GP access to FIT increases the proportion of colorectal cancers detected on urgent pathways in symptomatic patients in Nottingham

'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.

A service evaluation of the use of faecal immunochemical tests in symptomatic patients aged under 50 years presenting to primary care

BACKGROUND

Most colorectal cancers (CRCs) occur in individuals aged over 50 years; however, the incidence in younger age groups is increasing. Diagnosis in younger patients is frequently delayed due to non-specific symptoms and the relative frequency of benign disease. There is a need to identify patients who warrant further investigation for CRC. This study reviewed whether a faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) ≥10 μg Hb/g faeces measured by the faecal immunochemical test for f-Hb (FIT) was associated with CRC in a local primary care population aged under 50 years.

METHODS

f-Hb results from symptomatic patients aged 18-49 years presenting to primary care during a 17-month period were extracted from local laboratory information systems. Colonoscopy lists were obtained from three local trusts. The Somerset Cancer Registry was searched to identify CRCs. f-Hb and outcomes were matched using NHS numbers.

RESULTS

A total of 3119 patients were included (median age 41 years); 313 of 2682 patients with f-Hb <10 μg/g (11.7%) and 305 of 437 patients with f-Hb ≥10 μg/g (69.8%) underwent colonoscopy. Twelve CRCs were detected. At a cut-off of 10 μg/g, the positivity rate was 14.0%, sensitivity was 100% (75.8-100%), specificity was 86.3% (85.1-87.5%), positive predictive value (PPV) was 2.7% (2.5-3.0%) and negative predictive value (NPV) was 100%. At a cut-off of 150 μg/g, sensitivity was 83.3% (55.2-95.3%), specificity was 95.2% (94.4-95.9%), PPV was 6.2% (4.7-8.2%) and NPV was 99.9% (99.8-100%).

CONCLUSION

Our data supports the use of FIT to triage patients aged under 50 years presenting to primary care with symptoms suggestive of CRCs.

Sociodemographic variations in the uptake of faecal immunochemical tests in primary care: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Faecal immunochemical test (FIT) usage for symptomatic patients is increasing, but variations in use caused by sociodemographic factors are unknown. A clinical pathway for colorectal cancer (CRC) was introduced in primary care for symptomatic patients in November 2017. The pathway was commissioned to provide GPs with direct access to FITs.

AIM

To identify whether sociodemographic factors affect FIT return in symptomatic patients.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective study was undertaken in Nottingham, UK, following the introduction of FIT as triage tool in primary care. It was mandated for all colorectal referrals (except rectal bleeding or mass) to secondary care. FIT was used, alongside full blood count and ferritin, to stratify CRC risk.

METHOD

All referrals from November 2017 to December 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Sociodemographic factors affecting FIT return were analysed by multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 35 289 (90.7%) patients returned their index FIT, while 3631 (9.3%) did not. On multivariate analysis, males were less likely to return an FIT (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03 to 1.19). Patients aged ≥65 years were more likely to return an FIT (OR 0.78 for non-return, 95% CI = 0.72 to 0.83). Unreturned FIT more than doubled in the most compared with the least deprived quintile (OR 2.20, 95% CI = 1.99 to 2.43). Patients from Asian (OR 1.82, 95% CI = 1.58 to 2.10), Black (OR 1.21, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.49), and mixed or other ethnic groups (OR 1.29, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.59) were more likely to not return an FIT compared with patients from a White ethnic group. A total of 599 (1.5%) CRCs were detected; 561 in those who returned a first FIT request.

CONCLUSION

FIT return in those suspected of having CRC varied by sex, age, ethnic group, and socioeconomic deprivation. Strategies to mitigate effects on FIT return and CRC detection should be considered as FIT usage expands.

Adapting the investigation of patients on urgent suspected cancer pathway with lower gastrointestinal symptoms across Wales during COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the introduction of revised diagnostic pathways for assessing urgent suspected cancer (USC) referrals. Combinations of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and minimal preparation computed tomography (CT) scans (MPCT) were used to manage referrals and prioritise access to clinical services or invasive tests. The effectiveness of these pathways across Wales is evaluated in this study.

METHODS

All consecutive patients referred from primary care on the USC pathway between 15 March and 15 June 2020 were included to reflect the effect of full lockdown measures. Data collected included demographics, presenting symptom(s), investigations and timelines and patient outcomes up to 90 days following initial referral.

