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.

Faecal immunochemical tests safely enhance rational use of resources during the assessment of suspected symptomatic colorectal cancer in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Implementation of faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) as a triage test in primary healthcare may improve the efficiency of referrals without missing cases of colorectal cancer (CRC). We aim to summarise the performance characteristics of FITs for CRC in symptomatic patients presenting to primary healthcare.

DESIGN

We performed a systematic literature review of Medline and EMBASE databases from May 2018 to November 2020. Previous related systematic searches were also adapted to this aim and completed with reference screening. We identified studies performed on adult patients consulting for abdominal symptoms in primary care which reported data such that the FIT diagnostic performance parameters for CRC could be obtained. Bivariate models were used to synthesise available evidence. Meta-regression analysis was performed to evaluate the causes of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies (69 536 participants) were included (CRC prevalence 0.3%-6.2%). Six studies (n=34 691) assessed FIT as rule in test (threshold of ≥150 µg Hb/g faeces) showing a sensitivity of 64.1% (95% CI 57.8% to 69.9%) and a specificity of 95.0% (95% CI 91.2% to 97.2%). A threshold of 10 µg/g (15 studies; n=48 872) resulted in a sensitivity of 87.2% (95% CI 81.0% to 91.6%) and a specificity of 84.4% (95% CI 79.4% to 88.3%) for CRC. At a 20 µg Hb/g faeces threshold (five studies; n=24 187) less than one additional CRC would be missed per 1000 patients investigated compared with 10 µg Hb/g faeces threshold (CRC prevalence 2%).

CONCLUSION

FIT is the test of choice to evaluate patients with new-onset lower gastrointestinal symptoms in primary healthcare.

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.

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.

Measurement of faecal haemoglobin with a faecal immunochemical test can assist in defining which patients attending primary care with rectal bleeding require urgent referral

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines document persistent rectal bleeding as an alarm symptom in patients presenting to primary care. We studied whether a faecal immunochemical test could assist in their assessment.

METHODS

From December 2015, faecal immunochemical tests were routinely available to primary care when assessing patients with new-onset bowel symptoms: general practitioners were encouraged to include faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb) within any referral to secondary care. Results with f-Hb ≥10 μg Hb/g faeces were defined as positive. The incidence of significant bowel disease (SBD: colorectal cancer [CRC], higher-risk adenoma [HRA: any ≥1 cm, or three or more] and inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]) at subsequent colonoscopy, referred symptoms and f-Hb were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 1447 patients with a faecal immunochemical test result and colonoscopy outcome, SBD was diagnosed in 296 patients (20.5%; 95 with CRC, 133 with HRA, and 68 with IBD). Four hundred and sixty-two patients (31.9%) reported rectal bleeding: 294 had f-Hb ≥10 μg Hb/g faeces. At colonoscopy, 105/294 had SBD versus 14/168 with rectal bleeding and f-Hb <10 μg Hb/g faeces (P < 0.0001), comprising one case of CRC (0.6%), 12 HRA (7.1%) and one new case of IBD (0.6%); further, the single cancer and 8 of the 12 HRA were located in the descending colon.

CONCLUSION

Patients with rectal bleeding and f-Hb <10 μg Hb/g faeces are unlikely to have SBD and could be investigated by sigmoidoscopy alone. Using the faecal immunochemical test to guide investigation of patients with rectal bleeding is a rational and practical way forward.

The impact of hypothetical PErsonalised Risk Information on informed choice and intention to undergo Colorectal Cancer screening colonoscopy in Scotland (PERICCS)-a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is currently no existing evidence on the effects of personalised risk information on uptake of colonoscopy following first line screening for colorectal cancer. This study aimed to measure the impact of providing risk information based on faecal haemoglobin concentration to allow a fully informed choice around whether or not to undergo colonoscopy.

METHODS

Two thousand seven hundred sixty-seven participants from the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme (SBoSP) database, who had not recently been invited for screening, were randomised to receive one of three types of hypothetical risk information materials: (1) numerical risk information (risk categories of one in 40, one in 1600 and one in 3500), (2) categorical risk information (highest, moderate and lowest risk), or (3) positive screening result letter (control group). The primary outcome was the impact of the risk materials on intention to undergo colonoscopy, to allow comparison with the current colonoscopy uptake of 77% for those with a positive screening result in the SBoSP. Secondary outcomes were knowledge, attitudes and emotional responses to the materials.

