Multiple rounds of one sample versus two sample faecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening: a population-based study

Participation and Yield in Multiple Rounds of Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Fecal Immunochemical Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The evidence on the cumulative participation and yield in multiple rounds of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening based on fecal immunochemical test is sparse. We aimed to assess the trends in participation and detection for advanced colorectal neoplasm under different screening intervals in multiround fecal immunochemical testing-based CRC screening by synthesizing the current available evidence.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were retrieved from January 1, 2002, to April 16, 2024, for potential eligible studies, and then, we synthesized participation and advanced colorectal neoplasm detection rates for each screening round, along with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Nineteen studies involving a total of 2,296,071 individuals were included. As screening rounds increased, participation exhibited a gradual consistent increase, reaching 78.45% and 74.97% for annual and biennial screening strategies. For annual screening, the cumulative detection rates for 3 rounds were 1.38% (95% CI: 1.18%-1.63%), 1.95% (95% CI: 1.72%-2.21%), and 2.50% (95% CI: 2.29%-2.72%), respectively. For biennial screening, the cumulative detection rates for 4 rounds were 2.22% (95% CI: 1.22%-3.22%), 3.44% (95% CI: 2.06%-4.82%), 4.26% (95% CI: 2.70%-5.83%), and 5.10% (95% CI: 3.28%-7.29%), respectively. Notably, the per-round detection rate of advanced colorectal neoplasms declined yet as the screening progressed.

DISCUSSION

In population-based CRC screening programs, the participation exhibited a slow upward trend for both screening strategies, but the incremental benefits in CRC detection gradually diminished. Tailored strategies, such as extending intervals for individuals with multiple negative fecal immunochemical testing results, might optimize effectiveness and cost-efficiency in population-based CRC screening.

Yield and Effectiveness of 2-Sample Fecal Immunochemical Test-Based Screening Program for Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality of China account for nearly 30% of the global attributable fraction. We aimed to estimate the yield and effectiveness of a 2-sample fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program in China.

METHODS

Eligible individuals were invited for 2-sample FIT between 2007 and 2021, with positive ones (cutoff 40 μg/g before 2013 and 20 μg/g thereafter) referred for colonoscopy. Participation rates, detection rates, and positive predictive values were calculated. Participants were classified into: FIT+/colonoscopy compliers, FIT+/colonoscopy noncompliers, and FIT- as control subjects. We compared CRC incidence and mortality and calculated the age reaching comparable risk.

RESULTS

Among 246,349 invitees, 150,524 (61.10%) participated in 2-sample FIT, with 16,994 (11.29%) identified as FIT+; 12,816 (75.41%) underwent colonoscopy, yielding a detection rate and positive predictive value of 0.57% and 6.70% for advanced neoplasia, respectively. Median follow-up was 10.58 years. Compared with FIT- participants, CRC incidence and mortality were relatively similar among FIT+/colonoscopy compliers with hazard ratios of 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.19) and 1.62 (95% CI, 1.09 to 2.41) but higher among noncompliers, with hazard ratios of 3.52 (95% CI, 2.85-4.34) and 4.41 (95% CI, 2.96-6.55). Taking CRC incidence and mortality risk of FIT- participants at 50.0 years of age as the benchmark, FIT+/colonoscopy compliers reached same risk at 50.6 and 46.1 years of age, while noncompliers reached the same risk at 38.0 and 37.9 years of age, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-sample FIT could effectively identify high-risk populations, and colonoscopy compliance is associated with a lower risk of CRC incidence and mortality. This strategy might facilitate CRC screening practice in countries with large populations.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Colonoscopy vs the Fecal Immunochemical Test: Which is Best?

Although there is no debate around the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in reducing disease burden, there remains a question regarding the most effective and cost-effective screening modality. Current United States guidelines present a panel of options that include the 2 most commonly used modalities, colonoscopy and stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Large-scale comparative effectiveness trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer outcomes are underway, but results are not yet available. This review will separately state the "best case" for FIT and colonoscopy as the screening tool of first choice. In addition, the review will examine these modalities from a health economics perspective to provide the reader further context about the relative advantages of these commonly used tests.

Colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical testing or primary colonoscopy: inequities in diagnostic yield

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic inequalities in the uptake of colorectal cancer screening are well documented, but the implications on inequities in health gain remain unclear.

METHODS

Sixty-year-olds were randomly recruited from the Swedish population between March 2014 and March 2020 and invited to undergo either 2 rounds of fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) 2 years apart (n = 60 137) or primary colonoscopy just once (n = 30 400). By linkage to Statistics Sweden's registries, we obtained socioeconomic data. In each defined socioeconomic group, we estimated the cumulative yield of advanced neoplasia in each screening arm (intention-to-screen analysis). In the biennial FIT arm, we predicted the probability of exceeding the yield in the primary colonoscopy arm by linear extrapolation of the cumulative yield to (hypothetical) additional rounds of FIT.

RESULTS

In the lowest income group, the yield of advanced neoplasia was 1.63% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.35% to 1.93%) after 2 rounds of FIT vs 1.93% (95% CI = 1.49% to 2.40%) in the primary colonoscopy arm. Extrapolation to a third round of FIT implied a 86% probability of exceeding the yield in the primary colonoscopy arm. In the highest income group, we found a more pronounced yield gap between the 2 screening strategies-2.32% (95% CI = 2.15% to 2.49%) vs 3.71% (95% CI = 3.41% to 4.02%)- implying a low (2%) predicted probability of exceeding yield after a third round of FIT.

CONCLUSIONS

Yield of advanced neoplasia from 2 rounds of FIT 2 years apart was poorer as compared with primary colonoscopy, but the difference was less in lower socioeconomic groups.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02078804.

A qualitative interview study on colorectal cancer screening in China

Background

The effectiveness of triage screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is not fully achieved in Chinese populations, mainly due to low compliance to colonoscopy follow-up. This study aimed to collect viewpoints of experts in China on ongoing screening programs and emerging screening tests for CRC, which may help to improve effectiveness of CRC screening in the country.

Methods

We conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with experts involving CRC screening in China during October to November of 2020. Interview topics included personal characteristics, work context, opinions on ongoing screening programs, challenges and opportunities in optimization of screening strategies, and prospects for CRC screening in near future. To analyze the data, we used a generic qualitative research approach inspired by grounded theory, including open, axial, and selective coding.

Results

This analysis revealed a total of 83 initial categories, 37 subcategories and 10 main categories, which included 4 core categories of current modality for CRC screening, factors influencing screening effectiveness, optimization of CRC screening modality, and prospects for development of CRC screening. The results provide insight into the factors underlying the challenges of the ongoing CRC screening programs in China: the most important concern is the low compliance to colonoscopy, followed by the low specificity of the currently-used initial tests. The experts proposed to use quantitative instead of qualitative fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and optimize risk assessment tools to improve specificity of initial tests. Regarding the emerging screening tests, 9 of 15 experts did not think that the novel techniques are good enough to replace the current tests, but can be used complementarily in opportunistic screening for CRC.

Conclusion

The viewpoints of Chinese experts suggested that use quantitative FIT or optimize risk assessment tools may help to identify high-risk individuals of CRC more accurately, improve adherence to colonoscopy, and thus fully achieve the effectiveness of screening.

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.

Risk Scoring Systems for Predicting the Presence of Colorectal Neoplasia by Fecal Immunochemical Test Results in Chinese Population

INTRODUCTION

Adherence to colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is low in general populations, including those tested positive in the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Developing tailored risk scoring systems by FIT results may allow for more accurate identification of individuals for colonoscopy.

METHODS

Among 807,109 participants who completed the primary tests in the first-round Shanghai CRC screening program, 71,023 attended recommended colonoscopy. Predictors for colorectal neoplasia were used to develop respective scoring systems for FIT-positive or FIT-negative populations using logistic regression and artificial neural network methods.

