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

Assessing the Role of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy for Patients With Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) and Rectal Bleeding as a Sole Symptom Within the Fast-Track Pathway

Background Rectal bleeding is a frequent symptom, with causes ranging from benign conditions to serious diseases like colorectal cancer (CRC) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In the UK, the two-week wait (2WW) referral pathway, which includes the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), plays a key role in triaging suspected CRC cases. This study evaluates the effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) in detecting significant bowel pathologies (SBPs) in FIT-positive patients with isolated rectal bleeding. Methods We reviewed records of 344 patients with isolated rectal bleeding and a positive FIT result, referred to the 2WW pathway at York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust from February to December 2023. All patients underwent colonoscopy. Findings from colonoscopy were used as a standard to compare with the expected reach of FS. Pathologies were categorized into SBPs (cancer, IBD, polyps ≥10 mm) and non-SBPs, and the location of SBPs in relation to the splenic flexure was also assessed. Results The average age of patients was 61.58 years. Significant bowel pathology (SBP) was identified in 89 of 344 (25.9%) patients, including 16 (18%) patients with cancer, 21 (23.6%) patients with IBD, and 52 (58.4%) patients with large polyps. All cases of cancer and IBD were found distal to the splenic flexure, while 21.1% (11/89) of large polyps were proximal. Higher FIT values (>100 µg Hb/g feces) and older age were significantly associated with SBPs. However, age and higher FIT values did not predict whether SBPs were proximal or distal. Conclusion For FIT-positive patients with isolated rectal bleeding, FS can serve as an effective initial diagnostic tool. Patients without detected cancer can be downgraded from the fast-track pathway to routine colonoscopy follow-up to avoid missing proximal premalignant lesions. This approach enhances resource utilization while ensuring comprehensive patient care. Further studies are needed to improve triage criteria and diagnostic accuracy within the 2WW pathway.

Adapting the investigation of patients on urgent suspected cancer pathway with lower gastrointestinal symptoms across Wales during COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the introduction of revised diagnostic pathways for assessing urgent suspected cancer (USC) referrals. Combinations of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and minimal preparation computed tomography (CT) scans (MPCT) were used to manage referrals and prioritise access to clinical services or invasive tests. The effectiveness of these pathways across Wales is evaluated in this study.

METHODS

All consecutive patients referred from primary care on the USC pathway between 15 March and 15 June 2020 were included to reflect the effect of full lockdown measures. Data collected included demographics, presenting symptom(s), investigations and timelines and patient outcomes up to 90 days following initial referral.

RESULTS

A total of 1,050 patients across eight sites in Wales were included. Of these 1,050 patients, 52.6% were female with median age 68 (21-97) years; 50.5% had first-line clinical review, of which 61.1% were virtual consultations; 49.5% had primary investigations; 26.7% of patients had FIT and 13.1% had MPCT. COVID-response pathways achieved a 29.9% reduction in use of colonoscopy as first-line investigation and 79% of patients avoided face-to-face consultations altogether during this first wave of the pandemic. Overall, 6.8% of USC referrals were diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC). Median timescale from diagnosis to treatment for CRC was 65 (4-175) days. The negative predictive value (NPV) for FIT in this cohort was 99.6%. MPCT as the first modality had a NPV of 99.2%.

CONCLUSION

A modified investigation pathway helped maintain cancer diagnosis rates during the pandemic with improved resource utilisation to that used prepandemic.

Faecal Immunochemical Testing to Detect Colorectal Cancer in Symptomatic Patients: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study

(1) Background: NHS England recommended faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for symptomatic patients in June 2020 to rationalise limited diagnostic services during COVID-19. (2) Aim: to investigate the diagnostic performance of FIT, analysing the proportion of FIT-negative colorectal cancers (CRC) missed in symptomatic patients and how this risk could be mitigated. (3) Design and Setting: a retrospective study of biochemistry and cancer databases involving patients referred from primary healthcare with suspected CRC to a single secondary care trust in North East London. (4) Methods: a retrospective cohort diagnostic accuracy study was undertaken to determine the performance of FIT for detecting CRC at 10 µgHb/g. (5) Results: between January and December 2020, 7653 patients provided a stool sample for FIT analysis; 1679 (22%) samples were excluded due to inadequate or incorrect specimens; 48% of suspected CRC referrals completed FIT before evaluation; 86 FIT tested patients were diagnosed with histologically proven CRC. At 10 µgHb/g, FIT performance was comparable with the existing literature with a sensitivity of 0.8140 (95% CI 0.7189-0.8821), a specificity of 0.7704 (95% CI 0.7595-0.7809), a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.04923 (95% CI 0.03915-0.06174), a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.9965 (95% CI 0.9943-0.9978), and a likelihood ratio (LR) of 3.545; 16 patients with CRC had an FIT of ≤10 µgHb/g (18.6% 95% CI 11.0-28.4%). (6) Conclusions: this study raises concerns about compliance with FIT testing and the incidence of FIT-negative CRC at the NICE recommended threshold and how this risk can be mitigated without colonic imaging. Whilst FIT may have facilitated prioritisation during COVID-19, we must be cautious about using FIT alone to determine which patients are referred to secondary care or receive further investigation.