RESULTS

Four hundred thirty-four (15.7%) agreed to participate with 100 from the numerical risk group (69.0%), 104 from the categorical risk group (72.2%) and 104 from the control group (71.7%) returning completed materials. Intention to undergo colonoscopy was highest in the highest risk groups for the numerical and categorical study arms (96.8% and 95.3%, respectively), but even in the lowest risk groups was > 50% (58.1% and 60.7%, respectively). Adequate knowledge of colorectal screening and the risks and benefits of colonoscopy was found in ≥ 98% of participants in all three arms. All participants reported that they found the information easy-to-understand. 19.1%, 24.0% and 29.6% of those in the numerical, categorical and control group, respectively, reported that they found the information distressing (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Applying the risk categories to existing SBoSP data shows that if all participants were offered an informed choice to have colonoscopy, over two thirds of participants would intend to have the test. Equating to an increase in the number of screening colonoscopies from approx. 14,000 to 400,000 per annum, this would place an unmanageable demand on colonoscopy services, with a very small proportion of cancers and pre-cancers detected. However, the response to the materials were very positive, suggesting that providing risk information to those in lowest and moderate risk groups along with advice that colonoscopy is not currently recommended may be an option. Future research would be required to examine actual uptake.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Date applied 1 December 2017 ISRCTN number 14254582 .

Impact of the faecal immunochemical test on colorectal cancer survival

Background

There is already evidence that the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a useful tool for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) that helps to identify symptomatic patients requiring early colonoscopy. Although the recommendation to use FIT is widely accepted, there are no data concerning whether this strategy improves patient survival.The objective was to assess whether the survival is higher if CRC patients have been first diagnosed by FIT (as compared with the rest of patients with CRC).

Methods

We identified all cases of CRC diagnosed between 2009 and 2016 in Donostialdea (Spain), excluding all the CRC detected in population screening. We focused on symptomatic patients. One thousand five hundred twenty-seven cases of CRC were divided into two groups based on the route to diagnosis: group 1: individuals who tested positive in a FIT during the year before diagnosis, and group 2: others.Survival was assessed by Kaplan-Meier estimation, and with the log-rank test. A Cox regression model was used to adjust for differences between groups due to other variables associated with survival.

Results

One thousand nine hundred sixty-seven cases of invasive CRC were identified, of which 22.4% were detected in population screening. Of the 1527 cases diagnosed in symptomatic patients, 317 patients had undergone a FIT in the year before the diagnosis of CRC. In 279 cases(18.3%), the result had been positive and this was the first step towards their CRC diagnosis (group 1). Group 2 was composed of the 1248 cases of CRC (81.7%). Considering these cases, 1210 patients with CRC did not undergo any FIT while 38 patients presented a negative result in the year before the diagnosis. The rate of early-stage disease (stage I or II) was higher in group 1 (51.3% vs 45.5% in group 2) (p = 0.04). Furthermore, the 3-year survival was longer in group 1 (72% vs 59% in group 2) (HR 1.50; 95% CI 1.22–1.84).The variables independently associated with worse survival were: group 2, age > 70 years and stage at the moment of diagnosis.

Conclusions

The use of FIT as a diagnostic strategy in symptomatic patients may improve survival in CRC. Nonetheless,FIT is still not widely used in our region.

Early clinical outcomes of a rapid colorectal cancer diagnosis pathway using faecal immunochemical testing in Nottingham

AIM

We introduced primary care access to faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) as a stratification tool for symptomatic patients considered to be at risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) prior to urgent referral. We aimed to evaluate clinical and pathway outcomes during the first 6 months of this novel approach.

METHOD

FIT was recommended for all patients who consulted their general practitioner with lower gastrointestinal symptoms other than rectal bleeding and rectal mass. We undertook a retrospective audit of the results of FIT, related clinical outcomes and resource utilization on prospectively logged cases between November 2017 and May 2018.

RESULTS

Of the 1862 FIT kits dispatched by post 91.4% were returned, with a median return time of 7 days (range 2-110 days); however, 1.3% of returned kits could not be analysed. FIT results ≥ 150.0 μg haemoglobin (Hb)/g faeces identified patients with a significantly higher risk of CRC (30.9% vs 1.4%, chi-square 167.1, P < 0.0001). FIT results ≥ 10.0 μg Hb/g faeces identified patients with significantly higher risk of significant noncancer bowel pathology (24.1% vs 4.9%, chi-square 73.6, P < 0.0001) and FIT results < 4.0 μg Hb/g faeces identified a group more likely to have non-CRC pathology (5.1% vs 2.4%, chi-square 3.9, P < 0.05). The CRC detection rate in 531 patients investigated after a FIT result of < 4.0 μg Hb/g faeces was 0.2%. In 899 investigated patients, a FIT result with a threshold of 4.0 μg Hb/g faeces had sensitivity 97.2% (85.5-99.9% CI), specificity 61.4% (58.1-64.7% CI), negative predictive value 99.8% (98.7-100.0% CI) and positive predictive value 9.5% (8.7-10.4% CI).