RESULTS

Age, sex, area of residence, history of mucus or bloody stool, and CRC in first-degree relatives were identified as predictors for CRC in FIT-positive subjects, while a history of chronic diarrhea and prior cancer were additionally included for FIT-negative subjects. With an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of more than 0.800 in predicting CRC, the logistic regression-based systems outperformed the artificial neural network-based ones and had a sensitivity of 68.9%, a specificity of 82.6%, and a detection rate of 0.24% by identifying 17.6% subjects at high risk. We also reported an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of about 0.660 for the systems predicting CRC and adenoma, with a sensitivity of 57.8%, a specificity of 64.6%, and a detection rate of 6.87% through classifying 38.1% subjects as high-risk individuals. The performance of the scoring systems for CRC was superior to the currently used method in Mainland, China, and comparable with the scoring systems incorporating the FIT results.

DISCUSSION

The tailored risk scoring systems may better identify high-risk individuals of colorectal neoplasia and facilitate colonoscopy follow-up. External validation is warranted for widespread use of the scoring systems.

Adenoma Detection Rate and Risk for Interval Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer in Fecal Immunochemical Test-Based Screening : A Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an essential quality indicator for endoscopists performing colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as it is associated with postcolonoscopy CRCs (PCCRCs). Currently, data on ADRs of endoscopists performing colonoscopies in fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based screening, the most common screening method, are scarce. Also, the association between the ADR and PCCRC has not been demonstrated in this setting.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between the ADR and PCCRC risk in colonoscopies done after a positive FIT result.

DESIGN

Population-based cohort.

SETTING

Dutch, FIT-based, CRC screening program.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy, done by accredited endoscopists, after a positive FIT result.

MEASUREMENTS

Quality indicator performance and PCCRC incidence for colonoscopies in FIT-positive screenees were assessed. The PCCRCs were classified as interval, a cancer detected before recommended surveillance, or noninterval. The association between ADR and interval PCCRC was evaluated with a multivariable Cox regression model and PCCRC incidence was determined for different ADRs.

RESULTS

362 endoscopists performed 116 360 colonoscopies with a median ADR of 67%. In total, 209 interval PCCRCs were identified. The ADR was associated with interval PCCRC, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92 to 0.97) per 1% increase in ADR. For every 1000 patients undergoing colonoscopy, the expected number of interval PCCRC diagnoses after 5 years was approximately 2 for endoscopists with ADRs of 70%, compared with more than 2.5, almost 3.5, and more than 4.5 for endoscopists with ADRs of 65%, 60%, and 55%, respectively.

LIMITATION

The relative short duration of follow-up (median, 52 months) could be considered a limitation.

CONCLUSION

The ADR of endoscopists is inversely associated with the risk for interval PCCRC in FIT-positive colonoscopies. Endoscopists performing colonoscopy in FIT-based screening should aim for markedly higher ADRs compared with primary colonoscopy.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

One or two faecal immunochemical tests in an organised population-based colorectal cancer screening programme in Murcia (Spain)

OBJECTIVE

Roll-out of population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is limited by availability of further investigations, particularly colonoscopy and examination of excised lesions. Our objective was to assess whether variation in number of faecal samples and threshold adjustment can optimise resource utilisation and CRC detection rate.

METHODS

Three different screening strategies were compared for the same FIT threshold using a quantitative FIT system: one FIT, positive when >20 µg Hb/g faeces; two FIT, positive when either was >20 µg Hb/g faeces; and two FIT, positive when the mean was >20 µg Hb/g faeces. We calculated changes in the size of population the provider could invite to screening for an equal number of screening positive results, and CRC and adenoma detected.

RESULTS

In our setting, Region of Murcia, south of Spain (not fully rolled out screening programme), changing the usual strategy of two FIT, positive when either to positive when the mean was >20 µg Hb/g faeces, would increase population invited by 37.81% with the same number of positive results (which would generate a CRC detection rate of 19.2%). In a fully rolled out programme, changing the strategy from one to two FIT (positive when the mean is >20 µg Hb/g faeces), would increase CRC detection rate by 4.64% with an increase of only 13.34% in positive FIT.

CONCLUSIONS

In a population-based CRC screening programme, smart use of number of FITs and positivity threshold can increase population invited and CRC detection without increasing the number of colonoscopies and pathological examinations needed.

