Variation of diagnostic performance of fecal immunochemical testing for hemoglobin by sex and age: results from a large screening cohort

Colonoscopy findings after increasing two-stool faecal immunochemical test (FIT) cut-off: Cross-sectional analysis of the SCREESCO randomized trial

BACKGROUND

We determined the impact of an increased two-stool faecal immunochemical test (FIT) cut-off on colonoscopy positivity and relative sensitivity and specificity in the randomized controlled screening trial screening of Swedish colons conducted in Sweden.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of participants in the FIT arm that performed FIT between March 2014 and 2020 within the study registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02078804, who had a faecal haemoglobin concentration of at least 10 µg/g in at least one of two stool samples and who underwent a colonoscopy (n = 3841). For each increase in cut-off, we computed the positive predictive value (PPV), numbers needed to scope (NNS), sensitivity and specificity for finding colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced neoplasia (AN; advanced adenoma or CRC) relative to cut-off 10 µg/g.

RESULTS

The PPV for AN increased from 23.0% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 22.3%-23.6%) at cut-off 10 µg/g to 28.8% (95% CI: 27.8%-29.7%) and 33.1% (95% CI: 31.9%-34.4%) at cut-offs 20 and 40 µg/g, respectively, whereas the NNS to find a CRC correspondingly decreased from 41 to 27 and 19. The PPV for AN was higher in men than women at each cut-off, for example 31.5% (95% CI: 30.1%-32.8%) in men and 25.6% (95% CI: 24.3%-27.0%) in women at 20 µg/g. The relative sensitivity and relative specificity were similar in men and women at each cut-off.

CONCLUSION

A low cut-off of around 20-40 µg/g allows detection and removal of many AN compared to 10 µg/g while reducing the number of colonoscopies in both men and women.

Strategies to minimise the current disadvantages experienced by women in faecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening

Currently, women are disadvantaged compared to men in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, particularly in programmes that use faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT) followed by colonoscopy. Although there is no single cause for all the known disadvantages, many can be attributed to the ubiquitous finding that women have lower faecal haemoglobin concentrations (f-Hb) than men; there are many plausible reasons for this. Generally, a single f-Hb threshold is used in CRC screening programmes, leading to lower positivity for women than men, which causes poorer outcomes for women, including lower CRC detection rate, higher interval cancer (IC) proportion, and higher CRC mortality. Many of the now widely advocated risk scoring strategies do include factors taking account of sex, but these have not been extensively piloted or introduced. Using different f-Hb thresholds for the sexes seems advantageous, but there are difficulties, including deciding which characteristic should be selected to achieve equivalency, for example, positivity, IC proportions, or specificity. Moreover, additional colonoscopy resources, often constrained, would be required. Governments and their agencies should be encouraged to prioritise the allocation of resources to put simple strategies into practice, such as different f-Hb thresholds to create equal positivity in both sexes.

Guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests versus faecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk individuals

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, many countries have adopted colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes, often based on faecal occult blood tests (FOBTs). CRC screening aims to detect advanced neoplasia (AN), which is defined as CRC or advanced adenomas. FOBTs fall into two categories based on detection technique and the detected blood component: qualitative guaiac-based FOBTs (gFOBTs) and faecal immunochemical tests (FITs), which can be qualitative and quantitative. Screening with gFOBTs reduces CRC-related mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic test accuracy of gFOBT and FIT screening for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia in average-risk individuals.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Google Scholar. We searched the reference lists and PubMed-related articles of included studies to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective and retrospective studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for gFOBTs, FITs, or both, with colonoscopy as reference standard. We excluded case-control studies. We included studies in which all participants underwent both index test and reference standard ("reference standard: all"), and studies in which only participants with a positive index test underwent the reference standard while participants with a negative test were followed for at least one year for development of interval carcinomas ("reference standard: positive"). The target population consisted of asymptomatic, average-risk individuals undergoing CRC screening. The target conditions were CRC and advanced neoplasia (advanced adenomas and CRC combined).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. In case of disagreement, a third review author made the final decision. We used the Rutter and Gatsonis hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model to explore differences between tests and identify potential sources of heterogeneity, and the bivariate hierarchical model to estimate sensitivity and specificity at common thresholds: 10 µg haemoglobin (Hb)/g faeces and 20 µg Hb/g faeces. We performed indirect comparisons of the accuracy of the two tests and direct comparisons when both index tests were evaluated in the same population.