RESULTS

A total of 1,050 patients across eight sites in Wales were included. Of these 1,050 patients, 52.6% were female with median age 68 (21-97) years; 50.5% had first-line clinical review, of which 61.1% were virtual consultations; 49.5% had primary investigations; 26.7% of patients had FIT and 13.1% had MPCT. COVID-response pathways achieved a 29.9% reduction in use of colonoscopy as first-line investigation and 79% of patients avoided face-to-face consultations altogether during this first wave of the pandemic. Overall, 6.8% of USC referrals were diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC). Median timescale from diagnosis to treatment for CRC was 65 (4-175) days. The negative predictive value (NPV) for FIT in this cohort was 99.6%. MPCT as the first modality had a NPV of 99.2%.

CONCLUSION

A modified investigation pathway helped maintain cancer diagnosis rates during the pandemic with improved resource utilisation to that used prepandemic.

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.

Patient-reported outcome measures show FIT as an acceptable investigation to rule out colorectal cancer in the two-week wait cohort

INTRODUCTION

Use of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for symptomatic patients is increasing. FIT is recommended as a triage tool from primary care to the two-week wait (TWW) suspected cancer pathway, but there is still little known about patient attitudes.

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore patient opinions of FIT and how it might be applied in the TWW pathway.

METHODS

A telephone survey was conducted for patients from the TWW pathway who had undergone both conventional colonic investigation and FIT. Five questions explored expectations, attitudes towards results and experience of the investigations using a Likert scale 1-5. Differences in opinion were compared using median and mode scores and visualised using bar charts.

RESULTS

One hundred and nine TWW patients agreed to answer the five questions. All had taken a stool sample for FIT, 50 underwent colonoscopy, 51 had a CT colonography and 8 underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy. Most patients (85%) scored 5 (completely satisfied) with these conventional colonic investigation methods they underwent for ruling out colorectal cancer (median 5). However, 30% of patients scored 5 (completely satisfied) if using a negative FIT to not require additional colonic investigation. The median score to perform FIT was 5 (very easy) compared with a median of 4 (easy) to undergo the other colonic investigations.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptomatic patients can perform FIT with little difficulty, and often would have been happy to avoid conventional colonic investigations with a negative result. However, shared decision-making should be employed to identify those who would be dissatisfied with relying on FIT for further investigation decisions.

Outcomes of patients with non-lower gastrointestinal cancer diagnosed via the lower gastrointestinal two-week-wait service

INTRODUCTION

Patients referred via lower gastrointestinal two-week-wait (LGI-2WW) services deemed at 'low risk' of LGI cancer may have delayed or no investigation. However, 20% of patients diagnosed with cancer via the LGI-2WW have non-LGI cancer. This study investigates the outcomes in this under-reported group.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients referred to a UK LGI-2WW service with a non-LGI cancer diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases 10th revision) between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2018. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Statistical analysis was undertaken using Kaplan-Meier survival curves with generalised log-rank test and binomial logistic regression of pre-investigation information to predict death. A p-value of < 0.05 represented statistical significance.

RESULTS

In total, 140 patients were diagnosed with non-LGI cancer (of 10,155 patients referred via the LGI-2WW pathway). Median follow-up was 13 months (range 0-65 months). Thirty-five patients (35/140; 25%) did not meet LGI-2WW referral criteria. Median survival varied by cancer site (upper gastrointestinal: 43/140 patients, median survival 4 months; gynaecological: 25/140, 25 months; haematological: 22/140, < 50% died; urological: 21/140, 47 months; unknown primary: 12/140, 3 months; lung: 10/140, 17 months; breast: 3/140, 5 months; retroperitoneal: 2/140, 9 months; brain: 1/140, 4 months; adrenal: 1/140, 52 months). Binomial logistic regression was statistically significant (chi-squared goodness-of-fit test = 12.334; p = 0.03); but the presence of comorbidity was the only significant predictive factor of death (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with non-LGI cancers cannot be easily predicted and have a poor prognosis. Pathways to streamline investigations for LGI cancer should include computed tomography scans for patients at 'low risk' of LGI cancer to ensure that non-LGI cancers are diagnosed.

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.

Faecal immunochemical testing reduces demand and improves yield of Leicester's 2-week pathway for change in bowel habit

AIM

We look at the effect of introducing the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) in the straight-to-test 2-week pathway for change in bowel habit (CIBH).

METHOD

The FIT in primary care triages 2-week wait (2WW) colorectal referrals for patients aged 60 years and above for straight-to-test CT colonography (CTC). We compare the impact of the FIT on numbers of 2WW CTCs, in the year before and after FIT, in both colorectal cancer (CRC) detection and cost-effectiveness at both 4 μg Hb/g faeces and 10 μg Hb/g faeces.

