Faecal immunochemical testing and blood tests for prioritization of urgent colorectal cancer referrals in symptomatic patients: a 2-year evaluation

'Low' faecal immunochemical test (FIT) colorectal cancer: a 4-year comparison of the Nottingham '4F' protocol with FIT10 in symptomatic patients

AIM

The aim of this work was to evaluate colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes after 'low' (sub-threshold) faecal immunochemical test (FIT) results in symptomatic patients tested in primary care.

METHOD

This work comprised a retrospective audit of 35 289 patients with FIT results who had consulted their general practitioner with lower gastrointestinal symptoms and had subsequent CRC diagnoses. The Rapid Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis pathway was introduced in November 2017 to allow incorporation of FIT into clinical practice. The local '4F' protocol combined FIT results with blood tests and digital rectal examination (DRE): FIT, full blood count, ferritin and finger [DRE]. The outcome used was detection rates of CRC, missed CRC and time to diagnosis in local 4F protocols for patients with a subthreshold faecal haemoglobin (fHb) result compared with thresholds of 10 and 20 μg Hb/g faeces.

RESULTS

A single threshold of 10 μg Hb/g faeces identifies a population in whom the risk of CRC is 0.2%, but this would have missed 63 (10.5%) of 599 CRCs in this population. The Nottingham 4F protocol would have missed fewer CRCs [42 of 599 (7%)] despite using a threshold of 20 μg Hb/g faeces for patients with normal blood tests. Subthreshold FIT results in patients subsequently diagnosed with a palpable rectal tumour yielded the longest delays in diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

A combination of FIT with blood results and DRE (the 4F protocol) reduced the risk of missed or delayed diagnosis. Further studies on the impact of such protocols on the diagnostic accuracy of FIT are expected. The value of adding blood tests to FIT may be restricted to specific parts of the fHb results spectrum.

Sociodemographic variations in the uptake of faecal immunochemical tests in primary care: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Faecal immunochemical test (FIT) usage for symptomatic patients is increasing, but variations in use caused by sociodemographic factors are unknown. A clinical pathway for colorectal cancer (CRC) was introduced in primary care for symptomatic patients in November 2017. The pathway was commissioned to provide GPs with direct access to FITs.

AIM

To identify whether sociodemographic factors affect FIT return in symptomatic patients.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective study was undertaken in Nottingham, UK, following the introduction of FIT as triage tool in primary care. It was mandated for all colorectal referrals (except rectal bleeding or mass) to secondary care. FIT was used, alongside full blood count and ferritin, to stratify CRC risk.

METHOD

All referrals from November 2017 to December 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Sociodemographic factors affecting FIT return were analysed by multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 35 289 (90.7%) patients returned their index FIT, while 3631 (9.3%) did not. On multivariate analysis, males were less likely to return an FIT (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03 to 1.19). Patients aged ≥65 years were more likely to return an FIT (OR 0.78 for non-return, 95% CI = 0.72 to 0.83). Unreturned FIT more than doubled in the most compared with the least deprived quintile (OR 2.20, 95% CI = 1.99 to 2.43). Patients from Asian (OR 1.82, 95% CI = 1.58 to 2.10), Black (OR 1.21, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.49), and mixed or other ethnic groups (OR 1.29, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.59) were more likely to not return an FIT compared with patients from a White ethnic group. A total of 599 (1.5%) CRCs were detected; 561 in those who returned a first FIT request.

CONCLUSION

FIT return in those suspected of having CRC varied by sex, age, ethnic group, and socioeconomic deprivation. Strategies to mitigate effects on FIT return and CRC detection should be considered as FIT usage expands.

Understanding colorectal cancer risk for symptomatic patients in primary care: A cohort study utilising faecal immunochemical tests and blood results in England

BACKGROUND

A faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) cut-off of ≥10 μg Hb/g faeces is now recommended in the UK as a gateway to urgent (suspected cancer) investigation for colorectal cancer (CRC), based on an expected CRC risk threshold of 3%.

AIMS

To quantify the risk of CRC at FIT cut-offs by age, haemoglobin and platelet strata.

METHODS

A cohort study of a symptomatic CRC pathway based on primary care FIT tests in Nottingham, UK (November 2017-2021) with 1-year follow-up. Heat maps showed the cumulative 1-year CRC risk using Kaplan-Meier estimates.