MAIN RESULTS

We ran the initial search on 25 June 2019, which yielded 63 studies for inclusion. We ran a top-up search on 14 September 2021, which yielded one potentially eligible study, currently awaiting classification. We included a total of 33 "reference standard: all" published articles involving 104,640 participants. Six studies evaluated only gFOBTs, 23 studies evaluated only FITs, and four studies included both gFOBTs and FITs. The cut-off for positivity of FITs varied between 2.4 μg and 50 µg Hb/g faeces. For each Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 domain, we assessed risk of bias as high in less than 20% of studies. The summary curve showed that FITs had a higher discriminative ability than gFOBTs for AN (P < 0.001) and CRC (P = 0.004). For the detection of AN, the summary sensitivity of gFOBTs was 15% (95% confidence interval (CI) 12% to 20%), which was significantly lower than FITs at both 10 μg and 20 μg Hb/g cut-offs with summary sensitivities of 33% (95% CI 27% to 40%; P < 0.001) and 26% (95% CI 21% to 31%, P = 0.002), respectively. Results were simulated in a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 screening participants with 1% CRC prevalence and 10% AN prevalence. Out of 1000 participants with AN, gFOBTs missed 850, while FITs missed 670 (10 μg Hb/g cut-off) and 740 (20 μg Hb/g cut-off). No significant differences in summary specificity for AN detection were found between gFOBTs (94%; 95% CI 92% to 96%), and FITs at 10 μg Hb/g cut-off (93%; 95% CI 90% to 95%) and at 20 μg Hb/g cut-off (97%; 95% CI 95% to 98%). So, among 9000 participants without AN, 540 were offered (unnecessary) colonoscopy with gFOBTs compared to 630 (10 μg Hb/g) and 270 (20 μg Hb/g) with FITs. Similarly, for the detection of CRC, the summary sensitivity of gFOBTs, 39% (95% CI 25% to 55%), was significantly lower than FITs at 10 μg and 20 μg Hb/g cut-offs: 76% (95% CI 57% to 88%: P = 0.001) and 65% (95% CI 46% to 80%; P = 0.035), respectively. So, out of 100 participants with CRC, gFOBTs missed 61, and FITs missed 24 (10 μg Hb/g) and 35 (20 μg Hb/g). No significant differences in summary specificity for CRC were found between gFOBTs (94%; 95% CI 91% to 96%), and FITs at the 10 μg Hb/g cut-off (94%; 95% CI 87% to 97%) and 20 μg Hb/g cut-off (96%; 95% CI 91% to 98%). So, out of 9900 participants without CRC, 594 were offered (unnecessary) colonoscopy with gFOBTs versus 594 (10 μg Hb/g) and 396 (20 μg Hb/g) with FITs. In five studies that compared FITs and gFOBTs in the same population, FITs showed a higher discriminative ability for AN than gFOBTs (P = 0.003). We included a total of 30 "reference standard: positive" studies involving 3,664,934 participants. Of these, eight were gFOBT-only studies, 18 were FIT-only studies, and four studies combined both gFOBTs and FITs. The cut-off for positivity of FITs varied between 5 µg to 250 µg Hb/g faeces. For each QUADAS-2 domain, we assessed risk of bias as high in less than 20% of studies. The summary curve showed that FITs had a higher discriminative ability for detecting CRC than gFOBTs (P < 0.001). The summary sensitivity for CRC of gFOBTs, 59% (95% CI 55% to 64%), was significantly lower than FITs at the 10 μg Hb/g cut-off, 89% (95% CI 80% to 95%; P < 0.001) and the 20 μg Hb/g cut-off, 89% (95% CI 85% to 92%; P < 0.001). So, in the hypothetical cohort with 100 participants with CRC, gFOBTs missed 41, while FITs missed 11 (10 μg Hb/g) and 11 (20 μg Hb/g). The summary specificity of gFOBTs was 98% (95% CI 98% to 99%), which was higher than FITs at both 10 μg and 20 μg Hb/g cut-offs: 94% (95% CI 92% to 95%; P < 0.001) and 95% (95% CI 94% to 96%; P < 0.001), respectively. So, out of 9900 participants without CRC, 198 were offered (unnecessary) colonoscopy with gFOBTs compared to 594 (10 μg Hb/g) and 495 (20 μg Hb/g) with FITs. At a specificity of 90% and 95%, FITs had a higher sensitivity than gFOBTs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

FITs are superior to gFOBTs in detecting AN and CRC in average-risk individuals. Specificity of both tests was similar in "reference standard: all" studies, whereas specificity was significantly higher for gFOBTs than FITs in "reference standard: positive" studies. However, at pre-specified specificities, the sensitivity of FITs was significantly higher than gFOBTs.

