Systematic review with meta-analysis of over 90 000 patients. Does fast-track review diagnose colorectal cancer earlier?

Real-world data evaluating Guy's rapid diagnostic clinic as an alternate pathway for patients with FIT levels below 10

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the effectiveness of rapid diagnostic clinics (RDCs) as an alternative pathway for patients with concerning symptoms and a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) result <10. Our primary endpoint was rate of colorectal cancer (CRC) detection. Second endpoints were rates of other cancers and gastrointestinal (GI) serious benign conditions. Finally, we analysed the specific pathway followed by FIT <10 patients with cancer at Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) RDC.

DESIGN

A retrospective and prospective cohort study.

SETTING

GSTT RDC, one of England's largest single-centre RDCs. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of FIT <10 patients were analysed descriptively.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with an FIT result <10, seen at GSTT RDC between 1 January 2020 and 5 May 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 1299 patients with an FIT<10 were seen at GSTT RDC between January 2020 and May 2023. Of these, 66% (n=861) reported weight loss, 62% (n=805) pain, 37% (n=481) fatigue, 34% (n=444) were anaemic and 23% (n=301) had nausea and vomiting. Among these patients, 7% (n=88) received a cancer diagnosis, 36% (n=462) were identified as having a serious benign condition. Within the patients with cancer, 9% (n=8) were diagnosed with CRC. Among patients with serious benign conditions, 7% (n=31) were referred to colorectal, hepatopancreatobiliary, or upper GI specialists.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the effectiveness of RDCs as an alternate pathway for FIT <10 patients with ongoing clinical concerns. These results contribute to enhancing patient care and optimising resource allocation within the healthcare system.

Rationale for organized Colorectal cancer screening programs

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health problem and it is expected that the number of persons diagnosed with CRC and CRC-related deaths will continue to increase. However, recent years have shown reductions in CRC incidence and mortality particularly among individuals aged 50 years and older which can be attributed to screening, improvements in patients' management, closer adherence to treatment guideline recommendations and a higher utilization of curative surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has concluded that there has been sufficient evidence that biennially screening using a stool-test or once-only endoscopy screening reduces CRC-related mortality. In Europe, between 2008 and 2018, nine countries have successfully implemented a population-based organized program and another six are in the roll-out phase. Population-based organized programs show higher screening participation rates and lower lack of compliance to follow-up testing after a positive screen test compared to opportunistic screening. Moreover, organized programs aim to provide high quality screening thereby reducing the risk of the harms of screening, including over-screening, and complications of screening, and poor follow-up of those who test positive. We describe how population-based organized CRC screening programs are preferred, since they reflect a more appropriate utilization of available resources, reduce inequities in access, and can integrate interventions addressing barriers to screening at the individual and health system levels.

Colorectal Cancer Fast Tracks: Cancer Yield and the Predictive Value of Entry Criteria

BACKGROUND

Fast-track pathways for diagnosing colorectal cancer (CRC) have been implemented in several European countries. In Sweden, a substantial number of CRC are diagnosed via the Swedish Standardized Course of Care for colorectal cancer (SCC-CRC). We evaluated the SCC-CRC in terms of CRC yield, and predictive values and odds ratios (OR) for the entry criteria.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all 2539 patients referred for SCC-CRC colonoscopy between September 2016 and December 2020. Entry criteria and colonoscopy outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

CRC yield was 16.4%. Highest positive predictive values (PPVs) were seen for abnormal radiology (PPV 30.5%, OR 4.7 (95% CI 3.4-6.4) p < 0.001), abnormal rectal examination (PPV 28%, OR 3.6 (95% CI 2.7-4.8) p < 0.001), and anemia (PPV 24.8%, OR 2.2 (95% CI 1.5-3.1) p < 0.001). Some entry criteria showed no significant risk increase, i.e., visible blood in stool/rectal bleeding, change in bowel habits, and the combination of changed bowel habits plus anemia. A positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), although not part of the SCC-CRC, showed the highest OR: 9.9 (95% CI 4.5-21.7) p < 0.001) and PPV of 18.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

CRC yield from the SCC-CRC is slightly higher compared to other European fast tracks. A number of entry criteria showed no benefit towards assessing CRC risk. FIT testing should be included in CRC fast tracks to increase diagnostic efficacy.

