Faecal haemoglobin concentration thresholds for reassurance and urgent investigation for colorectal cancer based on a faecal immunochemical test in symptomatic patients in primary care

Colorectal cancer prevalence in faecal immunochemical test non-returners: potential for health inequality in symptomatic referral pathways

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to describe the faecal immunochemical test non-return rate of those referred with high-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer from primary care, and the clinical outcomes of the 'non-returners'.

METHODS

From January 2019 to July 2021, patients referred to secondary care with symptoms suspicious of colorectal cancer and a referral priority of urgent or urgent suspicion of cancer were sent a faecal immunochemical test. All patients were investigated regardless of faecal immunochemical test return or result. Demographics and clinical outcomes such as colorectal cancer prevalence were compared between those who returned a faecal immunochemical test and non-returners.

RESULTS

Of 7345 patients included in the study, 874 (11.9%) did not return a faecal immunochemical test. Non-returner characteristics included male sex (P = 0.040), younger age (median age 57 versus 65 years, P < 0.001), per rectal bleeding (P < 0.001) and lower socioeconomic status (median Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, 6 versus 7, P < 0.001) compared with those who returned a faecal immunochemical test. Of 6294 patients undergoing colorectal investigation, there was a greater prevalence of colorectal cancer (5.4% versus 3.6% P = 0.032) and significant bowel pathology than in the non-returners (15.3% versus 9.8%, P < 0.001). With a median follow-up of 25 months, the colorectal cancer prevalence for the entire 7345 cohort was equal between those who returned and did not return a faecal immunochemical test (3.2% versus 3.8%, P = 0.108). Of note, the non-returners diagnosed with colorectal cancer were younger (median age 64 versus 73 years, P < 0.001) and from a lower socioeconomic area (median Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 4 versus 7, P = 0.015) than faecal immunochemical test returners.

CONCLUSION

Patients referred to secondary care, with symptoms suspicious of colorectal cancer, that did not return a faecal immunochemical test had a similar colorectal cancer prevalence to those that returned the test.

The repeat FIT (RFIT) study: Does repeating faecal immunochemical tests provide reassurance and improve colorectal cancer detection?

AIM

Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) are highly sensitive for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection. Little evidence exists regarding repeat FIT. The repeat FIT (RFIT) study aimed to determine whether second and third FIT provide reassurance and improve CRC or significant bowel disease (SBD) identification.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study. Patients recruited from urgent referrals returned three FIT and underwent colonoscopy. Chi-square tests compared categorical data. Diagnostic accuracy variables (sensitivity/specificity/positive predictive value [PPV]/negative predictive value [NPV]) were calculated for one, two and three FIT (95% CI). Three negative FIT (<10 μg Hb/g of faeces [μg/g]) groups (one, two, three) were compared with positive groups (one or more FIT ≥10 μg/g). CRC and SBD detection rates were compared by strategy.

RESULTS

A total of 460 patients (mean age: 66.8 years, 233 males and 227 females, 23 CRC, 80 SBD) were included in the study. For one, two and three negative FIT, CRC sensitivity remained static (95.7%); specificity (44.6%, 40.7% and 38.4%) and NPV decreased (99.5%, 99.4% and 99.4%). For SBD, sensitivity increased (78.8%, 83.8% and 86.3%), specificity decreased (47.4%, 43.7% and 41.6%) and NPV increased (91.4%, 92.7% and 93.5%). In one, two and three positive FIT groups, CRC detection was 8.3%,16.1% and 20.9%. CRC mean FIT was 150 μg/g, <6 μg/g for benign pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

One or more negative FIT increases the sensitivity for CRC/SBD. Repeating FIT provides greater differentiation of patients with and without CRC/SBD compared to single FIT but is associated with decreased specificity and PPV. Multiple negative FIT may offer reassurance; however, application of repeating FIT may be restricted given the associated increase in investigations.

Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Sensitivity; A Five Year Audit

Introduction: Colorectal cancer has a high prevalence and mortality rate in the United Kingdom. Cancerous colorectal lesions often bleed into the gastrointestinal lumen. The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) detects haemoglobin (Hb) in the faeces of patients and is used as a first line test in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Materials and Methods: A retrospective audit of all FIT performed and all colorectal cancers diagnosed in the Hull and East Riding of Yorkshire counties of the United Kingdom (population approximately 609,300) between 2018 and 2022 was conducted. FIT were performed using a HM-JACKarc analyser from Kyowa medical. The predominant symptom suggestive of colorectal cancer which prompted the FIT was recorded. Colorectal cancer was diagnosed using the gold standard of histological biopsy following colonoscopy. Results: Between 2018 and 2022, 56,202 FIT were performed on symptomatic patients. Follow on testing identified 1,511 with colorectal cancer. Of these people, only 450 people with a confirmed colorectal cancer had a FIT within the 12 months preceding their diagnosis. Of these 450 FIT results, 36 had a concentration of <10 μg/g and may be considered to be a false negative. The sensitivity of FIT in the patients identified was 92.00%. The most common reason stated by the clinician for a FIT being performed in patients with colorectal cancer was a change in bowel habits, followed by iron deficient anaemia. The number of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer decreased in 2020, but increased significantly in 2021. Discussion: This study shows that 8.00% of people diagnosed with colorectal cancer in the Hull and East Riding of Yorkshire regions had a negative FIT. This study also shows that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic affected the number of people diagnosed with colorectal cancer, and therefore skews the prevalence and pre-test probability of a positive test. There are many reasons why a FIT could produce a false negative result, the most likely being biological factors affecting the stability of haemoglobin within the gastrointestinal tract, or pre-analytical factors influencing faecal sampling preventing the detection of haemoglobin. Some colorectal lesions do not protrude into the gastrointestinal lumen and are less likely to bleed. Conclusion: This is the first study showing data from outside of a structured clinical trial and provides the largest study to date showing the sensitivity of FIT in a routine clinical setting. This study also provides evidence for the impact COVID-19 had on the rate of colorectal cancer diagnosis.

'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.

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.

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.

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.

Prevalence of repeat faecal immunochemical testing in symptomatic patients attending primary care

AIM

The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) helps determine the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and has been integrated into symptomatic referral pathways. 'Safety netting' advice includes considering referral for persistent symptoms, but no published data exists on repeated FITs. We aimed to examine the prevalence of serial FITs in primary care and CRC risk in these patients.

METHOD

A multicentre, retrospective, observational study was conducted of patients with two or more consecutive f-Hb results within a year from three Scottish Health Boards which utilize FIT in primary care. Cancer registry data ensured identification of CRC cases.

RESULTS

Overall, 135 396 FIT results were reviewed, of which 12 359 were serial results reported within 12 months (9.1%), derived from 5761 patients. Of these, 42 (0.7%) were diagnosed with CRC. A total of 3487 (60.5%) patients had two f-Hb < 10 μg/g, 944 (16.4%) had f-Hb ≥ 10 μg/g followed by <10 μg/g, 704 (12.2%) f-Hb < 10 μg/g followed by ≥10 μg/g and 626 (10.9%) had two f-Hb ≥ 10 μg/g. The CRC rate in each group was 0.1%, 0.4%, 1.4% and 4.0%, respectively. Seven hundred and thirty four patients submitted more than two FITs within a year. The likelihood of one or more f-Hb ≥ 10 μg/g rose from 40.4% with two samples to 100% with six, while the CRC rate fell from 0.8% to 0%.

CONCLUSION

Serial FITs within a year account for 9.1% of all results in our Boards. CRC prevalence amongst symptomatic patients with serial FIT is lower than in single-FIT cohorts. Performing two FITs within a year for patients with persistent symptoms effectively acts as a safety net, while performing more than two within this timeframe is unlikely to be beneficial.

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.