Varying fecal immunochemical test screening cutoffs by age and gender: a way to increase detection rates and reduce the number of colonoscopies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Most colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs based on the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) use the same cutoff value for all participants. This study aimed at finding age- and gender-specific cutoff values that can improve population-based CRC screening.

METHODS

This observational study used data from the first 2 years of the Danish FIT-based CRC screening program to estimate sensitivity, specificity, number of positive tests, number of screen-detected cancers and adenomas, and number of interval cancers for various cutoff values for different male and female age groups.

RESULTS

Data from 531,828 participants showed that lower cutoff values for older residents and higher cutoff values for younger residents increased the overall sensitivity and specificity, decreased the number of needed colonoscopies by 7%, increased the number of screen-detected cancer by 1.1%, increased the number of screen-detected adenomas by 5%, and decreased the number of interval cancers by approximately 1.5%. However, these cutoff values also increased an inequality in sensitivity and specificity. Choosing cutoff values that ensured equal sensitivity between the groups, however, did increase inequality in, for example, the interval cancer rate.

CONCLUSIONS

In a FIT-based CRC program it is possible to decrease the number of needed colonoscopies while at the same time to increase overall sensitivity and specificity and detect more cancers and adenomas by using different cutoff values for different male and female age groups. However, this increases inequality in sensitivity and specificity, whereas other strategies like ensuring equal sensitivity could be considered.

A user-friendly objective prediction model in predicting colorectal cancer based on 234 044 Asian adults in a prospective cohort

BACKGROUND

Prediction models of colorectal cancer (CRC) had limited application for not being user-friendly. Whether fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) can help predict CRC has been overlooked.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

With 1972 CRCs identified, 234 044 adults aged ≥40 years were successively enrolled between 1994 and 2008. Prediction models were developed by questionnaire/medical screening and quantitative FIT. NNS (number needed to scope to find one cancer) is time dependent, spanning entire study period. Significant 'risk factors' were family history, body mass index, smoking, drinking, inactivity, hypertension, diabetes, carcinoembryonic antigen, and C-reactive protein.

RESULTS

Positive FIT (≥20 μg/g hemoglobin/feces) had cancer risk 10-fold larger than negative FIT, and within each age group, another 10-fold difference. The C statistic of FIT (0.81) with age and sex alone was superior to the 'common risk-factors' model (0.73). NNS, stratified by age and by FIT values, demonstrated a scorecard of cancer risks, like 1/15 or 1/25, in 5 years. When FIT was negative, cancer risk was small (1/750-1/3000 annually). The larger the FIT, the sooner the appearance of CRC. For every 80-μg/g increase of FIT, there were 1.5-year earlier development of CRC incidence and 1-year earlier development of CRC mortality, respectively. Given the same FIT value, CRC events appeared in the proximal colon sooner than the distal colon.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple user-friendly model based on a single FIT value to predict CRC risk was developed. When positive, NNS offered a simple quantitative value, with a better precision than most risk factors, even combined. When FIT is negative, risk is very small, but requiring a repeat every other year to rule out false negative. FIT values correlated well with CRC prognosis, with worst for proximal CRC.

Quality Improvement of Sample Collection Increases the Diagnostic Accuracy of Quantitative Fecal Immunochemical Test in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Pilot Study

Objective: The diagnostic efficiency of the quantitative fecal immunochemical test (qFIT) has large variations in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We aimed to explore whether the practical sample collection operant training could improve the diagnostic accuracy of the qFIT in CRC screening.

Methods: Moderate-/high-risk individuals aged 50–75 years old were invited to participate in a prospective observational study between July 2020 and March 2021. Participants took a qFIT sample without fecal sample collection operant training in advance and then completed another qFIT sample after the operant training. The primary outcome was the sensitivity and specificity of the qFITs for CRC and advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN). The secondary outcome was the difference in the area under the curves (AUCs) and the concentrations of the fecal hemoglobin (Hb) between the qFIT without and after the operant training.

