The Impact of Transitioning From Guaiac-Fecal Occult Blood Testing to Fecal Immunochemical Testing in a Canadian Colon Cancer Screening Program

Enhancing CRC Screening in a Predominantly Hispanic Community: Effectiveness of 1-Day vs. 3-Day Stool-Based Testing Kits

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality among U.S. Hispanics, with screening proven to decrease both incidence and mortality. Despite rising CRC screening rates in the U.S., Hispanic participation remains disproportionately low. Stool-based tests, particularly popular for reaching underserved populations, may enhance screening adherence. This study evaluates the performance of a 1-day versus a 3-day stool-based testing kit in improving screening completion rates and reducing the need for reminder calls in a Hispanic community along the U.S.-Mexico border. In our quasi-experimental observational study, participants aged 45-75 years who were uninsured or underinsured and overdue for CRC screening were recruited. They received colorectal cancer education and no-cost stool-based screening facilitated by promotoras. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a 1-day or 3-day Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) kit. The promotoras swapped FIT kit distribution roles midway through the study period to mitigate performance bias. Our analysis covered 6,660 FITs-3,067 using the 3-day kit and 3,593 with the 1-day kit. Results indicated a higher return rate for the 1-day FIT kit (61.3% vs. 58.7%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.22, p < 0.001), fewer reminders needed (69.7% vs. 78.1%, aOR = 0.65, p < 0.001), and lower abnormal FIT results (5.3% vs. 8.1%, aOR = 0.61, p < 0.001). Conclusively, the 1-day FIT kit required fewer reminders and significantly improved return rates, suggesting it may be a more effective option for increasing CRC screening completion among hard-to-reach Hispanic populations.

Effect of fecal immunochemical test cut-off levels on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is higher after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) compared to direct screening colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis evaluated how ADR, the rates of advanced adenoma detection (AADR), colorectal cancer detection (CDR), and sessile serrated lesion detection (SSLDR) are affected by different FIT positivity thresholds.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and EBM Reviews databases for studies reporting ADR, AADR, CDR, and SSLDR according to different FIT cut-off values in asymptomatic average-risk individuals aged 50-74 years old. Data were stratified according to sex, age, time to colonoscopy, publication year, continent, and FIT kit type. Study quality, heterogeneity, and publication bias were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 4280 articles were retrieved and fifty-eight studies were included (277,661 FIT-positive colonoscopies; mean cecal intubation 96.3%; mean age 60.8 years; male 52.1%). Mean ADR was 56.1% (95% CI 53.4 - 58.7%), while mean AADR, CDR, and SSLDR were 27.2% (95% CI 24.4 - 30.1%), 5.3% (95% CI 4.7 - 6.0%), and 3.0% (95% CI 1.7 - 4.6%), respectively. For each 20 μg Hb/g increase in FIT cut-off level, ADR increased by 1.54% (95% CI 0.52 - 2.56%, p < 0.01), AADR by 3.90% (95% CI 2.76 - 5.05%, p < 0.01) and CDR by 1.46% (95% CI 0.66 - 2.24%, p < 0.01). Many detection rates were greater amongst males and Europeans.

CONCLUSIONS

ADRs in FIT-positive colonoscopies are influenced by the adopted FIT positivity threshold, and identified targets, importantly, proved to be higher than most current societal recommendations.

Impact of changing from a guaiac faecal occult blood test to a faecal immunochemical test in a national screening programme: Results from a pilot study within the national bowel cancer screening programme in England

OBJECTIVE

Testing for occult blood in faeces is widely used in bowel cancer screening around the world. In many programmes, the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is replacing the traditional guiaic faecal occult blood test (gFOBT). There have been a number of reports on the clinical impact of making this change; yet, no-one has considered the pre-analytical and analytical impact of moving from a gFOBT to a FIT bowel cancer screening programme.