Introduction of an integrated primary care faecal immunochemical test referral pathway for patients with suspected colorectal cancer symptoms

AIM

To determine the efficacy of a new 2-week wait pathway that uses the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) in primary care to triage patients with high and low risk symptoms suspicious of colorectal cancer (CRC). This service improvement pilot follows 2017 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, that recommended using FIT to guide referral of patients with low risk, but not high risk symptoms, which continue to be referrred on the 2-week pathway.

METHOD

Patients with high- and low-risk CRC symptoms were tested with FIT and those with faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) ≥9.5 μg haemoglobin/g faeces (hereafter μg/g) were referred to secondary care. Results were tracked and primary care prompted to refer if timely referral was not made.

RESULTS

Between December 2019 and October 2020, 5672 patients presented to primary care with high and/or low risk symptoms warranting investigations. Of these, 622 (11%) patients were referred without a FIT, of whom 36 (5.8%) had CRC. The remaining 5050 patients had a FIT, of which 4187 (83%) were processed to produce a quantitative result. Of these, 1085 patients (25.9%) had an f-Hb ≥9.5 μg/g and of those, 982 patients (90.5%) were referred and 56 (5.7%) had CRC. A total of 3102 patients (74.1%) had an f-Hb <9.5 μg/g, of which 456 (14.7%) were referred and three (0.7%) had CRC. A total of 97 cancers were diagnosed with a cancer prevalence of 1.7%.

CONCLUSION

A 2-week wait pathway incorporating FIT as a triage tool can be implemented successfully in primary care to identify symptomatic patients at highest risk of CRC.

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.

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.

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.

Diagnostic accuracy of point of care faecal immunochemical testing using a portable high-speed quantitative analyser for diagnosis in 2-week wait patients

AIM

Laboratory-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is the gold standard for detecting the presence of blood in the stool. The aim was to perform a diagnostic accuracy study to confirm if a point of care (POC) analyser for FIT could be safely used as an adjunct in the triage and management of 2-week wait (TWW) colorectal patients.

METHODS

The Point of Care Faecal Immunochemical Testing (POC FIT) prospective observational cohort study was designed for TWW patients at a regional referral centre. Between July 2019 and March 2020, patients were invited to perform and bring a FIT sample to clinic. FIT was completed within the clinic appointment using a POC quantitative analyser that has a 2-min processing time (QuikRead go®). Patients and clinicians were blinded to results within the clinic appointment. The results were compared with subsequent diagnostic outcomes. Faecal haemoglobin of <10 µg haemoglobin/g of faeces was considered a negative result. Sensitivities for colorectal cancer (CRC) and combined serious bowel disease (SBD) were calculated using this pre-determined cut-off.

RESULTS

A total of 553 patients were included for analytical comparison with diagnostic outcomes. There were 14 (2.5%) patients with CRC and 52 (9.4%) with SBD. The sensitivities for CRC and SBD were 92.9% (95% CI 68.5%-98.7%) and 76.9% (95% CI 63.9%-86.3%) respectively. 379 (68.5%) patients had a negative FIT result (negative predictive value for CRC was 99.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

This POC FIT device is a useful adjunct to better manage TWW patients. The high observed sensitivity for CRC offers opportunities, within a single consultation, for improved triage and rationalization of investigation for those with bowel symptoms.

A Review of Colorectal Cancer in Terms of Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Development, Symptoms and Diagnosis

This review article contains a concise consideration of genetic and environmental risk factors for colorectal cancer. Known risk factors associated with colorectal cancer include familial and hereditary factors and lifestyle-related and ecological factors. Lifestyle factors are significant because of the potential for improving our understanding of the disease. Physical inactivity, obesity, smoking and alcohol consumption can also be addressed through therapeutic interventions. We also made efforts to systematize available literature and data on epidemiology, diagnosis, type and nature of symptoms and disease stages. Further study of colorectal cancer and progress made globally is crucial to inform future strategies in controlling the disease's burden through population-based preventative initiatives.