Prioritisation of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes of a novel triage pathway

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

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Who are the patients being offered the faecal immunochemical test in routine English general practice, and for what symptoms? A prospective descriptive study

OBJECTIVES

The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) was introduced to triage patients with lower-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer (CRC) in English primary care in 2018. While there is growing evidence on its utility to triage patients in this setting, evidence is still limited on how official FIT guidance is being used, for which patients and for what symptoms. We aimed to investigate the use of FIT in primary care practice for lower-risk patients who did not immediately meet criteria for urgent referral.

DESIGN

A prospective, descriptive study of symptomatic patients offered a FIT in primary care between January and June 2020.

SETTING

East of England general practices.

PARTICIPANTS

Consenting patients (aged ≥40 years) who were seen by their general practitioners (GPs) with symptoms of possible CRC for whom a FIT was requested. We excluded patients receiving a FIT for asymptomatic screening purposes, or patients deemed by GPs as lacking capacity for informed consent. Data were obtained via patient questionnaire, medical and laboratory records.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

FIT results (10 µg Hb/g faeces defined a positive result); patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics; patient-reported and GP-recorded symptoms, symptom severity and symptom agreement between patient and GP (% and kappa statistics).

RESULTS

Complete data were available for 310 patients, median age 70 (IQR 61-77) years, 53% female and 23% FIT positive. Patients most commonly reported change in bowel habit (69%) and fatigue (57%), while GPs most commonly recorded abdominal pain (25%) and change in bowel habit (24%). Symptom agreement ranged from 44% (fatigue) to 80% (unexplained weight loss). Kappa agreement was universally low across symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Almost a quarter of this primary care cohort of symptomatic patients with FIT testing were found to be positive. However, there was low agreement between patient-reported and GP-recorded symptoms. This may impact cancer risk assessment and optimal patient management in primary care.