RESULTS

At a threshold of 4 μg Hb/g faeces, the positive predictive value of the FIT for diagnosis of CRC is 5.0% with a negative predictive value of 99.8% and a polyp detection rate of 25.5%. The introduction of the FIT resulted in a reduction in the number of CTCs performed through the CIBH pathway from a mean of 143.9 per month prior to the FIT to 66.8 CTCs per month once the FIT was well established. Given a FIT threshold of 10 μg Hb/g the number of CTCs would be predicted to fall by 70.4% to 42.6 CTCs per month resulting in higher CRC and polyp detection rate, and an estimated annual cost saving of £238 258 in our institution.

CONCLUSION

The FIT use in primary care improves the yield of 2WW referrals for CIBH alone and reduces the burden and cost of investigations to exclude CRC. Improvements may be possible by increasing the cut-off employed, without adversely affecting the risk of missing a cancer.

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.

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.

The Fast Track FIT study: diagnostic accuracy of faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin in patients with suspected colorectal cancer

Background

The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is now available to support clinicians in the assessment of patients at low risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and within the bowel cancer screening programme.

Aim

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of FIT for CRC and clinically significant disease in patients referred as they were judged by their GP to fulfil National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline 12 (NG12) criteria for suspected CRC.

Design and setting

Patients referred from primary care with suspected CRC, meeting NG12 criteria, to 12 secondary care providers in Yorkshire and Humber were asked to complete a FIT before investigation.

Method

The diagnostic accuracy of FIT based on final diagnosis was evaluated using receiver operating characteristics analysis. This permitted a statistically optimal cut-off value for FIT to be determined based on the maximisation of sensitivity and specificity. Clinicians and patients were blinded to the FIT results.

Results

In total, 5040 patients were fully evaluated and CRC was detected in 151 (3.0%). An optimal cut-off value of 19 µg Hb/g faeces for CRC was determined, giving a sensitivity of 85.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 78.8% to 90.6%) and specificity of 85.2% (95% CI = 84.1% to 86.2%). The negative predictive value at this cut-off value was 99.5% (95% CI = 99.2% to 99.7%) and the positive predictive value 15.1% (95% CI = 12.8% to 17.7%). Sensitivity and specificity of FIT for CRC and significant premalignant polyps at this cut-off value were 62.9% (95% CI = 57.5% to 68.0%) and 86.4% (95% CI = 85.4% to 87.4%), respectively; and when including all organic enteric disease were 35.7% (95% CI = 32.9% to 38.5%) and 88.6% (95% CI = 87.5% to 89.6%), respectively.

Conclusion

FIT used in patients fulfilling NG12 criteria should allow for a more personalised CRC risk assessment. FIT should permit effective, patient-centred decision-making to inform the need for, type, and timing of further investigation.

Faecal immunochemical test is superior to symptoms in predicting pathology in patients with suspected colorectal cancer symptoms referred on a 2WW pathway: a diagnostic accuracy study

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) could be used to select patients with suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) symptoms for urgent investigation.

DESIGN

Multicentre, double-blinded diagnostic accuracy study in 50 National Health Service (NHS) hospitals across England between October 2017 and December 2019. Patients referred to secondary care with suspected CRC symptoms meeting NHS England criteria for urgent 2 weeks wait referral and triaged to investigation with colonoscopy were invited to perform a quantitative FIT. The sensitivity of FIT for CRC, and effect of relevant variables on its diagnostic accuracy was assessed.

RESULTS

9822 patients were included in the final analysis. The prevalence of CRC at colonoscopy was 3.3%. The FIT positivity decreased from 37.2% to 19.0% and 7.6%, respectively, at cut-offs of 2, 10 and 150 µg haemoglobin/g faeces (µg/g). The positive predictive values of FIT for CRC at these cut-offs were 8.7% (95% CI, 7.8% to 9.7%), 16.1% (95% CI 14.4% to 17.8%) and 31.1% (95% CI 27.8% to 34.6%), respectively, and the negative predictive values were 99.8% (95% CI 99.7% to 99.9%), 99.6% (95% CI 99.5% to 99.7%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.1%), respectively. The sensitivity of FIT for CRC decreased at the same cut-offs from 97.0% (95% CI 94.5% to 98.5%) to 90.9% (95% CI 87.2% to 93.8%) and 70.8% (95% CI 65.6% to 75.7%), respectively, while the specificity increased from 64.9% (95% CI 63.9% to 65.8%) to 83.5% (95% CI 82.8% to 84.3%) and 94.6% (95% CI 94.1% to 95.0%), respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.93 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.95).