A cohort study of duplicate faecal immunochemical testing in patients at risk of colorectal cancer from North-West England

OBJECTIVES

We sought to investigate if duplicate faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) sampling improves the negative and positive predictive value of patients thought to be at risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Specifically, we aimed to investigate whether the proportion of FIT-negative CRC missed by a single FIT test in symptomatic patients could be reduced by duplicate FIT testing.

DESIGN

A retrospective service evaluation cohort study of the diagnostic accuracy of duplicate FIT testing.

SETTING

Patients referred from primary care with suspected CRC to four secondary care trusts in North-West England.

PARTICIPANTS

28 622 patients over 18-years-old with lower gastrointestinal symptoms suggestive of CRC who completed two FIT samples.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The performance of duplicate FIT for detecting CRC at a threshold of 10 µgHb/g.

RESULTS

The sensitivity if either test was >10 µgHb/g was 0.978 (0.955-0.989), specificity was 0.662 (0.657-0.668), positive predictive value 0.031 (0.028-0.035) and negative predictive value 1.00 (0.999-1.00). Despite two-thirds of patients (18952) being negative following two tests, at this threshold only seven CRC were missed over a 26-month period. All seven patients had other high-risk features which should have prompted investigation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that in routine NHS practice, a duplicate FIT sample strategy together with clinical evaluation for evidence of anaemia and weight loss is superior to a single FIT sample alone and would allow symptomatic patients to be managed in primary care without the need for urgent referral to secondary care for urgent colonic imaging.

Systematic review: non-endoscopic surveillance for colorectal neoplasia in individuals with Lynch syndrome

BACKGROUND

Individuals with Lynch syndrome are at high risk for colorectal cancer (CRC). Regular colonoscopies have proven to decrease CRC incidence and mortality. However, colonoscopy is burdensome and interval CRCs still occur. Hence, an accurate, less-invasive screening method that guides the timing of colonoscopy would be of important value.

AIM

To outline the performance of non-endoscopic screening modalities for Lynch-associated CRC and adenomas.

METHODS

Systematic literature search in MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify studies investigating imaging techniques and biomarkers for detection of CRC and adenomas in Lynch syndrome. The QUADAS-2 tool was used for the quality assessment of included studies.

RESULTS

Seven of 1332 screened articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two studies evaluated either CT colonography or MR colonography; both techniques were unable to detect CRC and (advanced) adenomas <10 mm. The other five studies evaluated plasma methylated-SEPTIN9, faecal immunochemical test (FIT), faecal tumour DNA markers (BAT-26, hMLH1, p53, D9S171, APC, D9S162, IFNA and DCC) and faecal microbiome as screening modalities. Sensitivity for CRC varied from 33% (BAT-26) to 70% (methylated-SEPTIN9) to 91% (hMLH1). High specificity (94-100%) for CRC and/or adenomas was observed for methylated-SEPTIN9, FIT and BAT-26. Desulfovibrio was enriched in the stool of patients having adenomas. However, all these studies were characterised by small populations, high/unclear risk of bias and/or low prevalence of adenomas.

CONCLUSIONS

Imaging techniques are unsuitable for colon surveillance in Lynch syndrome, whereas biomarkers are understudied. Having outlined biomarker research in Lynch-associated and sporadic CRC/adenomas, we believe that these non-invasive markers may hold potential (whether or not combined) for this population. As they could be of great value, (pre-)clinical studies in this field should be prioritised.

Factors associated with positive predictive value of preliminary screening in a two-step screening strategy for colorectal neoplasms in China

BACKGROUND

The positive predictive value (PPV) of high risk factor questionnaire (HRFQ) plus fecal immunochemical test (FIT) as preliminary screening strategy for colorectal-related neoplasia is relatively low. We aim to explore independent factors associated with PPVs of HRFQ combined FIT for selecting high risk individuals for colonoscopy.