Outcomes of patients with non-lower gastrointestinal cancer diagnosed via the lower gastrointestinal two-week-wait service

INTRODUCTION

Patients referred via lower gastrointestinal two-week-wait (LGI-2WW) services deemed at 'low risk' of LGI cancer may have delayed or no investigation. However, 20% of patients diagnosed with cancer via the LGI-2WW have non-LGI cancer. This study investigates the outcomes in this under-reported group.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients referred to a UK LGI-2WW service with a non-LGI cancer diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases 10th revision) between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2018. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Statistical analysis was undertaken using Kaplan-Meier survival curves with generalised log-rank test and binomial logistic regression of pre-investigation information to predict death. A p-value of < 0.05 represented statistical significance.

RESULTS

In total, 140 patients were diagnosed with non-LGI cancer (of 10,155 patients referred via the LGI-2WW pathway). Median follow-up was 13 months (range 0-65 months). Thirty-five patients (35/140; 25%) did not meet LGI-2WW referral criteria. Median survival varied by cancer site (upper gastrointestinal: 43/140 patients, median survival 4 months; gynaecological: 25/140, 25 months; haematological: 22/140, < 50% died; urological: 21/140, 47 months; unknown primary: 12/140, 3 months; lung: 10/140, 17 months; breast: 3/140, 5 months; retroperitoneal: 2/140, 9 months; brain: 1/140, 4 months; adrenal: 1/140, 52 months). Binomial logistic regression was statistically significant (chi-squared goodness-of-fit test = 12.334; p = 0.03); but the presence of comorbidity was the only significant predictive factor of death (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with non-LGI cancers cannot be easily predicted and have a poor prognosis. Pathways to streamline investigations for LGI cancer should include computed tomography scans for patients at 'low risk' of LGI cancer to ensure that non-LGI cancers are diagnosed.

A Point-of-Care Faecal Test Combining Four Biomarkers Allows Avoidance of Normal Colonoscopies and Prioritizes Symptomatic Patients with a High Risk of Colorectal Cancer

Most colonoscopies performed to evaluate gastrointestinal symptoms detect only non-relevant pathologies. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a qualitative point-of-care (POC) test combining four biomarkers (haemoglobin, transferrin, calprotectin, and lactoferrin), a quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for haemoglobin, and a quantitative faecal calprotectin (FC) test in symptomatic patients prospectively recruited. Colorectal cancer (CRC), adenoma requiring surveillance, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), microscopic colitis, and angiodysplasia were considered significant pathologies. A total of 571 patients were included. Significant pathology was diagnosed in 118 (20.7%), including 30 CRC cases (5.3%). The POC test yielded the highest negative predictive values: 94.8% for a significant pathology and 100% for CRC or IBD if the four markers turned negative (36.8% of the patients). Negative predictive values of FIT, FC, and its combination for diagnosis of a significant pathology were 88.4%, 87.6%, and 90.8%, respectively. Moreover, the positive predictive value using the POC test was 82.3% for significant pathology when all biomarkers tested positive (6% of the patients), with 70.6% of these patients diagnosed with CRC or IBD. The AUC of the POC test was 0.801 (95%CI 0.754-0.848) for the diagnosis of a significant pathology. Therefore, this POC faecal test allows the avoidance of unnecessary colonoscopies and prioritizes high risk symptomatic patients.

Faecal immunochemical testing reduces demand and improves yield of Leicester's 2-week pathway for change in bowel habit

AIM

We look at the effect of introducing the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) in the straight-to-test 2-week pathway for change in bowel habit (CIBH).

METHOD

The FIT in primary care triages 2-week wait (2WW) colorectal referrals for patients aged 60 years and above for straight-to-test CT colonography (CTC). We compare the impact of the FIT on numbers of 2WW CTCs, in the year before and after FIT, in both colorectal cancer (CRC) detection and cost-effectiveness at both 4 μg Hb/g faeces and 10 μg Hb/g faeces.

