 60:27-36. [PMID: 35394384 DOI: 10.1177/00045632221096036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicholas G Farkas
- Minimal Access Therapy and Training Unit (MATTU), 3661Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Callum G Fraser
- Centre for Research Into Cancer Prevention and Screening, Population Health and Genomics, School of Medicine, 85326University of Dundee, Scotland, UK
| | - William Maclean
- Minimal Access Therapy and Training Unit (MATTU), 3661Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Iain Jourdan
- Minimal Access Therapy and Training Unit (MATTU), 3661Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Tim Rockall
- Minimal Access Therapy and Training Unit (MATTU), 3661Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Sally C Benton
- Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Berkshire and Surrey Pathology Services, Guildford, UK.,NHS Bowel Cancer Screening South of England Hub, Berkshire and Surrey Pathology Services, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Domper-Arnal MJ, Hijos-Mallada G, Lanas Á. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic in the diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer patients. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2022; 15:17562848221117636. [PMID: 36035306 PMCID: PMC9403473 DOI: 10.1177/17562848221117636] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2022] [Accepted: 07/18/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Ángel Lanas
- Service of Digestive Diseases, University
Clinic Hospital, Zaragoza, Spain,Aragón Health Research Institute (IIS Aragón),
Zaragoza, Spain,CIBERehd, Madrid, Spain,University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
de-Madaria E, Mira JJ, Carrillo I, Afif W, Ang D, Antelo M, Bollipo S, Castells A, Chahal P, Heinrich H, Law JK, van Leerdam ME, Lens S, Pannala R, Park SH, Rabiee A, Savarino EV, Singh VK, Vargo J, Charabaty A, Drenth JPH. The present and future of gastroenterology and hepatology: an international SWOT analysis (the GASTROSWOT project). Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 7:485-494. [PMID: 35247318 DOI: 10.1016/s2468-1253(21)00442-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2021] [Revised: 11/18/2021] [Accepted: 11/19/2021] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Enrique de-Madaria
- Gastroenterology Department, Alicante University General Hospital, Alicante Institute for Health and Biomedical Research, Alicante, Spain
| | - José J Mira
- Atenena Research Group, Foundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research of Valencia Region, FISABAO, Sant Joan d'Alacant, Spain; Department of Health Psychology, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Elche, Spain
| | - Irene Carrillo
- Atenena Research Group, Foundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research of Valencia Region, FISABAO, Sant Joan d'Alacant, Spain; Department of Health Psychology, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Elche, Spain
| | - Waqqas Afif
- Division of Gastroenterology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Daphne Ang
- Department of Gastroenterology, Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Marina Antelo
- Oncology Section, Dr C Bonorino Udaondo Gastroenterology Hospital, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Steven Bollipo
- Department of Gastroenterology, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, NSW, Australia; School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia
| | - Antoni Castells
- Gastroenterology Department, IDIBAPS, CIBERehd, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, IDIBAPS, CIBERehd, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Prabhleen Chahal
- Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Henriette Heinrich
- Stadtspital Waid und Triemli Abteilung für Gastroenterologie, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | | | - Monique E van Leerdam
- Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Sabela Lens
- Liver Unit, IDIBAPS, CIBERehd, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Rahul Pannala
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - San Hyoung Park
- Department of Gastroenterology, and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Atoosa Rabiee
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Washington DC Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Edoardo V Savarino
- Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - Vikesh K Singh
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - John Vargo
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Digestive Diseases and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Aline Charabaty
- Division of Gastroenterology, Sibley Memorial Hospital, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Joost P H Drenth
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Bradley C, Hee SW, Andronis L, Persaud K, Hull MA, Todd J, Taylor-Phillips S, Smith S, Constable R, Waugh N, Arasaradnam RP. REducing Colonoscopies in patients without significant bowEl DiseasE: the RECEDE Study - protocol for a prospective diagnostic accuracy study. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e058559. [PMID: 35354626 PMCID: PMC8968545 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058559] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher Bradley
- Research & Development, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
| | - Siew Wan Hee