A novel blood based triage test for colorectal cancer in primary care: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

The majority of colorectal cancers (CRCs) are detected after symptomatic presentation to primary care. Given the shared symptoms of CRC and benign disorders, it is challenging to manage the risk of missed diagnosis. Colonoscopy resources cannot keep pace with increasing demand. There is a pressing need for access to simple triage tools in primary care to help prioritise patients for referral.

AIM

To evaluate the performance of a novel spectroscopy-based CRC blood test in primary care.

DESIGN & SETTING

Mixed-methods pilot study of test performance and GP focus group discussions in South Wales.

METHOD

Patients on the urgent suspected cancer (USC) pathway were recruited for the Raman spectroscopy (RS) test coupled to machine learning classification ('Raman-CRC') to identify CRC within the referred population. Qualitative focus group work evaluated the acceptability of the test in primary care by thematic analysis of focus group theorising.

RESULTS

A total of 532 patients aged ≥50 years referred on the USC pathway were recruited from 27 GP practices. Twenty-nine patients (5.0%) were diagnosed with CRC. Raman-CRC identified CRC with sensitivity 95.7%, specificity 69.3% with area under curve (AUC) of 0.80 compared with colonoscopy as the reference test (248 patients). Stage I and II cancers were detected with 78.6% sensitivity. Focus group themes underlined the convenience of a blood test for the patient and the test's value as a risk assessment tool in primary care.

CONCLUSION

The findings support this novel, non-invasive, blood-based method to prioritise those patients most likely to have CRC. Raman-CRC may accelerate access to diagnosis with potential to improve cancer outcomes.

A Point-of-Care Faecal Test Combining Four Biomarkers Allows Avoidance of Normal Colonoscopies and Prioritizes Symptomatic Patients with a High Risk of Colorectal Cancer

Most colonoscopies performed to evaluate gastrointestinal symptoms detect only non-relevant pathologies. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a qualitative point-of-care (POC) test combining four biomarkers (haemoglobin, transferrin, calprotectin, and lactoferrin), a quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for haemoglobin, and a quantitative faecal calprotectin (FC) test in symptomatic patients prospectively recruited. Colorectal cancer (CRC), adenoma requiring surveillance, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), microscopic colitis, and angiodysplasia were considered significant pathologies. A total of 571 patients were included. Significant pathology was diagnosed in 118 (20.7%), including 30 CRC cases (5.3%). The POC test yielded the highest negative predictive values: 94.8% for a significant pathology and 100% for CRC or IBD if the four markers turned negative (36.8% of the patients). Negative predictive values of FIT, FC, and its combination for diagnosis of a significant pathology were 88.4%, 87.6%, and 90.8%, respectively. Moreover, the positive predictive value using the POC test was 82.3% for significant pathology when all biomarkers tested positive (6% of the patients), with 70.6% of these patients diagnosed with CRC or IBD. The AUC of the POC test was 0.801 (95%CI 0.754-0.848) for the diagnosis of a significant pathology. Therefore, this POC faecal test allows the avoidance of unnecessary colonoscopies and prioritizes high risk symptomatic patients.

Time to diagnosis and treatment in younger adults with colorectal cancer: A systematic review

Background

The incidence of colorectal cancer is rising in adults <50 years of age. As a primarily unscreened population, they may have clinically important delays to diagnosis and treatment. This study aimed to review the literature on delay intervals in patients <50 years with colorectal cancer (CRC), and explore associations between longer intervals and outcomes.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS were searched until December 2, 2021. We included studies published after 1990 reporting any delay interval in adults <50 with CRC. Interval measures and associations with stage at presentation or survival were synthesized and described in a narrative fashion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, Institute of Health Economics Case Series Quality Appraisal Checklist, and the Aarhus Checklist for cancer delay studies.