CONCLUSION

FIT sensitivity is maximised to 97.0% at the lowest cut-off (2 µg/g); a negative FIT result at this cut-off can effectively rule out CRC and a positive FIT result is better than symptoms to select patients for urgent investigations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN49676259.

Faecal immunochemical testing and blood tests for prioritization of urgent colorectal cancer referrals in symptomatic patients: a 2-year evaluation

BACKGROUND

A novel pathway incorporating faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for rapid colorectal cancer diagnosis (RCCD) was introduced in 2017. This paper reports on the service evaluation after 2 years of pathway implementation.

METHODS

The RCCD protocol was based on FIT, blood results and symptoms to stratify adult patients in primary care. Two-week-wait (2WW) investigation was indicated for patients with rectal bleeding, rectal mass and faecal haemoglobin (fHb) level of 10 µg Hb/g faeces or above or 4 µg Hb/g faeces or more in the presence of anaemia, low ferritin or thrombocytosis, in all other symptom groups. Patients with 100 µg Hb/g faeces or above had expedited investigation . A retrospective audit of colorectal cancer detected between 2017 and 2019 was conducted, fHb thresholds were reviewed and critically assessed for cancer diagnoses.

RESULTS

In 2 years, 14788 FIT tests were dispatched with 13361 (90.4 per cent) completed returns. Overall, fHb was less than 4 µg Hb/g faeces in 9208 results (68.9 per cent), 4-9.9 µg Hb/g in 1583 (11.8 per cent), 10-99.9 µg Hb/g in 1850 (13.8 per cent) and 100 µg Hb/g faeces or above in 720 (5.4 per cent). During follow-up (median 10.4 months), 227 colorectal cancers were diagnosed. The cancer detection rate was 0.1 per cent in patients with fHb below 4 µg Hb/g faeces, 0.6 per cent in those with fHb 4-9.9 µg Hb/g faeces, 3.3 per cent for fHb 10-99.9 µg Hb/g faeces and 20.7 per cent for fHb 100 µg Hb/g faeces or above. The detection rate in the cohort with 10-19.9 µg Hb/g faeces was 1.4 per cent, below the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold for urgent referral. The colorectal cancer rate in patients with fHb below 20 µg Hb/g faeces was less than 0.3 per cent.

CONCLUSION

Use of FIT to "rule out" urgent referral from primary care misses a small number of cases. The threshold for referral may be adjusted with blood results to improve stratification .

Optimal diagnostic accuracy of quantitative faecal immunochemical test positivity thresholds for colorectal cancer detection in primary health care: A community-based cohort study

Background

Optimizing colonoscopy resources is challenging, and information regarding performing diagnostic quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) in daily clinical practice in primary health care is still limited. This study aimed to assess the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of varying FIT positivity thresholds on colorectal cancer (CRC) detection in primary health care.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of 38,675 asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with a FIT (OC‐Sensor™) performed between 2012 and 2016 in a primary health‐care setting, using a clinical laboratory database of two Spanish areas linked with the National Health System's Hospital Discharge Records Database. The primary outcome was 2‐year CRC incidence.

Results

The mean age of the participants was 63.2 years; 17,792 (46.0%) were male. CRC prevalence was 1.7% (650/38,675). The percentage of patients with a FIT result above the threshold was 20.7% and 14.6% for 10 μg Hb/g faeces and 20 μg Hb/g faeces thresholds, respectively. Sensitivity was 90.5% (95% confidence interval 88.0%–92.5%) at a 10 μg Hb/g faeces threshold, and this decreased by 3.1% when a 20 μg Hb/g faeces threshold was used. The negative predictive value for CRC was at least 99.2% in any subgroup analysed. At a 20 μg Hb/g faeces threshold, less than one additional CRC would be missed per 1000 patients investigated, while approximately 1.3 times more colonoscopy examinations were needed to identify an incidence of CRC using the lowest threshold for any situation analysed.

Conclusions

In primary health care, a quantitative FIT threshold should be tailored to colonoscopy capacity and CRC prevalence in specific populations.

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

Background

Faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb), estimated using a faecal immunochemical test, can be safely implemented in primary care to assess risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Clinical outcomes of patients presenting with symptoms of lower gastrointestinal disease were examined using an extensive range of f-Hb thresholds to decide on reassurance or referral for further investigation.

Methods

All patients who attended primary care and submitted a single faecal specimen faecal immunochemical test in the first year of the routine service had f-Hb estimated using HM-JACKarc: f-Hb thresholds from <2 to ≥ 400 µg Hb/g faeces (µg/g) were examined.