CONCLUSION

A symptomatic pathway incorporating FIT is feasible and appears more clinically effective than pathways based on age and symptoms alone.

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

Objective: Determine diagnostic accuracy of a quantitative faecal immunochemical haemoglobin test (QuikRead go^® FIT, Orion Diagnostica Oy) in symptomatic patients referred for colonoscopy, at various cut-offs and for one or two tests.Methods: Patients referred to four endoscopy units in mid-Sweden between 2013 and 2017 provided information on lower abdominal symptoms and faecal samples from two separate days prior to colonoscopy.Results: In all, 5.4% (13/242) patients had colorectal cancer (CRC). For one FIT at cut-off 10 µg Hb/g faeces, sensitivity for CRC was 92% (95% CI 78-100%) and specificity 77% (95% CI 72-83%); equal to 74%; 95% CI 68-80 (178/242) colonoscopies potentially avoidable and one CRC missed. Based on the maximal outcome of two FITs, sensitivity was 100%, specificity 71% (66-77%) and 68%; 95% CI 62-74 (160/237) colonoscopies potentially avoidable. Among 17% (42/242) patients with one FIT of >200 µg Hb/g faeces, 85% (11/13) had CRC. Positive predictive values of FIT varied 16.9-26.2% depending on cut-off and one or two FITs, whereas NPVs were 99% and above in all scenarios.In 60 patients reporting rectal bleeding, one FIT at cut-off 10 µg Hb/g discriminated well between CRC and other conditions (p = .001). In regression models, FIT was more important than age, sex and all symptoms.Conclusion: One or two FITs in symptomatic patients referred for colonoscopy imply powerful risk stratification abilities for CRC, even among patients reporting rectal bleeding. Larger studies in various settings will clarify how to make the best use of this opportunity. Trial registration: Clinicaltrails.gov NCT02491593.

Appraisal of the faecal haemoglobin, age and sex test (FAST) score in assessment of patients with lower bowel symptoms: an observational study

Background

Many patients present in primary care with lower bowel symptoms, but significant bowel disease (SBD), comprising colorectal cancer (CRC), advanced adenoma (AA), or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), is uncommon. Quantitative faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT), which examine faecal haemoglobin concentrations (f-Hb), assist in deciding who would benefit from colonoscopy. Incorporation of additional variables in an individual risk-score might improve this approach. We investigated if the published f-Hb, age and sex test score (FAST score) added value.

Methods

Data from the first year of routine use of FIT in primary care in one NHS Board in Scotland were examined: f-Hb was estimated using one HM-JACKarc FIT system (Kyowa Medex Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) with a cut-off for positivity ≥10 μg Hb/g faeces. 5660 specimens were received for analysis in the first year. 4072 patients were referred to secondary care: 2881 (70.6%) of these had returned a FIT specimen. Of those referred, 1447 had colonoscopy data as well as the f-Hb result (group A): 2521 patients, also with f-Hb, were not immediately referred (group B). The FAST score was assessed in both groups.

Results

1196 (41.7%) of patients who returned a specimen for FIT analysis had f-Hb ≥10 μg Hb/g faeces. In group A, 252 of 296 (85.1%) with SBD had f-Hb > 10 μg Hb/g faeces, as did 528 of 1151 (45.8%) without SBD. Using a FAST score > 2.12, which gives high clinical sensitivity for CRC, only 1143 would have been referred for colonoscopy (21.0% reduction in demand): 286 of 296 (96.6%) with SBD had a positive FAST score, as did 857 of 1151 (74.5%) without SBD. However, one CRC, five AA and four IBD would have been missed. In group B, although 95.2% had f-Hb < 10 μg Hb/g faeces, 1371 (53.7%) had FAST score ≥ 2.12: clinical rationale led to only 122 of group B completing subsequent bowel investigations: a FAST score > 2.12 was found in 13 of 15 (86.7%) with SBD.

Conclusions

The performance characteristics of the FAST score did not seem to enhance the utility of f-Hb alone. Locally-derived formulae might confer desired benefits.