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Lazaros Andronis
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Krishna Persaud
- Department of Chemical Engineering, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Mark A Hull
- School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - John Todd
- Research & Development, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
| | | | - Steve Smith
- Research & Development, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
- Bowel Cancer Screening Hub, NW Bowel Cancer Screening Hub, Hospital of St. Cross, Rugby, UK
| | - Rachel Constable
- Research & Development, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
| | - Norman Waugh
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Ramesh P Arasaradnam
- Research & Development, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Withrow DR, Shine B, Oke J, Tamm A, James T, Morris E, Davies J, Harris S, East JE, Nicholson BD. Combining faecal immunochemical testing with blood test results for colorectal cancer risk stratification: a consecutive cohort of 16,604 patients presenting to primary care. BMC Med 2022; 20:116. [PMID: 35287679 PMCID: PMC8920746 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-022-02272-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2021] [Accepted: 01/24/2022] [Indexed: 02/24/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diana R Withrow
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - Brian Shine
- Department of Clinical Biochemistry, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation, Oxford, UK
| | - Jason Oke
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - Andres Tamm
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Tim James
- Department of Computer Science, Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Eva Morris
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Jim Davies
- Department of Computer Science, Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Steve Harris
- Oxford BRC Informatics Theme, Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - James E East
- Translational Gastroenterology Unit, and Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Brian D Nicholson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Maclean W, Zahoor Z, O'Driscoll S, Piggott C, Whyte MB, Rockall T, Jourdan I, Benton SC. 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. Clin Chem Lab Med 2022; 60:101-108. [PMID: 34679264 DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2021-0655] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2021] [Accepted: 10/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
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®.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William Maclean
- Research Fellow in General Surgery at Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Zahida Zahoor
- Research Assistant at the Bowel Cancer Screening Hub at Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Shane O'Driscoll
- Research Assistant at the Bowel Cancer Screening Hub at Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Carolyn Piggott
- Research and Development Scientist at the Bowel Cancer Screening Hub at Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Martin B Whyte
- Clinical Reader in Metabolic Medicine at University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
| | - Timothy Rockall
- Consultant Colorectal Surgeon at Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Iain Jourdan
- Consultant Colorectal Surgeon at Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Sally C Benton
- Consultant Biochemist and Clinical Director at the Bowel Cancer Screening Hub at Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Maclean W, Mackenzie P, Limb C, Zahoor Z, Whyte MB, Rockall T, Benton SC, Jourdan I. Diagnostic accuracy of point of care faecal immunochemical testing using a portable high-speed quantitative analyser for diagnosis in 2-week wait patients. Colorectal Dis 2021; 23:2376-2386. [PMID: 34157205 DOI: 10.1111/codi.15780] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2021] [Revised: 05/26/2021] [Accepted: 06/16/2021] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William Maclean
- General Surgery at Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Paul Mackenzie
- General Surgery at Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Chris Limb
- General Surgery at Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Zahida Zahoor
- Bowel Cancer Screening Hub at Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Martin B Whyte
- Metabolic Medicine at University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
| | - Timothy Rockall
- General Surgery at Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Sally C Benton
- Bowel Cancer Screening Hub at Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Iain Jourdan
- General Surgery at Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Hamilton AC, Donnelly DW, Loughrey MB, Turkington RC, Fox C, Fitzpatrick D, O'Neill CE, Gavin AT, Coleman HG. Inequalities in the decline and recovery of pathological cancer diagnoses during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based study. Br J Cancer 2021; 125:798-805. [PMID: 34211120 PMCID: PMC8245662 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01472-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2020] [Revised: 05/28/2021] [Accepted: 06/17/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ashleigh C Hamilton
- Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.
