Diagnostic accuracy of a quantitative faecal immunochemical test vs. symptoms suspected for colorectal cancer in patients referred for colonoscopy

Double faecal immunochemical testing in patients with symptoms suspicious of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-directed pathways based on a single test have been implemented for symptomatic patients. However, with a single test, the sensitivity is 87 per cent at 10 µg haemoglobin (Hb) per g faeces. This aims of this study were to define the diagnostic performance of a single FIT, compared with double FIT in symptomatic populations.

METHODS

Two sequential prospective patient cohorts referred with symptoms from primary care were studied. Patients in cohort 1 were sent a single FIT, and those in cohort 2 received two tests in succession before investigation. All patients were investigated, regardless of having a positive or negative test (threshold 10 µg Hb per g).

RESULTS

In cohort 1, 2260 patients completed one FIT and investigation. The sensitivity of single FIT was 84.1 (95 per cent c.i. 73.3 to 91.8) per cent for colorectal cancer and 67.4 (61.0 to 73.4) per cent for significant bowel pathology. In cohort 2, 3426 patients completed at least one FIT, and 2637 completed both FITs and investigation. The sensitivity of double FIT was 96.6 (90.4 to 99.3) per cent for colorectal cancer and 83.0 (77.4 to 87.8) per cent for significant bowel pathology. The second FIT resulted in a 50.0 per cent reduction in cancers missed by the first FIT, and 30.0 per cent for significant bowel pathology. Correlation between faecal Hb level was only modest (rs = 0.58), and 16.8 per cent of double tests were discordant, 11.4 per cent in patients with colorectal cancer and 18.3 per cent in those with significant bowel pathology.

CONCLUSION

FIT in patients with high-risk symptoms twice in succession reduces missed significant colorectal pathology and has an acceptable workload impact.

Role of the faecal immunochemical test in patients with risk-stratified suspected colorectal cancer symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis to inform the ACPGBI/BSG guidelines

Background

The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), recommended in 2017 the use of the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to guide investigations in patients presenting with NICE-defined low-risk symptoms suspicious for colorectal cancer (CRC). At that time, NICE did not recommend FIT use for high-risk symptoms. This is the first systematic review to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FIT in NICE-defined high and low-risk symptoms and was designed to inform the joint ACPGBI/BSG guidelines.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021224674. Medline and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to 31st March 2022. We included studies recruiting adult patients presenting with suspected CRC symptoms in whom FIT was performed and diagnostic accuracy data for CRC detection could be derived at a limit of detection (LoD) and/or 10 µg haemoglobin/gram faeces threshold in four commonly used analysers. FIT performance was assessed for high-risk, low-risk and individual symptoms where possible. Bivariate meta-analysis was performed where study numbers allowed.

Findings

Thirty-one studies (79566 patients) met inclusion criteria. At 10 µg/g, for "all symptoms" (n = 35,945) sensitivity and specificity were 91.0% (95% CI: 88.9, 92.7) and 75.2% (95% CI: 69.6, 80.1); for "high-risk" symptoms (n = 18,264), 88.7% (95% CI: 84.4, 92.0) and 78.5% (95% CI: 73.0, 83.2); and for "low-risk" symptoms (n = 2161), 88.7% (95% CI: 78.1, 95.3) and 88.5% (95% CI: 87.1, 89.9), respectively. At LoD, for "all symptoms" (n = 26,056) sensitivity and specificity were 94.7% (95% CI: 90.5, 97.1) and 66.5% (95% CI: 58.7, 73.6); for "high-risk" symptoms (n = 16,768), 92.8% (95% CI: 86.4, 96.3) and 70.3% (95% CI: 66.5, 73.8); and for "low-risk" symptoms (n = 2082), 94.7% (95% CI: 85.4, 98.9) and 71.9% (95% CI: 69.9, 73.9), respectively. Summary estimates were similar across different analysers.

Interpretation

FIT sensitivity for CRC detection is maximised at the LoD; its performance is similar in high and low-risk symptoms, and across different analysers where a common threshold is used. FIT performance for CRC detection is adequate and transferrable to clinical diagnostic pathways.

Funding

This review was part-funded by NHS England awarded to RM Partners. RB and RC were funded by research fellowships awarded by Croydon University Hospital.