Results: Out of 913 patients, 81 (8.9%) patients had ACRN, including 25 (2.7%) patients with CRC. For CRC, the sensitivities of the qFIT without and after the operant training at 10 μg/g were 80.4 and 100.0%, respectively, and the specificities were 90.1 and 88.4%, respectively. For ACRN, the sensitivities were 49.4 and 69.1% and the specificities were 91.7 and 91.3%, respectively. The AUC of the qFIT after the operant training was significantly higher than that without the operant training for CRC (p = 0.027) and ACRN (p = 0.001). After the operant training, the concentration of the fecal Hb was significantly higher than that without the operant training (p = 0.009) for ACRN, but there was no significant difference for CRC (p = 0.367).

Conclusion: Practical sample collection operant training improves the diagnostic accuracy of the qFIT, which increases the detection of the low concentrations of fecal Hb. Improving the quality of the sample collection could contribute to the diagnostic efficiency of the qFIT in CRC screening.

Faecal immunochemical testing in bowel cancer screening: Estimating outcomes for different diagnostic policies

OBJECTIVES

The National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NHS BCSP) in England has replaced guaiac faecal occult blood testing by faecal immunochemical testing (FIT). There is interest in fully exploiting FIT measures to improve bowel cancer (CRC) screening strategies. In this paper, we estimate the relationship of the quantitative haemoglobin concentration provided by FIT in faecal samples with underlying pathology. From this we estimate thresholds required for given levels of sensitivity to CRC and high-risk adenomas (HRA).

METHODS

Data were collected from a pilot study of FIT in England in 2014, in which 27,238 participants completed a FIT. Those with a faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb) of at least 20 µg/g were referred for further investigation, usually colonoscopy. Truncated regression models were used to explore the relationship between bowel pathology and FIT results. Regression results were applied to estimate sensitivity to different abnormalities for a number of thresholds.

RESULTS

Participants with CRC and HRA had significantly higher f-Hb, and this remained unchanged after adjusting for age and sex. While a threshold of 20 μg/g was estimated to capture 82.2% of CRC and 64.0% of HRA, this would refer 7.8% of participants for colonoscopy. The current programme threshold used in England of 120 μg/g was estimated to identify 47.8% of CRC and 25.0% of HRA.

CONCLUSIONS

Under the current diagnostic policy of dichotomising FIT results, a very low threshold would be required to achieve high sensitivity to CRC and HRA, which would place further strain on colonoscopy resources. The NHS BCSP in England might benefit from a diagnostic policy that makes greater use of the quantitative nature of FIT.

The CRCbiome study: a large prospective cohort study examining the role of lifestyle and the gut microbiome in colorectal cancer screening participants

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality. However, current screening methods are either hampered by invasiveness or suboptimal performance, limiting their effectiveness as primary screening methods. To aid in the development of a non-invasive screening test with improved sensitivity and specificity, we have initiated a prospective biomarker study (CRCbiome), nested within a large randomized CRC screening trial in Norway. We aim to develop a microbiome-based classification algorithm to identify advanced colorectal lesions in screening participants testing positive for an immunochemical fecal occult blood test (FIT). We will also examine interactions with host factors, diet, lifestyle and prescription drugs. The prospective nature of the study also enables the analysis of changes in the gut microbiome following the removal of precancerous lesions.

METHODS

The CRCbiome study recruits participants enrolled in the Bowel Cancer Screening in Norway (BCSN) study, a randomized trial initiated in 2012 comparing once-only sigmoidoscopy to repeated biennial FIT, where women and men aged 50-74 years at study entry are invited to participate. Since 2017, participants randomized to FIT screening with a positive test result have been invited to join the CRCbiome study. Self-reported diet, lifestyle and demographic data are collected prior to colonoscopy after the positive FIT-test (baseline). Screening data, including colonoscopy findings are obtained from the BCSN database. Fecal samples for gut microbiome analyses are collected both before and 2 and 12 months after colonoscopy. Samples are analyzed using metagenome sequencing, with taxonomy profiles, and gene and pathway content as primary measures. CRCbiome data will also be linked to national registries to obtain information on prescription histories and cancer relevant outcomes occurring during the 10 year follow-up period.

DISCUSSION

The CRCbiome study will increase our understanding of how the gut microbiome, in combination with lifestyle and environmental factors, influences the early stages of colorectal carcinogenesis. This knowledge will be crucial to develop microbiome-based screening tools for CRC. By evaluating biomarker performance in a screening setting, using samples from the target population, the generalizability of the findings to future screening cohorts is likely to be high.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01538550 .