Results

Low f-Hb thresholds of <2, <7, <10 and <20 µg/g gave respective CRC risks of 0.1, 0.3, 0.3 and 0.4%, numbers needed to scope for one CRC of 871, 335, 300 and 249, and ‘false negative’ rates of 2.9, 11.4, 13.3 and 17.1%. With thresholds of <2, <7, <10 and <20 µg/g, 48.6, 74.6, 78.1 and 83.2% respectively of symptomatic patients could be managed without further investigation. With reassurance thresholds of <2 µg/g, <7 µg/g and <10 µg/g, the thresholds for referral for urgent investigation would be >400 µg/g, ≥200 µg/g and ≥100 µg/g. However, patients with a f-Hb concentration of <10 or <20 µg/g with iron deficiency anaemia, or with severe or persistent symptoms, should not be denied further investigation.

Conclusions

In primary care, f-Hb, in conjunction with clinical assessment, can safely and objectively determine individual risk of CRC and decide on simple reassurance or urgent, or routine referral.

Quantitative FIT stratification is superior to NICE referral criteria NG12 in a high-risk colorectal cancer population

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for urgent investigation of colorectal cancer (CRC) are based on age and symptom-based criteria. This study aims to compare the diagnostic value of clinical features and faecal immunochemical test (FIT) results to identify those at a higher risk of CRC, thereby facilitating effective triage of patients.

METHODS

We undertook a review of all patients referred for investigation of CRC at our centre between September 2016 and June 2018. Patients were identified using a prospectively recorded local database. We performed a logistic regression analysis of factors associated with a diagnosis of CRC.

RESULTS

One-thousand-and-seven-hundred-eighty-four patients with FIT results were included in the study. Change in bowel habit (CIBH) was the most common referring clinical feature (38.3%). Patients diagnosed with CRC were significantly older than those without malignancy (74.0 years vs 68.9 years, p = 0.0007). Male patients were more likely to be diagnosed with CRC than females (6.5% vs 2.5%, Chi-squared 16.93, p < 0.0001). CRC was diagnosed in 3.5% (24/684) with CIBH compared to 8.1% (6/74) with both CIBH and iron deficiency anaemia. No individual or combination of referring clinical features was associated with an increased diagnosis of CRC (Chi-squared, 8.03, p = 0.155). Three patients with negative FIT results (< 4 µg Hb/g faeces) were diagnosed with CRC (3/1027, 0.3%). The highest proportion of cancers detected was in the ≥ 100 µg Hb/g faeces group (55/181, 30.4%).

CONCLUSION

In a multivariate model, FIT outperforms age, sex and all symptoms prompting referral. FIT has greater stratification value than any referral symptoms. FIT does have value in patients with iron deficiency anaemia.

Choice of faecal immunochemical test matters: comparison of OC-Sensor and HM-JACKarc, in the assessment of patients at high risk of colorectal cancer

Objectives

Currently, NICE recommends the use of faecal immunochemical test (FIT) at faecal haemoglobin concentrations (f-Hb) of 10 μg Hb/g faeces to stratify for colorectal cancer (CRC) risk in symptomatic populations. This f-Hb cut-off is advised across all analysers, despite the fact that a direct comparison of analyser performance, in a clinical setting, has not been performed.

Methods

Two specimen collection devices (OC-Sensor, OC-S; HM-JACKarc, HM-J) were sent to 914 consecutive individuals referred for follow up due to their increased risk of CRC. Agreement of f-Hb around cut-offs of 4, 10 and 150 µg Hb/g faeces and CRC detection rates were assessed. Two OC-S devices were sent to a further 114 individuals, for within test comparisons.

Results

A total of 732 (80.1%) individuals correctly completed and returned two different FIT devices, with 38 (5.2%) CRCs detected. Median f-Hb for individuals diagnosed with and without CRC were 258.5 and 1.8 µg Hb/g faeces for OC-S and 318.1 and 1.0 µg Hb/g faeces for HM-J respectively. Correlation of f-Hb results between OC-S/HM-J over the full range was rho=0.74, p<0.001. Using a f-Hb of 4 µg Hb/g faeces for both tests found an agreement of 88.1%, at 10 µg Hb/g faeces 91.7% and at 150 µg Hb/g faeces 96.3%. A total of 114 individuals completed and returned two OC-S devices; correlation across the full range was rho=0.98, p<0.001.

Conclusions

We found large variations in f-Hb when different FIT devices were used, but a smaller variation when the same FIT device was used. Our data suggest that analyser-specific f-Hb cut-offs are applied with regard to clinical decision making, especially at lower f-Hb.