| | - David W Donnelly
- Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
- Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
| | - Maurice B Loughrey
- Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
- Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
- Department of Pathology, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
| | - Richard C Turkington
- Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
| | - Colin Fox
- Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
| | | | - Ciaran E O'Neill
- Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
- Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
| | - Anna T Gavin
- Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
- Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
| | - Helen G Coleman
- Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
- Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
- Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Boyle JM, Kuryba A, Blake HA, Aggarwal A, van der Meulen J, Walker K, Braun M, Fearnhead N. The impact of the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer services in England and Wales: A national survey. Colorectal Dis 2021; 23:1733-1744. [PMID: 33686679 PMCID: PMC8250906 DOI: 10.1111/codi.15622] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2021] [Revised: 02/28/2021] [Accepted: 03/01/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jemma M. Boyle
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK,Clinical Effectiveness UnitThe Royal College of Surgeons of EnglandLondonUK
| | - Angela Kuryba
- Clinical Effectiveness UnitThe Royal College of Surgeons of EnglandLondonUK
| | - Helen A. Blake
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK,Clinical Effectiveness UnitThe Royal College of Surgeons of EnglandLondonUK
| | - Ajay Aggarwal
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK,Department of Clinical OncologyGuy’s and St Thomas’ NHS TrustLondonUK
| | - Jan van der Meulen
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK,Clinical Effectiveness UnitThe Royal College of Surgeons of EnglandLondonUK
| | - Kate Walker
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK,Clinical Effectiveness UnitThe Royal College of Surgeons of EnglandLondonUK
| | - Michael Braun
- Department of OncologyThe Christie NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
| | - Nicola Fearnhead
- Department of SurgeryCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustCambridgeUK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Ho KMA, Banerjee A, Lawler M, Rutter MD, Lovat LB. Predicting endoscopic activity recovery in England after COVID-19: a national analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 6:381-390. [PMID: 33713606 PMCID: PMC7946568 DOI: 10.1016/s2468-1253(21)00058-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2020] [Revised: 02/01/2021] [Accepted: 02/05/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kai Man Alexander Ho
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
| | - Amitava Banerjee
- Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK
| | - Mark Lawler
- Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK; DATA-CAN, Health Data Research Hub for Cancer, London, UK
| | - Matthew D Rutter
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-on-Tees, UK; Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
| | - Laurence B Lovat
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Gastrointestinal Services Division, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Safety in Endoscopy for Patients and Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic. TECHNIQUES AND INNOVATIONS IN GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY 2021; 23:170-178. [PMID: 33103130 PMCID: PMC7568769 DOI: 10.1016/j.tige.2020.10.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
16
|
Chapman CJ, Banerjea A, Humes DJ, Allen J, Oliver S, Ford A, Hardy K, Djedovic N, Logan RF, Morling JR. Choice of faecal immunochemical test matters: comparison of OC-Sensor and HM-JACKarc, in the assessment of patients at high risk of colorectal cancer. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020; 59:721-728. [PMID: 33112776 DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2020-1170] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2020] [Accepted: 10/15/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caroline J Chapman
- Eastern Hub, Bowel Cancer Screening Programme, A Floor West Block, QMC Campus, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.,Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine, Room W/D3, D Floor, West Block, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
| | - Ayan Banerjea
- Nottingham Colorectal Service, E Floor West Block, QMC Campus, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - David J Humes
- Nottingham Colorectal Service, E Floor West Block, QMC Campus, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.,NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and the University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.,Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Clinical Sciences Building 2, City Hospital, Nottingham, UK
| | - Jaren Allen
- Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine, Room W/D3, D Floor, West Block, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
| | - Simon Oliver
- Nottingham City Clinical Commissioning Group, Nottingham, UK
| | - Abby Ford
- Eastern Hub, Bowel Cancer Screening Programme, A Floor West Block, QMC Campus, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Katie Hardy
- Eastern Hub, Bowel Cancer Screening Programme, A Floor West Block, QMC Campus, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Natasha Djedovic
- Eastern Hub, Bowel Cancer Screening Programme, A Floor West Block, QMC Campus, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Richard F Logan
- Eastern Hub, Bowel Cancer Screening Programme, A Floor West Block, QMC Campus, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.,Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Clinical Sciences Building 2, City Hospital, Nottingham, UK
| | - Joanne R Morling
- Eastern Hub, Bowel Cancer Screening Programme, A Floor West Block, QMC Campus, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.,NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and the University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.,Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Clinical Sciences Building 2, City Hospital, Nottingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|