Consistent Major Differences in Sex- and Age-Specific Diagnostic Performance among Nine Faecal Immunochemical Tests Used for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Evidence on diagnostic performance of faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) by sex and age is scarce. We aimed to evaluate FIT performance for detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia (AN) by sex and age across nine different FIT brands in a colonoscopy-controlled setting. The faecal samples were obtained from 2042 participants of colonoscopy screening. All eligible cases with AN (n = 216) and 300 randomly selected participants without AN were included. Diagnostic performance for detection of AN was assessed by sex and age (50-64 vs. 65-79 years for each of the nine FITs individually and for all FITs combined. Sensitivity was consistently lower, and specificity was consistently higher for females as compared with males (pooled values at original FIT cutoffs, 25.7% vs. 34.6%, p = 0.12 and 96.2% vs. 90.8%, p < 0.01, respectively). Positive predictive values (PPVs) were similar between both sexes, but negative predictive values (NPVs) were consistently higher for females (pooled values, 91.8% vs. 86.6%, p < 0.01). Sex-specific cutoffs attenuated differences in sensitivities but increased differences in predictive values. According to age, sensitivities and specificities were similar, whereas PPVs were consistently lower and NPVs were consistently higher for the younger participants. A negative FIT is less reliable in ruling out AN among men than among women and among older than among younger participants. Comparisons of measures of diagnostic performance among studies with different sex or age distributions should be interpreted with caution.

Faecal haemoglobin distributions by sex, age, deprivation and geographical region: consequences for colorectal cancer screening strategies

Objectives Faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT) are becoming widely used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and assessment of symptomatic patients. Faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb) thresholds are used to guide subsequent investigation. We established the distributions of f-Hb in a large screening population by sex, age, deprivation and geography. Methods Single estimates of f-Hb were documented for all individuals participating in the first 18 months of the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme (SBoSP). The distributions of f-Hb were generated for all participants, all men and women, and men and women by age quintile and deprivation quintile. Distributions were also generated by geographical region for all participants, men and women, and by deprivation. Comparisons of f-Hb distributions with those found in a pilot evaluation of FIT and three other countries were performed. Results f-Hb was documented for 887,248 screening participants, 422,385 men and 464,863 women. f-Hb varied by sex, age, deprivation quintile and geographical region. The f-Hb distributions by sex and age differed between the SBoSP and the pilot evaluation and the three other countries. Conclusions f-Hb is higher in men than in women and increases with age and deprivation in both sexes. f-Hb also varies by geographical region, independently of deprivation, and by country. The f-Hb distribution estimated by pilot evaluation may not represent the population distribution. Decision limits have advantages over reference intervals. Use of partitioned f-Hb thresholds for further investigation, based on the data generated, has advantages and disadvantages, as do risk scores based on a spectrum of influencing variables.

Head-to-head comparison of the test performance of self-administered qualitative vs. laboratory-based quantitative fecal immunochemical tests in detecting colorectal neoplasm

Background:

Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are the most widely used non-invasive tests in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, evidence about the direct comparison of the test performance of the self-administered qualitative a laboratory-based quantitative FITs in a CRC screening setting is sparse.

Methods:

Based on a CRC screening trial (TARGET-C), we included 3144 pre-colonoscopy fecal samples, including 24 CRCs, 230 advanced adenomas, 622 non-advanced adenomas, and 2268 participants without significant findings at colonoscopy. Three self-administered qualitative FITs (Pupu tube) with positivity thresholds of 8.0, 14.4, or 20.8 μg hemoglobin (Hb)/g preset by the manufacturer and one laboratory-based quantitative FIT (OC-Sensor) with a positivity threshold of 20 μg Hb/g recommended by the manufacturer were tested by trained staff in the central laboratory. The diagnostic performance of the FITs for detecting colorectal neoplasms was compared in the different scenarios using the preset and adjusted thresholds (for the quantitative FIT).

Results:

At the thresholds preset by the manufacturers, apart from the qualitative FIT-3, significantly higher sensitivities for detecting advanced adenoma were observed for the qualitative FIT-1 (33.9% [95% CI: 28.7–39.4%]) and qualitative FIT-2 (22.2% [95% CI: 17.7–27.2%]) compared to the quantitative FIT (11.7% [95% CI: 8.4–15.8%]), while at a cost of significantly lower specificities. However, such difference was not observed for detecting CRC. For scenarios of adjusting the positivity thresholds of the quantitative FIT to yield comparable specificity or comparable positivity rate to the three qualitative FITs accordingly, there were no significant differences in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive values and positive/negative likelihood ratios for detecting CRC or advanced adenoma between the two types of FITs, which was further evidenced in ROC analysis.