RESULTS

In total, 514 (1.5%) CRCs were diagnosed following 33,694 index FIT requests. Individuals with a FIT ≥ 10 μg Hb/g faeces had a >3% risk of CRC, except patients under the age of 40 years (CRC risk 1.45% [95% CI: 0.03%-2.86%]). Non-anaemic patients with a FIT < 100 μg Hb/g faeces had a CRC risk of <3%, except those between the age of 70 and 85 years (5.26% 95% CI: 2.72%-7.73%). Using a ≥3% CRC threshold in patients <55 years calculated using FIT, age and anaemia might allow 160-220 colonoscopies per 10,000 FITs to be re-purposed, at a cost of missing 1-2 CRCs.

CONCLUSIONS

FIT alone with a single cut-off is unlikely to be a panacea for optimising CRC diagnosis, as risk varies by FIT, age and anaemia when faecal haemoglobin levels are below 100 μg Hb/g. Tailored FIT cut-offs for investigation on a CRC pathway could reduce the number of investigations needed at a 3% CRC risk threshold.

Can endoscopic follow-up after acute diverticulitis be rationalised?

BACKGROUND

Acute diverticulitis (AD) is a common cause of presentation to emergency surgical services. Follow-up with endoluminal investigation to exclude colorectal cancer (CRC) remains controversial. Guidelines are increasingly moving to a more restrictive follow-up based on severity of disease and age. The purpose of this observational study was to assess the prevalence of CRC in AD patients and the impact of follow-up on endoscopy services.

METHODS

Patients admitted with a diagnosis of AD over a 2-year period were reviewed. The proportion of patients undergoing endoscopic follow-up and the CRC detection rate were recorded. The potential impact of a more conservative approach to follow-up was evaluated.

RESULTS

There were 484 patients with AD presenting 546 times (M:F = 198:286; median age = 63 years). 80% of admissions were aged 50 or older. There were 43 emergency interventions in 39 patients (10 percutaneous drain; 33 surgery). The remainder were managed conservatively. 28 patients (5.1%) underwent colonic resection with cancer found in one specimen (3.6%). 287 patients underwent endoluminal follow-up with cancer diagnosed in 3 cases (1.0%). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of CRC between patients requiring emergency surgery and those managed conservatively, or between patients with complicated versus uncomplicated diverticulitis.

CONCLUSION

CRC masquerading as acute diverticulitis is rare. The incidence of neoplasia both at endoscopic follow-up and in patients requiring emergency intervention is low. Conservative follow-up strategies appear safe, but their effectiveness in reducing the burden on endoscopy services may be limited by current age-based recommendations. Restricting follow-up to those with complicated AD would reduce the number of patients requiring endoluminal investigation by 70%.

Impact of faecal haemoglobin based triage of bowel symptoms presenting to primary care on colorectal cancer diagnosis

AIM

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for faecal haemoglobin was introduced into primary care in National Health Service Tayside in 2015 as an adjunct to clinical assessment of new bowel symptoms. We aimed to assess the impact of FIT-based triage in primary care on colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis.

METHOD

Cancer audit data between January 2016 and December 2019 were reviewed to identify all patients diagnosed locally with CRC. The mode of presentation and stage at diagnosis were noted and patient records were interrogated to identify whether FIT and full blood count (FBC) had been performed prior to referral. Results were compared between the FIT and non-FIT groups.

RESULTS

In all, 1245 patients were diagnosed with CRC of whom 581 (46.7%) presented through primary care. FIT was performed prior to referral in 440/581 (75.7%), with the proportion increasing from 62.3% in 2016 to 85.8% in 2019. At faecal haemoglobin ≥10 μg Hb/g faeces, sensitivity for CRC was 94.1%. Over the study period the annual proportion of non-emergency presentations increased significantly; presentations from primary care increased from 43.1% to 53.5% (P = 0.0096). After excluding non-FIT patients who had an overt CRC at referral, there was no difference in stage at diagnosis between FIT and non-FIT cancers. Safety-netting with FBC was widely used in our cohort with 97.3% of FIT patients having also had FBC.

CONCLUSION

FIT-based triage of new bowel symptoms in primary care is associated with increased non-emergency presentation of CRC but this did not influence stage at diagnosis.

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.

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.