METHODS

A total of 6971 residents were enrolled in a community-based screening program. Participants who had positive results of HRFQ and/or FIT and subsequently received colonoscopy were involved. The associations of socio-demographic factors, lifestyle behaviors, and high risk factors of colorectal cancer with PPVs of HRFQ, FIT, and their combination were evaluated by multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Among 572 involved cases, 249 (43.5%) colorectal neoplasms were detected by colonoscopy, including 71 advanced adenoma (12.4%) and 9 colorectal cancer (CRC) (1.6%). The PPVs of preliminary screening were 43.5% for total colorectal neoplasms, 14.0% for advanced neoplasm, and 1.6% for CRC. Adding positive HRFQ to FIT could improve the PPV from 3.5 to 8.0% for detecting CRC. Preliminarily screened positive individuals who were males [adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.95, 95% CI 1.31, 2.90; p  < 0.001], elders (> 60 years) (AOR: 1.70, 95% CI 1.17, 2.46; p  = 0.005), or ex-/current smokers (AOR: 3.04, 95% CI 1.31, 7.09; p  = 0.10) had higher odds of PPVs of detecting colorectal neoplasms.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining HRFQ and FIT could largely improve PPVs for screening advanced neoplasm and CRC. Gender and age-specific FIT cut-off values as well as initiating ages for CRC screening might be recommended to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of current screening algorithm.

Results of Compliant Participation in Five Rounds of Fecal Immunochemical Test Screening for Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We investigated the magnitude and temporal patterns of the decreasing trend in main performance measures of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) observed in second and subsequent rounds.

METHODS

We followed up 494,187 participants from the first round of a regional biennial FIT screening program in Italy (cut-off value for positivity, 20 μg hemoglobin/g feces) for 5 total rounds (2005-2016). At each round, only compliant participants were eligible. Performance measures from the first, third, fourth, and fifth rounds were compared with those from the second round (the first incidence round) using rate ratios from multivariate Poisson regression models and relative risk ratios from multinomial logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Between the second and the third rounds, a significant 20% to 30% decrease was found in the proportion of men with a positive FIT result (from 5.2% to 4.3%) and in detection rates of advanced adenoma (from 13.4 to 10.2 per 1000), CRC (from 1.7 to 1.4 per 1000), and advanced neoplasia (from 15.1 to 11.6 per 1000). Positive predictive values (PPVs) decreased by 10% or less between the second and third rounds. Detection rates and PPVs for adenoma stabilized by the fourth and fifth rounds. The PPVs for advanced adenoma, CRC, and advanced neoplasia decreased slightly in men and women by the fourth and fifth rounds. The detection rate of proximal colon cancer stabilized after the second round, whereas the detection rate of distal colon cancer decreased until the fourth round in men (from 0.7 to 0.3 per 1000), and the fifth round in women.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the notion that FIT screening prevents progression of a subset of advanced adenomas. Screening intensity could be modulated based on results from previous rounds, with a risk-based strategy.

Detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia and relative colonoscopy workloads using quantitative faecal immunochemical tests: an observational study exploring the effects of simultaneous adjustment of both sample number and test positivity threshold

OBJECTIVE

When screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) using quantitative faecal immunochemical tests (FIT), test parameters requiring consideration are the faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb) positivity cut-off and the number of stools sampled. This observational study explored variation in f-Hb between samples and the relationship between sensitivity for advanced neoplasia (AN, cancer or advanced adenoma) and colonoscopy workload across a range of independently-adjusted parameter combinations.

DESIGN

Quantitative FIT data (OC-Sensor) were accessed from individuals undergoing personalised colonoscopic screening with an offer of 2-sample FIT in the intervening years. We estimated variation in f-Hb between samples in 12 710 completing 2-sample FIT, plus test positivity rates (colonoscopy workload) and sensitivity for AN according to parameter combinations in 4037 instances where FIT was done in the year preceding colonoscopy.

RESULTS

There was large within-subject variability between samples, with the ratio for the second to the first sample f-Hb ranging up to 18-fold for all cases, and up to 56-fold for AN cases. Sensitivity for AN was greatest at lower f-Hb cut-offs and/or using 2-sample FIT. Colonoscopy workload varied according to how parameters were combined. Using different cut-offs for 1-sample FIT and 2-sample FIT to return similar sensitivity, workload was less with 2-sample FIT when the sensitivity goal exceeded 35%.

