Comparison of One versus Two Fecal Immunochemical Tests in the Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia in a Population-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program

Repeat Faecal Immunochemical Testing for Colorectal Cancer Detection in Symptomatic and Screening Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is widely used in bowel screening programmes and assessing symptomatic patients for suspected colorectal cancer (CRC). The evidence for single test performance of FIT in both settings is considerable; however, the use of a repeat test to increase sensitivity remains uncertain. We aimed to review what increase in test positivity would be generated by additional FITs, whether a repeated FIT detects previously missed CRC and advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN), and to estimate the sensitivity of double-FIT strategies to diagnose CRC and ACRN.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was performed using key search terms. Studies reporting the use of more than one FIT in the same screening round or planned assessment of a single symptomatic patient episode were included. Studies were categorised by the reported study population into asymptomatic, mixed (cohorts of combined asymptomatic, symptomatic, or high-risk surveillance), or symptomatic cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 68 studies were included for analysis (39 asymptomatic, 21 mixed, 7 symptomatic, and 1 study with discrete asymptomatic and symptomatic data). At a threshold of 10 µg Hb/g, the two-test positivity ranged between 8.1 and 34.5%, with an increase from the second test of 3-9.2 percentage points. Four out of five studies comparing one versus two tests for diagnosing CRC at 10 µg Hb/g identified additional cases with the second test, with a minimum of 50% reduction in missed CRC. At a threshold of 20 µg Hb/g, the second test increased the positivity by 1.3-6.7 percentage points, with a two-test positivity of between 5.1 and 25.0%. Using a threshold of 20 µg Hb/g, five out of seven studies had a 25% reduction in missed CRC. A meta-analysis estimated the double-FIT sensitivity at 10 µg Hb/g for CRC in mixed-risk and symptomatic cohorts to be 94% and 98%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeated use of FIT helps to diagnose more cases of CRC with a moderate increase in positivity. A double-FIT strategy at 10 µg Hb/g in mixed and symptomatic cohorts has a very high sensitivity for CRC.

Effects of Fecal Occult Blood Immunoassay Screening for Colorectal Cancer-Experience from a Hospital in Central Taiwan

Background and Objectives: In 2004, the Health Administration of Taiwan began to promote a hospital-based cancer screening quality improvement program, under the principle that "prevention is better than therapy". The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in patients who received a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) at a hospital in central Taiwan. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study. Results: Fecal occult blood immunoassays for CRC screening were conducted in 58,891 participants, of whom 6533 were positive (positive detection rate 11.10%). The positive patients then underwent colonoscopy, and the detection rates of polyps and CRC accounted for 53.6% and 2.4% of all colonoscopy-confirmed diagnoses (3607), respectively. We further enrolled data from patients diagnosed with CRC at our hospital from 2010 to 2018. The patients with CRC were divided into two groups according to whether or not they had received fecal occult blood screening. Among the 88 patients with CRC by screening, 54 had detailed medical records including cancer stage. Of these 54 patients, 1 (1.8%) had pre-stage, 11 (20.4%) had stage I, 24 (44.4%) had stage II, 10 (18.5%) had stage III, and 8 (14.8%) had stage IV CRC. The early cancer detection rates of the screening and non-screening groups were 66.7% and 52.7%, respectively, and the difference was significant (p = 0.00130). Conclusions: In this study, screening with FIT significantly increased the early detection of CRC. The main advantage of FIT is the non-invasiveness and low cost. It is hoped that the further adoption of early screening can increase the detection rates of colorectal polyps or early cancer to improve survival, reduce the high cost of subsequent cancer treatment, and reduce the burden on the patient and healthcare system.

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.