A cohort study of duplicate faecal immunochemical testing in patients at risk of colorectal cancer from North-West England

OBJECTIVES

We sought to investigate if duplicate faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) sampling improves the negative and positive predictive value of patients thought to be at risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Specifically, we aimed to investigate whether the proportion of FIT-negative CRC missed by a single FIT test in symptomatic patients could be reduced by duplicate FIT testing.

DESIGN

A retrospective service evaluation cohort study of the diagnostic accuracy of duplicate FIT testing.

SETTING

Patients referred from primary care with suspected CRC to four secondary care trusts in North-West England.

PARTICIPANTS

28 622 patients over 18-years-old with lower gastrointestinal symptoms suggestive of CRC who completed two FIT samples.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The performance of duplicate FIT for detecting CRC at a threshold of 10 µgHb/g.

RESULTS

The sensitivity if either test was >10 µgHb/g was 0.978 (0.955-0.989), specificity was 0.662 (0.657-0.668), positive predictive value 0.031 (0.028-0.035) and negative predictive value 1.00 (0.999-1.00). Despite two-thirds of patients (18952) being negative following two tests, at this threshold only seven CRC were missed over a 26-month period. All seven patients had other high-risk features which should have prompted investigation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that in routine NHS practice, a duplicate FIT sample strategy together with clinical evaluation for evidence of anaemia and weight loss is superior to a single FIT sample alone and would allow symptomatic patients to be managed in primary care without the need for urgent referral to secondary care for urgent colonic imaging.

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.

Combining the quantitative faecal immunochemical test and full blood count reliably rules out colorectal cancer in a symptomatic patient referral pathway

PURPOSE

Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) has proven utility for Colorectal Cancer (CRC) detection in symptomatic patients. Most studies have examined FIT in symptomatic patients subsequently referred from primary care. We investigated associations between CRC and FIT in both referred and non-referred symptomatic patients.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational study of all patients with a FIT submitted Aug 2018 to Jan 2019 in NHS GG&C was performed. Referral to colorectal/gastroenterology and decision to perform colonoscopy were recorded. FIT results were grouped as f-Hb < 10/10-149/150-399/ ≥ 400 μg/g. The MCN cancer registry identified new cases of CRC. Covariables were compared using the χ2 test. Multivariate binary logistic regression identified independent predictors of CRC.

RESULTS

A total of 4968 patients were included. Raised FIT correlated with decision to refer (p < 0.001) and scope (p < 0.001). With 23-month median follow-up, 61 patients were diagnosed with CRC. These patients were older (median 69 vs 59 years, cancer and no cancer respectively, p = 0.001), more likely to be male (55.7% vs 42.1%, p = 0.033), and to report rectal bleeding (51.7% vs 36.1%, p = 0.013). FIT (< 10 µg/g 8.2% vs 76.7% and ≥ 400 µg/g 55.7% vs 3.8%, p < 0.001) and anaemia (45.9% vs 19.7%, p < 0.001) were associated with CRC. On multivariate analysis, age (p = 0.023), male sex (p = 0.04), FIT (≥ 400 OR 54.256 (95% CI:20.683-142.325; p < 0.001)), and anaemia (OR 1.956 (1.071-3.574; p = 0.029)) independently predicted CRC. One patient (0.04%) with a negative FIT and normal haemoglobin had CRC.

CONCLUSION

GP referral and secondary care investigation patterns were influenced by FIT. The combination of normal Hb and f-Hb excluded CRC in 99.96% of cases, providing excellent reassurance to those prioritising access to endoscopy services.

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.

Collaboration between an NHS University Teaching Hospital and independent hospital to maintain CT colonography service provision during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic

Our trust performed CTCs at 93% of the capacity of the previous year, scanning 1265 patients in 2020, compared with 1348 in 2019. We describe the changes made to our service to achieve this, which included collaboration with the colorectal surgical team to prioritise existing CTC patients according to faecal-immunochemical tests and full blood count results, and the associated challenges which included image transfer delays and patient attendance for scans. Furthermore, the endoscopy and radiology services used the opportunity created by co-location at the same hospital site to provide a same day incomplete colonoscopy and staging service for optically confirmed cancers.

Collaboration between the NHS and independent sector allowed us to achieve continuity of service provision during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic without substituting unprepared CT abdomen and pelvis instead of the more sensitive CTC.