CONCLUSION

Variation in f-Hb between samples is such that both parameters are crucial determinants of sensitivity and workload; independent adjustment of each should be considered. The 2-sample FIT approach is best for detecting advanced adenomas as well as CRC provided that the colonoscopy workload is feasible.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effectiveness, test accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2015, to December 4, 2019; surveillance through March 26, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting cancers or adenomas, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

The review included 33 studies (n = 10 776 276) on the effectiveness of screening, 59 (n = 3 491 045) on the test performance of screening tests, and 131 (n = 26 987 366) on the harms of screening. In randomized clinical trials (4 trials, n = 458 002), intention to screen with 1- or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy vs no screening was associated with a decrease in CRC-specific mortality (incidence rate ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.68-0.80]). Annual or biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) vs no screening (5 trials, n = 419 966) was associated with a reduction of CRC-specific mortality after 2 to 9 rounds of screening (relative risk at 19.5 years, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84-0.98]; relative risk at 30 years, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.93]). In observational studies, receipt of screening colonoscopy (2 studies, n = 436 927) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (1 study, n = 5.4 million) vs no screening was associated with lower risk of CRC incidence or mortality. Nine studies (n = 6497) evaluated the test accuracy of screening computed tomography (CT) colonography, 4 of which also reported the test accuracy of colonoscopy; pooled sensitivity to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger was similar between CT colonography with bowel prep (0.86) and colonoscopy (0.89). In pooled values, commonly evaluated FITs (14 studies, n = 45 403) (sensitivity, 0.74; specificity, 0.94) and stool DNA with FIT (4 studies, n = 12 424) (sensitivity, 0.93; specificity, 0.85) performed better than high-sensitivity gFOBT (2 studies, n = 3503) (sensitivity, 0.50-0.75; specificity, 0.96-0.98) to detect cancers. Serious harms of screening colonoscopy included perforations (3.1/10 000 procedures) and major bleeding (14.6/10 000 procedures). CT colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation. It is unclear if detection of extracolonic findings on CT colonography is a net benefit or harm.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There are several options to screen for colorectal cancer, each with a different level of evidence demonstrating its ability to reduce cancer mortality, its ability to detect cancer or precursor lesions, and its risk of harms.

The Effects of Different Invitation Schemes on the Use of Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Simple Summary

There is large heterogeneity in invitation schemes and participation rates in colorectal cancer screening programs offering fecal occult blood tests (nowadays mostly fecal immunochemical tests). It is unclear what the most effective invitation strategies are for fecal occult blood tests. In this systematic review, advance notification, mailed fecal occult blood test, and reminders had major, consistent, and complementary potential to increase participation in fecal occult blood test-based colorectal cancer screening. Our findings show that the effectiveness of invitations for fecal occult blood test-based colorectal cancer screening can be substantially increased across several settings by the implementation of comprehensive invitation strategies.

Abstract

Personal invitations for fecal occult blood tests (nowadays mostly fecal immunochemical tests) are increasingly used to raise their usage for colorectal cancer screening. However, there is a large heterogeneity in applied invitation schemes. We aimed to review evidence for the effectiveness of various invitation schemes. The main outcome was the fecal occult blood test usage rate. A systematic search was performed in Medline and Web of Science (up to 9 July 2020). Randomized controlled trials or cluster-randomized controlled trials were eligible, which reported on general invitations for fecal occult blood test-based colorectal cancer screening sent to the general population at average colorectal cancer risk. (PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020169409). Overall, 34 studies were included. Invitations with an attached, i.e., mailed fecal occult blood test consistently increased test usage by 4–19.7% points, compared to other methods of test provision. Likewise, the introduction of advance notification consistently led to a higher usage rate, with an increase of 3.3–10.8% points. Reminders showed positive but varying effects by method. With an increase of 8.5–15.8% points, letter or email reminders were more effective than reminders by phone call or text message (0.6–6.5% points). Inconsistent results were found for financial incentives ((−8.4)–20% points) and for added or changed invitation material ((−3.5)–11.8% points). With 3.5–24.7% points, the strongest increases in use were achieved by multifaceted invitation, implementing multiple components. Any invitation scheme was superior over no invitation. Advance notification, mailing of fecal occult blood test, and reminders were consistently shown to have major, complementary potential to increase participation in fecal occult blood test-based colorectal cancer screening settings.