The impact of 6 years of the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program on colorectal cancer incidence and 5-year survival

We aimed to assess the impact of the first three rounds of the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program (NCCSP) on CRC incidence and mortality in Slovenia. In NCCSP, we use two fecal immune tests (FITs) and if test is positive patient is referred to colonoscopy. From 2009, we invite Slovenian residents aged 50-69 years, one screening round takes 2 years. The response rate was from 56.9 to 59.9%. FIT was positive in 6.0-6.2% (more in older patients and in men; P < 0.05). The adenoma detection rate was >51.3% (more in men; P < 0.01). In NCCSP, 70.3% of all cancers diagnosed were in stages I and II, while 20.7% of all CRC were found in polyps resected during colonoscopies. Patients with positive first FIT have odds ratio 2.19 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.06-2.32] for advanced neoplasia and cancer compared to patients with two negative FITs. The incidence rate for CRC has dropped significantly after 6 years in population and in men (P < 0.01) but not in women. Five-year CRC survival was 31.3% higher if cancer was diagnosed in NCCSP (P < 0.05). After 6 years of NCCSP, the incidence rate for CRC has dropped significantly (P < 0.01). Hazard ratio for death from CRC was 3.84 higher (95% CI, 3.36-4.40; P < 0.001) in patients with cancer detected outside the program.

Colorectal cancer in patients with single versus double positive faecal immunochemical test results: A retrospective cohort study from a public tertiary hospital

BACKGROUND

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) using the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is widely advocated. Few studies have compared the rate of detecting colonoscopic pathologies in single compared to double FIT-positive follow-up colonoscopy-compliant individuals in a two-sample national FIT screening program.

OBJECTIVE

To compare CRC incidence in double FIT-positive versus single FIT-positive individuals using a retrospective cohort of patients from a tertiary hospital in Singapore.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Data was extracted from one public tertiary hospital in Singapore.

PARTICIPANTS

1,422 FIT-positive individuals from the national FIT screening program who were referred to the hospital from 1st January 2017 to 31st March 2020 for follow-up consultation and diagnostic colonoscopy.

MEASUREMENTS

The exposure of interest was a positive result on both FIT kits. The main outcome was a follow-up diagnostic colonoscopy finding of CRC. The secondary outcome was a diagnostic colonoscopy finding of a colorectal polyp.

RESULTS

Incidence density of CRC was 1.15 and 13.10 per 100,000 person-months, in the single and double FIT-positive group, respectively. This resulted in an incidence rate ratio of 11.40 (95% CI = 4.34, 35.09). Colorectal polyp detection was significantly higher (p < 0.01) in the double (103 of 173 participants; 59.5%) compared to the single (279 of 671 participants; 41.6%) FIT-positive group.

LIMITATIONS

The key limitation of this study was the relatively small cohort derived from a single tertiary hospital, as this had the effect of limiting the number of incident cases, resulting in comparatively imprecise CIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Double FIT-positive individuals are significantly more likely to have a colonoscopy finding of incident CRC or premalignant polyp than single FIT-positive individuals. Clinicians and policymakers should consider updating their CRC screening protocols accordingly.

Priority stratification for colonoscopy based on two-sample faecal immunochemical test screening: results from a cross-sectional study at an endoscopy clinic in Japan

OBJECTIVES

Little has been reported on the yield and characteristics of colorectal neoplasia detected by the two-sample faecal immunochemical test (FIT), particularly the difference between subjects with two-positive results on the two-sample FIT and those with one-positive results. We aimed to assess risk stratification among patients with positive two-sample FIT to prioritise colonoscopy.

DESIGN

A retrospective cross-sectional study.

SETTING

A single-centre, representative endoscopy clinic in Japan.

PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy were enrolled. Indications for colonoscopy included two-positive results on the two-sample FIT (FIT (+/+)), one-positive results on the two-sample FIT (FIT (+/-)), and other reasons (non-FIT group, including presence of symptoms, screening or surveillance).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were detection rates of colorectal cancers, including in situ (all cancers) and invasive cancers, based on the indications for colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were cancer features, such as location, size, T stage and histological subtype.