RESULTS

At a threshold of 4 μg Hb/g faeces, the positive predictive value of the FIT for diagnosis of CRC is 5.0% with a negative predictive value of 99.8% and a polyp detection rate of 25.5%. The introduction of the FIT resulted in a reduction in the number of CTCs performed through the CIBH pathway from a mean of 143.9 per month prior to the FIT to 66.8 CTCs per month once the FIT was well established. Given a FIT threshold of 10 μg Hb/g the number of CTCs would be predicted to fall by 70.4% to 42.6 CTCs per month resulting in higher CRC and polyp detection rate, and an estimated annual cost saving of £238 258 in our institution.

CONCLUSION

The FIT use in primary care improves the yield of 2WW referrals for CIBH alone and reduces the burden and cost of investigations to exclude CRC. Improvements may be possible by increasing the cut-off employed, without adversely affecting the risk of missing a cancer.

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.

A novel digital rectoscope for the triage of lower gastrointestinal symptoms in primary care: a prospective multicentre feasibility study

Background

Access to community rectoscopy might help to ease the burden on hospital services and reduce costs for the NHS. To assess this, a prospective multicentre observational phase I feasibility study of a novel digital rectoscope and telestration software for the triage of lower gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms was undertaken.

Aim

To determine if digital rectoscopy is feasible, acceptable, and clinically safe.

Design & setting

Evaluation of clinician case reports and patient questionnaires from patients recruited from five primary care centres.

Method

Adults meeting 2-week wait (2WW) criteria for suspected lower GI cancer, suspected new diagnosis, or flare-up of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) were enrolled. Examinations were performed by primary care practitioners using the LumenEye rectoscope. The CHiP platform allowed immediate remote review by secondary care. A prospective analysis was performed of patient and clinician experiences, diagnostic accuracy, and cost.

Results

A total of 114 patients were recruited and 110 underwent the procedure (46 [42%] females and 64 [58%] males). No serious adverse events were reported. Eighty-two (74.5%) patients reported that examination was more comfortable than expected, while 104 (94.5%) felt the intervention was most convenient if delivered in the community. Clinicians were confident of their assessment in 100 (87.7%) examinations. Forty-eight (42.1%) patients subsequently underwent colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or computed tomography virtual colonoscopy (CTVC). The overall sensitivity and specificity of LumenEye in identifying rectal pathology was 90.0% and 88.9%. It was 100% and 100% for cancer, and 83.3% and 97.8% for polyps. Following LumenEye examination, 19 (17.3%) patients were discharged, with projected savings of 11 305 GBP.

Conclusion

Digital rectoscopy in primary care is safe, acceptable, and can reduce referrals. A phase III randomised controlled trial is indicated to define its utility in reducing the burden on hospital diagnostic services.

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.

Alternative diagnoses and demographics associated with a raised quantitative faecal immunochemical test in symptomatic patients

Background

The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) has proven utility for colorectal cancer detection in symptomatic patients. However, most patients with a raised faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) do not have colorectal cancer. We investigated alternative diagnoses and demographics associated with a raised f-Hb in symptomatic patients.

Methods

A retrospective, observational study was performed of patients with FIT submitted between August 2018 to January 2019 in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde followed by colonoscopy. Colonoscopy/pathology reports were searched for alternative diagnoses. Covariables were compared using the χ² test. Multivariate binary logistic regression identified independent predictors of a raised f-Hb.

Results

1272 patients were included. In addition to colorectal cancer (odds ratio (OR), 9.27 (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.61–23.83; p < 0.001)), older age (OR, 1.52 (95% CI: 1.00–2.32; p = 0.05)), deprivation (OR, 1.54 (95% CI: 1.21–1.94; p < 0.001)), oral anticoagulants (OR, 1.78 (95% CI: 1.01–3.15; p = 0.046)), rectal bleeding (OR, 1.47 (95% CI: 1.15–1.88; p = 0.002)), advanced adenoma (OR, 7.52 (95% CI: 3.90–14.49; p < 0.001)), non-advanced polyps (OR, 1.78 (95% CI: 1.33–2.38; p < 0.001)) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (OR, 4.19 (95% CI: 2.17–8.07; p < 0.001)) independently predicted raised f-Hb. Deprivation (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) 1-2: OR, 2.13 (95% CI: 1.38–3.29; p = 0.001)) independently predicted a raised f-Hb in patients with no pathology found at colonoscopy.

Conclusions

An elevated f-Hb is independently associated with older age, deprivation, anticoagulants, rectal bleeding, advanced adenoma, non-advanced polyps and IBD in symptomatic patients. Deprivation is associated with a raised f-Hb in the absence of pathology. This must be considered when utilising FIT in symptomatic patients.

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.