Iron deficiency: a modern primer to diagnosis and management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Iron deficiency with anemia (IDA) and without anemia remain a diagnostic and management challenge. Iron deficiency has a broad spectrum of causes, including gastrointestinal malignancy. The purpose of this review is to summarize the value and limitations of current methods to diagnose iron deficiency and underline the relevance of contemporaneous evidence to guide the pretest probability of gastrointestinal disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

A number of biomarkers for iron deficiency exist, and all have their caveats. Serum ferritin remains the most pragmatic means of diagnosing iron deficiency. Hepcidin holds future promise as a marker of iron status during inflammatory states. Men and postmenopausal women with IDA have the highest overall prevalence of gastrointestinal malignancy (∼11%), while premenopausal women with IDA (<1.5%) and those with iron deficiency without anemia (<0.5%) have a very low risk. Noninvasive investigation with fecal immunochemical test and fecal calprotectin hold promise to guide further investigations in lower risk groups.

SUMMARY

Confirmation of iron deficiency remains a challenge. Appropriate risk stratification is the key to guiding judicious gastrointestinal investigation. Use of noninvasive tests may play an important role in lower risk groups. Risk prediction tools applicable to relevant populations are required.

Implementation Strategies for Interventions Aiming to Increase Participation in Mail-Out Bowel Cancer Screening Programs: A Realist Review

Background: Bowel cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and the third most common cause of cancer-related death, with 1,849,518 new cases of bowel diagnosed and 880,792 deaths reported globally in 2018 alone. Survival can be improved through early detection via national mail-out bowel cancer screening programs; however, participation remains low in many countries. Behavior change is therefore required to increase participation. This realist review aims to (a) identify the behavior change techniques (BCTs) used in each intervention, (b) understand the mechanisms of action (MoAs) responsible for the BCT effectiveness, and (c) apply a behavior change model to inform how MoAs can be combined to increase screening participation.

Methods: We systematically reviewed the literature for interventions aiming to increase participation in mail-out bowel cancer screening. We used a four-stage realist synthesis approach whereby (1) interventions were extracted from each study; (2) BCTs applied in each intervention were identified and coded using the BCT Taxonomy-v1; (3) the Theory and Techniques Tool was used to link BCTs to their MoA; and (4) BCTs and MoAs were categorized according to their effectiveness and what Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) stage of change they would affect.

Results: We identified 68 intervention trials using 26 unique BCTs and 13 MoAs to increase participation. Sixteen BCTs and 10 MoAs were identified within the interventions that successfully increased participation rates. Interventions targeting both stages of the HAPA model had a higher success rate (80%) than those targeting one stage of change (51%). When targeting only one stage, interventions targeting the volitional stage had a higher success rate (71%) than interventions targeting only the motivational stage of change (26%).

Conclusion: Importantly, this review identified a suite of BCTs and MoAs effective for increasing participation in mail-out bowel cancer screening programs. With increased participation in bowel cancer screening leading to improved survival, our findings are key to informing the improvement of policy and interventions that aim to increase screening using specific strategies at key stages of health decision-making.

The value of microRNAs as the novel biomarkers for colorectal cancer diagnosis: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies have reported that microRNAs (miRNAs) hold great potential as the biomarkers for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, inconsistent results have made it challenging to evaluate their diagnostic performance. Thus, the aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically assess the pooled efficacy of miRNAs for CRC diagnosis.

METHODS

A search for eligible studies up to October 30, 2019 was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science and EMBASE databases. A random-effects model was used to evaluate the pooled sensitivity and specificity. The summary receiver operator characteristic (SROC) curve and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated to assess the overall diagnostic efficacy.

RESULTS

A total of 3258 CRC patients and 2683 healthy controls were identified in 35 included studies. The overall diagnostic accuracy was as follows: sensitivity, 0.80 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.75-0.83]; specificity, 0.80 (95 % CI, 0.75-0.84); positive likelihood ratio (PLR), 4.0 (95 % CI, 3.2-5.0); negative likelihood ratio (NLR), 0.26 (95 % CI, 0.21-0.31); diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), 16 (95 % CI, 11-23); and AUC, 0.87 (95 % CI, 0.83-0.89).