RESULTS

Of the 8724 patients, 264 underwent colonoscopy following FIT (+/+), 1018 following FIT (+/-) and 7442 for reasons other than positive FIT. Detection rates of all (and invasive) cancers in the FIT (+/+), FIT (+/-) and non-FIT groups were 12.1% (8.3%), 1.9% (0.3%) and 0.4% (0.2%), respectively. The cancer detection rates were much higher in the FIT (+/+) group than in the FIT (+/-) group, which in turn had higher rates than the non-FIT group. Moreover, the FIT (+/+) group showed more advanced T stages on tumour, node, metastasis (TNM) classification (Tis/T1/T2/T3/T4: 10/7/4/10/1) than the FIT (+/-) group (16/1/2/0/0, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Two-positive results for two-sample FIT showed a much higher yield for more advanced colorectal cancers than the one-positive result. High priority for diagnostic colonoscopy should be assigned to patients with two-positive-FIT results.

PPV and Detection Rate of mt-sDNA Testing, FIT, and CT Colonography for Advanced Neoplasia: A Hierarchic Bayesian Meta-Analysis of the Noninvasive Colorectal Screening Tests

BACKGROUND. Noninvasive tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and prevention limit the need for invasive colonoscopy to follow up positive test results. However, the relative performance characteristics of available noninvasive tests have not yet been adequately compared. OBJECTIVE. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performance of the available noninvasive CRC screening tests, including multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) testing, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and CT colonography (CTC), with an emphasis on comparison of PPV and detection rate (DR) for advanced neoplasia (AN; encompassing cases of advanced adenomas and CRC). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION. After systematic searches of MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases, 10 mt-sDNA, 27 CTC, and 88 FIT published screening studies involving 25,132, 33,493, and 2,355,958 asymptomatic adults, respectively, were included. Meta-analysis with hierarchic Bayesian modeling was conducted in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA guidelines to determine test positivity rates (TPRs) leading to optical colonoscopy, as well as PPVs and DRs for both AN and CRC. Different positivity thresholds were considered for FIT and CTC. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS. Point estimates (with 95% credible intervals) from pooled Bayesian meta-analysis combining all thresholds for FIT and stratifying CTC results by a polyp size threshold of 6 mm or larger (CTC6) and 10 mm or larger (CTC10) were calculated. TPR was 13.5% (10.9-16.6%) for mt-sDNA testing, 6.4% (5.8-7.2%) for FIT, 13.4% (11.4-15.6%) for CTC6, and 6.6% (5.2-7.7%) for CTC10. AN PPV was 26.9% (95% credible interval, 21.8-33.2%) for mt-sDNA testing, 31.8% (29.3-34.5%) for FIT, 34.4% (27.2-41.0%) for CTC6, and 61.0% (54.0-70.0%) for CTC10. CRC PPV was 2.4% (1.5-3.9%) for mt-sDNA testing, 4.9% (4.3-5.3%) for FIT, 3.5% (2.5-4.8%) for CTC6, and 6.0% (4.3-8.0%) for CTC10. The DR for AN was 3.4% (95% credible interval, 2.5-4.8%) for mt-SDNA, 2.0% (1.8-2.3%) for FIT, 4.8% (4.0-6.5%) for CTC6, and 4.0% (3.0-4.6%) for CTC10. When FIT is restricted to a lower threshold (< 10 μg Hb/g feces), its performance profile is similar to that of mt-sDNA testing, although available data are limited. AN PPV odds ratios (relative to CTC10 as the reference) were 0.24 (95% credible interval, 0.17-0.33) for mt-sDNA testing, 0.30 (0.24-0.45) for FIT, and 0.33 (0.25-0.47) for CTC6. CONCLUSION. Among noninvasive CRC screening tests, CTC with a polyp size threshold of 10 mm or larger most effectively targets AN, preserving detection while also decreasing unnecessary colonoscopies compared with mt-sDNA testing and FIT. CLINICAL IMPACT. CTC performed with a polyp size threshold for colonoscopy referral set at 10 mm or larger represents the most effective and efficient noninvasive screening test for CRC prevention and detection.