Introduction of an integrated primary care faecal immunochemical test referral pathway for patients with suspected colorectal cancer symptoms

AIM

To determine the efficacy of a new 2-week wait pathway that uses the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) in primary care to triage patients with high and low risk symptoms suspicious of colorectal cancer (CRC). This service improvement pilot follows 2017 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, that recommended using FIT to guide referral of patients with low risk, but not high risk symptoms, which continue to be referrred on the 2-week pathway.

METHOD

Patients with high- and low-risk CRC symptoms were tested with FIT and those with faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) ≥9.5 μg haemoglobin/g faeces (hereafter μg/g) were referred to secondary care. Results were tracked and primary care prompted to refer if timely referral was not made.

RESULTS

Between December 2019 and October 2020, 5672 patients presented to primary care with high and/or low risk symptoms warranting investigations. Of these, 622 (11%) patients were referred without a FIT, of whom 36 (5.8%) had CRC. The remaining 5050 patients had a FIT, of which 4187 (83%) were processed to produce a quantitative result. Of these, 1085 patients (25.9%) had an f-Hb ≥9.5 μg/g and of those, 982 patients (90.5%) were referred and 56 (5.7%) had CRC. A total of 3102 patients (74.1%) had an f-Hb <9.5 μg/g, of which 456 (14.7%) were referred and three (0.7%) had CRC. A total of 97 cancers were diagnosed with a cancer prevalence of 1.7%.

CONCLUSION

A 2-week wait pathway incorporating FIT as a triage tool can be implemented successfully in primary care to identify symptomatic patients at highest risk of CRC.

Diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer of a quantitative faecal immunochemical test in symptomatic primary care patients: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence supporting the use of faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) in patients reporting symptoms associated with colorectal cancer (CRC), but most studies until now have focused on selected subjects already referred for investigation. We therefore set out to determine the accuracy and predictive values of FIT in a primary care population.

METHOD

A prospective, multicentre, single-gated comparative diagnostic study on quantitative FIT in patients aged 40 years and above presenting in primary care with symptoms associated with CRC will be conducted. Patients representing the whole spectrum of severity of such symptoms met with in primary care will be eligible and identified by GPs. Participants will answer a short form on symptoms during the last month. They will provide two faecal samples from two separate days. Analyses will be performed within 5 days (QuikRead go®, Aidian Oy). The analytical working range is 10-200 μg Hb/g faeces. Reference test will be linked to the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry up to 2 years after inclusion. Accuracy, area under ROC curves, and predictive values will be calculated for one FIT compared to the highest value of two FIT and at cutoff < 10, 10-14.9, 15-19.9 and ≥ 20 μg Hb/g faeces. Subgroup analyses will be conducted for patients with anaemia and those reporting rectal bleeding. A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis based on the clinical accuracy study will be performed. Based on previous literature, we hypothesized that the sensitivity of the highest value of two FIT at cutoff 10 μg Hb/g faeces will be 95% (95% CI + / - 15%). The prevalence of CRC in the study population was estimated to be 2%, and the rate of non-responders to be 1/6. In all, 3000 patients will be invited at 30 primary care centres.

DISCUSSION

This study will generate important clinical real-life structured data on accuracy and predictive values of FIT in the most critical population for work-up of CRC, i.e. patients presenting with at times ambiguous symptoms in primary care. It will help establish the role of FIT in this large group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05156307 . Registered on 14 December 2021-retrospectively registered.

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in patients with signs or symptoms of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC): a joint guideline from the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) has a high sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC). In a symptomatic population FIT may identify those patients who require colorectal investigation with the highest priority. FIT offers considerable advantages over the use of symptoms alone, as an objective measure of risk with a vastly superior positive predictive value for CRC, while conversely identifying a truly low risk cohort of patients. The aim of this guideline was to provide a clear strategy for the use of FIT in the diagnostic pathway of people with signs or symptoms of a suspected diagnosis of CRC. The guideline was jointly developed by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/British Society of Gastroenterology, specifically by a 21-member multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG). A systematic review of 13 535 publications was undertaken to develop 23 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the triage of people with symptoms of a suspected CRC diagnosis in primary care. In order to achieve consensus among a broad group of key stakeholders, we completed an extended Delphi of the GDG, and also 61 other individuals across the UK and Ireland, including by members of the public, charities and primary and secondary care. Seventeen research recommendations were also prioritised to inform clinical management.