CONCLUSION

The results indicated that miRNAs, particularly serum-derived miRNAs, can serve as the powerful and promising biomarkers for early CRC screening.

Mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach for colorectal cancer screening: Summary of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored Summit

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening remains suboptimal. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) offers promise for increasing screening rates, but optimal strategies for implementation have not been well synthesized. In June 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a meeting of subject matter experts and stakeholders to answer key questions regarding mailed FIT implementation in the United States. Points of agreement included: 1) primers, such as texts, telephone calls, and printed mailings before mailed FIT, appear to contribute to effectiveness; 2) invitation letters should be brief and easy to read, and the signatory should be tailored based on setting; 3) instructions for FIT completion should be simple and address challenges that may lead to failed laboratory processing, such as notation of collection date; 4) reminders delivered to initial noncompleters should be used to increase the FIT return rate; 5) data infrastructure should identify eligible patients and track each step in the outreach process, from primer delivery through abnormal FIT follow-up; 6) protocols and procedures such as navigation should be in place to promote colonoscopy after abnormal FIT; 7) a high-quality, 1-sample FIT should be used; 8) sustainability requires a program champion and organizational support for the work, including sufficient funding and external policies (such as quality reporting requirements) to drive commitment to program investment; and 9) the cost effectiveness of mailed FIT has been established. Participants concluded that mailed FIT is an effective and efficient strategy with great potential for increasing colorectal cancer screening in diverse health care settings if more widely implemented.

What Is Organized Screening and What Is Its Value?

Most screening in the United States occurs in an opportunistic fashion, although organized screening occurs in some integrated health care systems. Organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening consists of an explicit screening policy, defined target population, implementation team, health care team for clinical care delivery, quality assurance infrastructure, and method for identifying cancer outcomes. Implementation of an organized screening program offers opportunities to systematically assess the success of the program and develop interventions to address identified gaps in an effort to optimize CRC outcomes. There is evidence of that organized screening is associated with improvements in screening participation and CRC mortality.

A Quarter of Participants With Advanced Neoplasia Have Discordant Results From 2-Sample Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Some colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs use 2-sample fecal immunochemical tests (FITs). We aimed to assess advanced neoplasia (AN) yield of 2 different FIT assays performed on the same bowel movement and have discordant results.

METHODS

We conducted a large prospective comparative accuracy study within the Dutch national CRC screening program to evaluate 2 quantitative FIT assays (FOB-Gold, Sentinel, Italy and OC-Sensor, Eiken, Japan) with comparable performance characteristics. We asked 42,179 screening-naïve individuals, 55-75 years old, to perform both tests on the same bowel movement, from May 2016 through March 2017. Participants with ≥1 positive test result (≥15 μg hemoglobin/gram feces) were invited for colonoscopy examination. Detection of AN by colonoscopy was the reference standard.

RESULTS

A total of 21,078 participants (50% participation rate) were included. FIT results were both negative for 19,032 participants (90%), both positive for 1163 participants (5.5%), and discordant for 883 participants (4.2%). AN was detected in 500 participants with 2 positive FIT results (43%) compared to 187 with discordant FIT results (21%) (p < .001). Of the 687 participants found to have AN by colonoscopy, 187 had only 1 positive FIT result (27%).

CONCLUSION

In a large 2-sample FIT-based CRC screening study, more than a quarter of participants in whom AN was detected by colonoscopy in the first screening round had discordant FIT results. AN was detected in one-fifth of those with FIT discordance. Participants with discordant results from 2 FITs should undergo colonoscopy. (www.trialregister.nl; no. NTR5874).

Fecal Immunochemical Test: The World's Colorectal Cancer Screening Test

The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a tool used for colorectal cancer screening and its use is growing rapidly. FIT, applied as a qualitative or quantitative test, has far better sensitivity for hemoglobin than older, guaiac fecal occult blood tests. This translates into several advantages of FIT, including ability to screen using only 1 stool sample per cycle. This article reviews current understanding of FIT performance as a 1-time test and when applied programmatically. It outlines how to apply the test at the patient level and track performance at the program level. Future prospects for FIT application are highlighted.