Conclusions:

Although the self-administered qualitative and the laboratory-based quantitative FITs had varied test performance at the positivity thresholds preset by the manufacturer, such heterogeneity could be overcome by adjusting thresholds to yield comparable specificities or positivity rates. Future CRC screening programs should select appropriate types of FITs and define the thresholds based on the targeted specificities and manageable positivity rates.

Fecal Immunochemical Tests Detect Screening Participants with Multiple Advanced Adenomas Better than T1 Colorectal Cancers

BACKGROUND

Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are widely used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The detection of early-stage cancer and advanced adenoma (AA), the most important premalignant lesion, is highly relevant to reducing CRC-related deaths. We aimed to assess sensitivity for the detection of CRC and AA stratified by tumor stage; number; size; histology of AA; and by location, age, sex, and body mass index (BMI).

METHODS

Participants of screening colonoscopy (n = 2043) and newly diagnosed CRC patients (n = 184) provided a stool sample before bowel preparation or CRC surgery. Fecal hemoglobin concentration was determined in parallel by nine different quantitative FITs among 94 CRC patients, 200 AA cases, and 300 participants free of advanced neoplasm. Sensitivities were calculated at original cutoffs and at adjusted cutoffs, yielding 93% specificity among all FITs.

RESULTS

At adjusted cutoffs, UICC stage I cancers yielded consistently lower sensitivities (range: 62-68%) compared to stage II-IV cancers (range: 73-89%). An even stronger gradient was observed according to T status, with substantially lower sensitivities for T1 (range: 39-57%) than for T2-T4 cancers (range: 71-100%). Sensitivities for the detection of participants with multiple AAs ranged from 55% to 64% and were by up to 25% points higher than sensitivities for T1 cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

FITs detect stage I cancers and especially T1 cancers at substantially lower sensitivities than more advanced cancer stages. Participants with multiple AAs were detected with slightly lower sensitivities than stage I cancers and with even higher sensitivities than T1 cancers. Further research should focus on improving the detection of early-stage cancers.

The Evaluation of Cancer Screening: Concepts and Outcome Measures

Cancer screening uses many investigative procedures, and different screening programs and methods have different objectives. For example, mammography aims to detect breast cancer at an earlier stage when successful treatment is more likely, whereas colonoscopy is aimed primarily at detecting adenomas in the colon and removing them, thus preventing them from progressing to cancer at all. Evaluation has different objectives, including proof of principle, checking that screening services are delivering the desired clinical outcome, technical quality control of the investigation procedures. All necessitate a range of tools for evaluation. We review these tools, with particular attention to appropriate outcome measures.

Gender differences in stage at diagnosis and preoperative radiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer

Background

Few studies have examined gender differences in the clinical management of rectal cancer. We examine differences in stage at diagnosis and preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer patients.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted in 22 hospitals in Spain including 770 patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer. Study outcomes were disseminated disease at diagnosis and receiving preoperative radiotherapy. Age, comorbidity, referral from a screening program, diagnostic delay, distance from the anal verge, and tumor depth were considered as factors that might explain gender differences in these outcomes.

Results

Women were more likely to be diagnosed with disseminated disease among those referred from screening (odds ratio, confidence interval 95% (OR, CI = 7.2, 0.9–55.8) and among those with a diagnostic delay greater than 3 months (OR, CI = 5.1, 1.2–21.6). Women were less likely to receive preoperative radiotherapy if they were younger than 65 years of age (OR, CI = 0.6, 0.3–1.0) and if their tumors were cT3 or cT4 (OR, CI = 0.5, 0.4–0.7).

Conclusions

The gender-specific sensitivity of rectal cancer screening tests, gender differences in referrals and clinical reasons for not prescribing preoperative radiotherapy in women should be further examined. If these gender differences are not clinically justifiable, their elimination might enhance survival.

Risk-Adapted Cutoffs in Colorectal Cancer Screening by Fecal Immunochemical Tests

INTRODUCTION

Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for hemoglobin are increasingly used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The use of uniform positivity thresholds (cutoffs) within screening populations is expected to imply lower positive predictive values (PPVs) and higher numbers of colonoscopies needed (numbers needed to scope [NNSs]) to detect advanced neoplasms among screening participants at lower risk compared with those at higher risk. We aimed to assess such variation and its potential implications in a large screening cohort.