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^®.

Faecal immunochemical test to triage patients with possible colorectal cancer symptoms: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This review evaluated the utility of single quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) as a triaging tool for patients with symptoms of possible colorectal cancer, the effect of symptoms on FIT accuracy, and the impact of triaging incorporating FIT on service provision.

METHODS

Five databases were searched. Meta-analyses of the extracted FIT sensitivities and specificities for detection of colorectal cancer at reported f-Hb thresholds were performed. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity and specificity of FIT for advanced colorectal neoplasia and serious bowel disease. Subgroup analysis by FIT brand and symptoms was undertaken.

RESULTS

Fifteen prospective cohort studies, including 28 832 symptomatic patients were included. At the most commonly reported f-Hb positivity threshold of ≥ 10 µg Hb/g faeces (n=13), the summary sensitivity was 88.7% (95% c.i. 85.2 to 91.4) and the specificity was 80.5% (95% c.i. 75.3 to 84.8) for colorectal cancer. At lower limits of detection of ≥ 2 µg Hb/g faeces, the summary sensitivity was 96.8% (95% c.i. 91.0 to 98.9) and the specificity was 65.6% (95% c.i. 59.0 to 71.6). At the upper f-Hb positivity thresholds of ≥ 100 µg Hb/g faeces and ≥ 150 µg Hb/g faeces, summary sensitivities were 68.1% (95% c.i. 59.2 to 75.9) and 66.3% (95% c.i. 52.2 to 78.0), with specificities of 93.4% (95% c.i. 91.3 to 95.1) and 95.1% (95% c.i. 93.6 to 96.3) respectively. FIT sensitivity was comparable between different assay brands. FIT sensitivity may be higher in patients reporting rectal bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Single quantitative FIT at lower f-Hb positivity thresholds can adequately exclude colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients and provides a data-based approach to prioritization of colonoscopy resources.

Faecal immunochemical test for patients with 'high-risk' bowel symptoms: a large prospective cohort study and updated literature review

Background

We evaluated whether faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) can rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) among patients presenting with ‘high-risk’ symptoms requiring definitive investigation.

Methods

Three thousand five hundred and ninety-six symptomatic patients referred to the standard urgent CRC pathway were recruited in a multi-centre observational study. They completed FIT in addition to standard investigations. CRC miss rate (percentage of CRC cases with low quantitative faecal haemoglobin [f-Hb] measurement) and specificity (percentage of patients without cancer with low f-Hb) were calculated. We also provided an updated literature review.

Results

Ninety patients had CRC. At f-Hb < 10 µg/g, the miss rate was 16.7% (specificity 80.1%). At f-Hb < 4 µg/g, the miss rate was 12.2% (specificity 73%), which became 3.3% if low FIT plus the absence of anaemia and abdominal pain were considered (specificity 51%). Within meta-analyses of 9 UK studies, the pooled miss rate was 7.2% (specificity 74%) for f-Hb < 4 µg/g.

Discussion

FIT alone as a triage tool would miss an estimated 1 in 8 cases in our study (1 in 14 from meta-analysis), while many people without CRC could avoid investigations. FIT can focus secondary care diagnostic capacity on patients most at risk of CRC, but more work on safety netting is required before incorporating FIT triage into the urgent diagnostic pathway.

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.

Risk of missing colorectal cancer with a COVID-adapted diagnostic pathway using quantitative faecal immunochemical testing

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has brought an unprecedented challenge to healthcare services. The authors' COVID-adapted pathway for suspected bowel cancer combines two quantitative faecal immunochemical tests (qFITs) with a standard CT scan with oral preparation (CT mini-prep). The aim of this study was to estimate the degree of risk mitigation and residual risk of undiagnosed colorectal cancer.

METHOD

Decision-tree models were developed using a combination of data from the COVID-adapted pathway (April-May 2020), a local audit of qFIT for symptomatic patients performed since 2018, relevant data (prevalence of colorectal cancer and sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tools) obtained from literature and a local cancer data set, and expert opinion for any missing data. The considered diagnostic scenarios included: single qFIT; two qFITs; single qFIT and CT mini-prep; two qFITs and CT mini-prep (enriched pathway). These were compared to the standard diagnostic pathway (colonoscopy or CT virtual colonoscopy (CTVC)).