METHODS

We interrogated data obtained in a FIT pilot carried out in England in 2014 to assess the timeliness of specimen collection device return time and analysis for gFOBT and FIT, the impact of time to analysis on faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) concentration, and any differences observed between analyses carried out at two different testing laboratories.

RESULTS

FIT kits were returned on average 5.6 days sooner than gFOBT. The time to analysis for FIT leads to an overall rise in f-Hb concentration within the manufacturer's stated 14-day stability period.

CONCLUSION

Both these factors are important considerations for laboratories when considering setting up a bowel cancer screening programme, especially if transitioning from gFOBT to FIT. Our data also support previous evidence of males having a higher f-Hb than females and demonstrate that after adjusting for sex, age and screening hub, neither index of multiple deprivation nor screening episode significantly affected f-Hb.

PPV and Detection Rate of mt-sDNA Testing, FIT, and CT Colonography for Advanced Neoplasia: A Hierarchic Bayesian Meta-Analysis of the Noninvasive Colorectal Screening Tests

BACKGROUND. Noninvasive tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and prevention limit the need for invasive colonoscopy to follow up positive test results. However, the relative performance characteristics of available noninvasive tests have not yet been adequately compared. OBJECTIVE. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performance of the available noninvasive CRC screening tests, including multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) testing, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and CT colonography (CTC), with an emphasis on comparison of PPV and detection rate (DR) for advanced neoplasia (AN; encompassing cases of advanced adenomas and CRC). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION. After systematic searches of MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases, 10 mt-sDNA, 27 CTC, and 88 FIT published screening studies involving 25,132, 33,493, and 2,355,958 asymptomatic adults, respectively, were included. Meta-analysis with hierarchic Bayesian modeling was conducted in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA guidelines to determine test positivity rates (TPRs) leading to optical colonoscopy, as well as PPVs and DRs for both AN and CRC. Different positivity thresholds were considered for FIT and CTC. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS. Point estimates (with 95% credible intervals) from pooled Bayesian meta-analysis combining all thresholds for FIT and stratifying CTC results by a polyp size threshold of 6 mm or larger (CTC6) and 10 mm or larger (CTC10) were calculated. TPR was 13.5% (10.9-16.6%) for mt-sDNA testing, 6.4% (5.8-7.2%) for FIT, 13.4% (11.4-15.6%) for CTC6, and 6.6% (5.2-7.7%) for CTC10. AN PPV was 26.9% (95% credible interval, 21.8-33.2%) for mt-sDNA testing, 31.8% (29.3-34.5%) for FIT, 34.4% (27.2-41.0%) for CTC6, and 61.0% (54.0-70.0%) for CTC10. CRC PPV was 2.4% (1.5-3.9%) for mt-sDNA testing, 4.9% (4.3-5.3%) for FIT, 3.5% (2.5-4.8%) for CTC6, and 6.0% (4.3-8.0%) for CTC10. The DR for AN was 3.4% (95% credible interval, 2.5-4.8%) for mt-SDNA, 2.0% (1.8-2.3%) for FIT, 4.8% (4.0-6.5%) for CTC6, and 4.0% (3.0-4.6%) for CTC10. When FIT is restricted to a lower threshold (< 10 μg Hb/g feces), its performance profile is similar to that of mt-sDNA testing, although available data are limited. AN PPV odds ratios (relative to CTC10 as the reference) were 0.24 (95% credible interval, 0.17-0.33) for mt-sDNA testing, 0.30 (0.24-0.45) for FIT, and 0.33 (0.25-0.47) for CTC6. CONCLUSION. Among noninvasive CRC screening tests, CTC with a polyp size threshold of 10 mm or larger most effectively targets AN, preserving detection while also decreasing unnecessary colonoscopies compared with mt-sDNA testing and FIT. CLINICAL IMPACT. CTC performed with a polyp size threshold for colonoscopy referral set at 10 mm or larger represents the most effective and efficient noninvasive screening test for CRC prevention and detection.