METHODS

A quantitative FIT (FOB Gold; Sentinel Diagnostics, Milan, Italy) was conducted in fecal samples collected by 4,332 participants of screening colonoscopy before bowel preparation. Participants were classified into 3 risk groups (low, medium, and high) by tertiles of a previously derived risk-factor-based risk score. We determined the variation of PPVs and NNSs for detecting advanced neoplasms (i.e., CRC or advanced adenoma) when using the same FIT cutoffs and variation of FIT cutoffs that would yield uniform PPVs across risk groups.

RESULTS

When a fixed FIT cutoff of 10 μg/g was used, the PPV increased from 23.3% to 41.8% from the low- to the high-risk group, with NNS decreasing from 4.3 to 2.4 (P < 0.001). Similar variations of PPVs and NNSs across risk groups were observed at higher FIT cutoffs. When risk group-specific cutoffs were defined to achieve fixed PPVs of 25%, 30%, and 35% across all risk groups, cutoffs varied from 5.3 to 11.4, 6.5 to 18.7, and 7.5 to 31.0 μg hemoglobin/g feces, respectively, between high- and low-risk groups (P < 0.05 for all differences).

DISCUSSION

Using risk-adapted cutoffs may help to achieve target levels of PPV and NNS and might be an option to consider for personalized FIT-based CRC screening.

Development of blood-based biomarker tests for early detection of colorectal neoplasia: Influence of blood collection timing and handling procedures

INTRODUCTION

Blood-based, cancer-associated biomarkers are susceptible to a variety of well-known preanalytical factors. The influence of bowel preparation before a diagnostic colonoscopy on biomarker levels is, however, poorly investigated. The present study assessed the influence of bowel preparation on colorectal cancer-associated biomarkers. In addition, the effect of single versus double centrifugation of plasma biomarkers was assessed.

METHODS

Blood samples were collected pre- and post-bowel preparation from 125 subjects scheduled for first time diagnostic colonoscopy due to symptoms attributable to CRC. The samples were separated into serum and EDTA plasma, and analyzed by four independent collaborators for: 1) the proteins AFP, CA19-9, CEA, hs-CRP, CyFra21-1, Ferritin, Galectin-3 and TIMP-1, 2) the proteins BAG4, IL6ST, vWF, CD44 and EGFR, 3) the glycoprotein Galectin-3 ligand, and 4) cell-free DNA (cfDNA). Statistical analysis of biomarker data has been performed using mixed modelling, including repeated measures.

RESULTS

The biomarkers generally showed negligible variation between pre- and post-bowel preparation except for CyFra21-1, Ferritin, BAG4 and cfDNA. CyFra21-1 levels were systematically reduced with 29% (95% CI 21-36%) by bowel preparation (p ≤ 0.0001). Ferritin was not significantly different between pre- and post-bowel preparation (p = 0.07), however the estimated difference (increase) was 18%. BAG4 was systematically reduced by 12% (95% CI 1-22%, p = 0.04), while cfDNA showed a significant increase of 28% (95% CI 17-39%, p < 0.0001). Double centrifugation compared to single centrifugation showed reduced vWF (ratio 0.86, p ≤ 0.0001) and CD44 (ratio 0.85, p = 0.016), but increased IL6ST levels (ratio 1.18, p = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

Results of the present study demonstrated systematic, statistically significant differences between pre-bowel and post-bowel preparation levels for three independent blood-based biomarkers (BAG4, CyFra21-1, cfDNA), illustrating the importance of timing of sample collection for biomarker analyses.

Effect of Sex, Age, and Positivity Threshold on Fecal Immunochemical Test Accuracy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Quantitative fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for hemoglobin are commonly used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We aimed to quantify the change in CRC and advanced adenoma detection and number of positive test results at different positivity thresholds and by sex and age.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE, selecting articles of FIT for CRC detection in asymptomatic adults undergoing screening. We calculated sensitivity and specificity, as well as detected number of cancers, advanced adenomas, and positive test results at positivity thresholds ≤10 μg hemoglobin/g feces, 10 to ≤20 μg/g, 20 to ≤30 μg/g, and >30 μg/g. We also analyzed results from stratified by patient sex, age, and reference standard.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis comprised 46 studies with 2.4 million participants and 6478 detected cancers. Sensitivity for detection of CRC increased from 69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63%-75%) at thresholds >10 μg/g and ≤20 μg/g to 80% (95% CI, 76%-83%) at thresholds ≤10 μg/g. At these threshold values, sensitivity for detection of advanced adenomas increased from 21% (95% CI, 18%-25%) to 31% (95% CI, 27%-35%), whereas specificity decreased from 94% (95% CI, 93%-96%) to 91% (95% CI, 89%-93%). In 3 studies stratified by sex, sensitivity of CRC detection was 77% in men (95% CI, 75%-79%) and 81% in women (95% CI, 60%-100%) (P = .68). In 3 studies stratified by age groups, sensitivity of CRC detection was 85% for ages 50-59 years (95% CI, 71%-99%) and 73% for ages 60-69 years (95% CI, 71%-75%) (P = .10). All studies with colonoscopy follow-up had similar sensitivity levels for detection of CRC to studies that analyzed 2-year registry follow-up data (74%; 95% CI, 68%-78% vs 75%; 95% CI, 73%-77%).