RESULTS

The COVID-adapted pathway included 422 patients, whereas the audit of qFIT included more than 5000 patients. The risk of missing a colorectal cancer, if present, was estimated as high as 20.2 per cent with use of a single qFIT as a triage test. Using both a second qFIT and a CT mini-prep as add-on tests reduced the risk of missed cancer to 6.49 per cent. The trade-off was an increased rate of colonoscopy or CTVC, from 287 for a single qFIT to 418 for the double qFIT and CT mini-prep combination, per 1000 patients.

CONCLUSION

Triage using qFIT alone could lead to a high rate of missed cancers. This may be reduced using CT mini-prep as an add-on test for triage to colonoscopy or CTVC.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: volatile organic compound analysis to improve faecal immunochemical testing in the detection of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is emerging as a valid test to rule-out the presence of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the accuracy of FIT is dependent on the cut-off applied. An additional low-cost test could improve further detection of CRC.

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy of combined FIT and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the detection of CRC within symptomatic populations.

METHODS

Systematic reviews on the diagnostic accuracy of FIT and VOC, for the detection of CRC, were updated. Meta-analyses were performed adopting a bivariate model for sensitivity and specificity. Clinical utility of combined FIT and VOC was estimated using Fagan's nomogram. Post-test probability of FIT negatives was used as a pre-test probability for VOC.

RESULTS

The pooled sensitivity and specificity of FIT at 10 µg/g faeces, for the detection of CRC, were 0.914 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.894-0.936) and 0.783 (CI = 0.850-0.696), respectively. For VOC, the sensitivity was 0.837 (CI = 0.781-0.881) and the specificity was 0.803 (CI = 0.870-0.712). The area under the curve for FIT and VOC were 0.926 and 0.885, respectively. In a population with 5% CRC prevalence, the estimated probability of having CRC following a negative FIT was 0.5% and following both negative FIT and VOC was 0.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

In a FIT-negative symptomatic population, VOC can be a good test to rule-out the presence of CRC. The estimated probability reduction by 0.4% when both tests being negative offers adequate safety netting in primary care for the exclusion of CRC. The number needed to colonoscope to identify one CRC is eight if either FIT or VOC positive. Cost-effectiveness and clinical accuracy of this approach will need further evaluation.

Using the faecal immunochemical test in patients with rectal bleeding: evidence from the NICE FIT study

AIM

The aim of this work was to investigate whether the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) could safely rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with rectal bleeding (RB).

METHOD

This was a multicentre, double-blinded diagnostic accuracy study in 50 National Health Service hospitals. Patients referred from primary care with suspected CRC on an urgent 2-week-wait pathway were asked to perform a FIT prior to colonoscopy. The primary outcome measure was the sensitivity of the FIT for CRC in patients with RB versus nonrectal bleeding symptoms (NRB). The secondary outcome measures included the diagnostic accuracy of the FIT for CRC and other serious bowel disease.

RESULTS

Of 9822 patients included in the study, 3143 (32.0%) were referred with RB. CRC was present in 4.7% of patients with RB versus 2.7% of patients with NRB (p < 0.05). Faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) was detectable (>2 µg/g) in 44.1% of patients with RB and 33.9% with NRB (p < 0.05). In RB patients, CRC was present in 10.4% when f-Hb was >2 µg/g compared with 0.1% when f-Hb was not detected. Flexible sigmoidoscopy in this group would further reduce the risk of CRC to 0.03%. The sensitivity of the FIT for CRC in RB versus NRB groups was 98.6% (95% CI 95.2%-99.8%) vs 95.6% (91.5%-98.1%) for f-Hb >2 µg/g and 96.6% (92.2%-98.9%) vs 86.3 (80.4%-90.9%) for f-Hb >10 µg/g.

CONCLUSION

Faecal haemoglobin is not always detectable in patients with RB; 56% of patients had undetectable f-Hb (<2 µg/g) and CRC was present in 0.1%. The high sensitivity of the FIT can be used to rule out CRC in patients with RB and triage them more appropriately for investigation.

DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF ONE SAMPLE OR TWO SAMPLES QUANTITATIVE FECAL IMMUNOCHEMICAL TESTS FOR INTESTINAL NEOPLASIA DETECTION

BACKGROUND

Rectal bleeding is the most important symptom of intestinal neoplasia; thus, tests of occult blood detection in stools are widely used for pre neoplastic lesions and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the accuracy of OC-Sensor quantitative test (Eiken Chemical, Tokyo, Japan) at cut-off 10 µg Hb/g feces (50 ng/mL) in a cohort of subjects that had to undergo diagnostic colonoscopy, and if more than one sample collected in consecutive days would improve the diagnostic accuracy of the test.

METHODS

Patients (mean age 56.3±9.7 years) that underwent colonoscopy prospectively randomly received one (1-sample FIT, FIT 1) or two (2-sample FIT, FIT 2) collection tubes. They collected the stool sample before starting colonoscopy preparation. Samples were analyzed by the OC-Auto Micro 80 (Eiken Chemical, Tokyo, Japan). The performance of FIT 1 and FIT 2 were compared to the colonoscopy findings.

RESULTS

Among 289 patients, CRC was diagnosed in 14 (4.8%), advanced adenoma in 37 (12.8%), early adenoma in 71 (24.6%) and no abnormalities in 141 (48.8%). For FIT 1, the sensitivity for CRC was 83.3% (95%CI 36.5-99.1%), for advanced adenoma was 24% (95%CI 10.1-45.5%), with specificity of 86.9% (95%CI 77.3-92.9%). For FIT 2, the sensitivity for CRC was 75% (95%CI 35.6-95.5%), for advanced adenoma was 50% (95%CI 22.3-77.7%), with specificity of 92.9% (95%CI 82.2-97.7%). The positive likelihood ratios were 1.8 (95%CI 0.7-4.4 for FIT 1) and 7.1 (95%CI 2.4-21.4 for FIT 2) for advanced adenoma, and 6.4 (95%CI 3.3-12.3, for FIT 1) and 10.7 (95%CI 3.8-29.8, for FIT 2) for CRC. The negative likelihood ratio were 0.9 (95%CI 0.7-1, for FIT 1) and 0.5 (95%CI 0.3-0.9, for FIT 2) for advanced adenoma, and 0.2 (0.03-1.1, for FIT 1) and 0.3 (0.08-0.9, for FIT 2) for CRC. The differences between FIT 1 and FIT 2 performances were not significant. However, the comparison of the levels of hemoglobin in feces of patients of FIT 1 and FIT 2 showed that the differences between no polyp group and advanced adenoma and CRC were significant.

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of OCR Sensor with 10 µg Hb/g feces cut-off was comparable to other reports and two-sample collection improved the detection rate of advanced adenoma, a pre neoplastic condition to prevent CRC incidence.

Qualitative faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for diagnosing colorectal cancer in patients with histories of rectal bleeding in primary care: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Rectal bleeding is considered an alarm symptom for colorectal cancer (CRC) but it is common and mostly caused by benign conditions. Qualitative faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for occult blood have been used as diagnostic aids for many years in Sweden when CRC is suspected. The study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of FITs requested by primary care physicians for patients with and without histories of rectal bleeding, in the diagnosis of CRC.

METHODS

Results of all FITs requested in primary care for symptomatic patients in the Örebro region during 2015 were retrieved. Data on each patient's history of rectal bleeding was gathered from electronic health records. Patients diagnosed with CRC within 2 years were identified from the Swedish Cancer Register. The analysis focused on three-sample FITs, the customary FIT in Sweden.

RESULTS

A total of 4232 patients provided three-sample FITs. Information about the presence/absence of rectal bleeding was available for 2027 patients, of which 59 were diagnosed with CRC. For 606 patients with the presence of rectal bleeding, the FIT showed sensitivity 96.2%, specificity 60.2%, positive predictive value 9.8% (95% CI 6.1-13.4) and negative predictive value 99.7% (95% CI 99.2-100) for CRC. For 1421 patients without rectal bleeding, the corresponding figures were 100%, 73.6%, 8.3% (95% CI 5.6-10.9) and 100% (95% CI 99.6-100).

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic performance of a qualitative three-sample FIT provided by symptomatic patients in primary care was similar for those with and without a history of rectal bleeding. FITs seem useful for prioritising patients also with rectal bleeding for further investigation.