CONCLUSIONS

In a meta-analysis of studies that analyzed detection of CRC and advanced adenomas at different FIT positivity thresholds, we found the sensitivity and specificity of detection to vary with positive cutoff value. It might be possible to decrease positive threshold values for centers with sufficient follow-up colonoscopy resources. More research is needed to precisely establish FIT thresholds for each sex and age subgroup.

PROTOCOL

PROSPERO CRD42017068760.

Combination of Different Fecal Immunochemical Tests in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Any Gain in Diagnostic Performance?

A variety of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are used for colorectal cancer screening. FIT performance could be improved further. It is unclear, whether the combination of different FITs with different analytical characteristics (such as, different antibodies for the detection of fecal hemoglobin) can yield a better diagnostic performance. Fecal samples were obtained from 2042 participants of screening colonoscopy. All participants with advanced neoplasm (AN, colorectal cancer (n = 16) or advanced adenoma (n = 200)) and 300 randomly selected participants without AN were included. Nine quantitative FITs were evaluated simultaneously. Sensitivity and specificity was calculated for single tests (n = 9) and for their pairwise test combinations (n = 36) (requiring either both FITs (P++) or at least one FIT (P+) to be positive for defining a positive test result). Mean age of the participants (n = 516) was 63 (range: 50–79) years and 56% were men. At cutoffs yielding a specificity of 96.7% for single FITs, the median gain in specificity by P++ combination was +1.0%, whereas the median loss in sensitivity for AN was −4.2%. For P+ combination the median gain in sensitivity for AN was +2.8%, at a prize of median loss of −1.0% of specificity. Combinations of different FITs do not yield any relevant gain in diagnostic performance.

Influence of Varying Quantitative Fecal Immunochemical Test Positivity Thresholds on Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Community-Based Cohort Study

Background

The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is commonly used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Despite demographic variations in stool hemoglobin concentrations, few data exist regarding optimal positivity thresholds by age and sex.

Objective

To identify programmatic (multitest) FIT performance characteristics and optimal FIT quantitative hemoglobin positivity thresholds in a large, population-based, screening program.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California.

Participants

Adults aged 50 to 75 years who were eligible for screening and had baseline quantitative FIT results (2013 to 2014) and 2 years of follow-up. Nearly two thirds (411 241) had FIT screening in the previous 2 years.

Measurements

FIT programmatic sensitivity for CRC and number of positive test results per cancer case detected, overall and by age and sex.

Results

Of 640 859 persons who completed a baseline FIT and were followed for 2 years, 481 817 (75%) had at least 1 additional FIT and 1245 (0.19%) received a CRC diagnosis. Cancer detection (programmatic sensitivity) increased at lower positivity thresholds, from 822 in 1245 (66.0%) at 30 µg/g to 925 (74.3%) at 20 µg/g and 987 (79.3%) at 10 µg/g; the number of positive test results per cancer case detected increased from 43 at 30 µg/g to 52 at 20 µg/g and 85 at 10 µg/g. Reducing the positivity threshold from 20 to 15 µg/g would detect 3% more cancer cases and require 23% more colonoscopies. At the conventional FIT threshold of 20 µg/g, programmatic sensitivity decreased with increasing age (79.0%, 73.4%, and 68.9% for ages 50 to 59, 60 to 69, and 70 to 75 years, respectively; P = 0.009) and was higher in men than women (77.0% vs. 70.6%; P = 0.011).

Limitation

Information on advanced adenoma was lacking.

Conclusion

Increased cancer detection at lower positivity thresholds is counterbalanced by substantial increases in positive tests. Tailored thresholds may provide screening benefits that are more equal among different demographic groups, depending on local resources.

Primary Funding Source

National Cancer Institute.