Results

55 studies representing 188,530 younger CRC patients were included. Most studies used primary data collection (64%), and 47% reported a single center. Sixteen unique intervals were measured. The most common interval was symptom onset to diagnosis (21 studies; N = 2,107). By sample size, diagnosis to treatment start was the most reported interval (12 studies; N = 170,463). Four studies examined symptoms onset to treatment start (total interval). The shortest was a mean of 99.5 days and the longest was a median of 217 days. There was substantial heterogeneity in the measurement of intervals, and quality of reporting. Higher-quality studies were more likely to use cancer registries, and be population-based. In four studies reporting the relationship between intervals and cancer stage or survival, there were no clear associations between longer intervals and adverse outcomes.

Discussion

Adults <50 with CRC may have intervals between symptom onset to treatment start greater than 6 months. Studies reporting intervals among younger patients are limited by inconsistent results and heterogeneous reporting. There is insufficient evidence to determine if longer intervals are associated with advanced stage or worse survival.

Other

This study’s protocol was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42020179707).

Predictors of Colorectal Cancer Screening among Average and High-Risk Saudis Population

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening intention is one of the most important elements influencing the longstanding effectiveness of community-based CRC screening programs. The primary purpose of this study is to generate and validate a predictive screening model that investigates the influence of Saudis’ demographics, CRC knowledge, and beliefs on intention to undergo CRC screening via fecal occult blood test (FOBT). Convenience sampling was used to recruit 600 average and high-risk participants from multiple primary health care centers in three major Saudi provinces. A valid and reliable self-administered online survey was used to collect data from March 2021 to October 2021. The final modified screening prediction model explained 57.35% of the variance in screening intention. Intention to screen was significantly influenced by seven factors in which the perceived barriers factor (β = −0.55, p < 0.001) was the strongest predictor. Those who had lower perceived barriers and greater levels of knowledge (β = 0.36, p < 0.001), health motivation (β = 0.35, p < 0.001), perceived benefits of screening (β = 0.35, p < 0.001), severity (β = 0.29, p < 0.001), and susceptibility (β = 0.28, p < 0.001) were more likely to become involved in screening practices. Health care practitioners and various media forms could benefit from the prediction model playing a significant role in raising awareness, reducing perceived barriers, and enhancing Saudi screening rates.

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.

Colorectal cancer outcomes determined by mode of presentation: analysis of population data in England between 2010 and 2014

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to investigate associations between mode of presentation; categorized as emergency, suspected cancer outpatient referral pathway (2-week wait or 2WW pathway), non-cancer suspected outpatient referral (non-2-week wait pathway) or following screening, and stage of diagnosis and survival in patients with colorectal cancer in England.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort observational study of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer between January 2010 and December 2014 in England using data from Public Health England collated from regional cancer registries.

RESULTS

The most common route to diagnosis among 167,501 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer was via the non-cancer suspect (non-2WW) outpatient referral pathway (35.1%) followed by the suspected cancer (2WW) referral pathway (31.6%), emergency presentation (22.8%) and most infrequently following screening (10.6%) (p < 0.01). Screening confers the greatest likelihood of early-stage diagnosis (61.6%) compared to other modes of presentation. The 5-year overall survival was 81.8%, 53.3%, 53.0% and 27.6% in those diagnosed via screening, 2WW, non-2WW pathway and emergency presentation, respectively. Patients from most deprived regions were more likely to be diagnosed following emergency presentation (27.7 vs 19.7%, p < 0.01) and less likely via screening (8.1 vs 12%, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Asymptomatic individuals diagnosed following screening have earlier stage cancers and better survival, the opposite was observed in those diagnosed following emergency presentation. Patients referred via the 2WW pathway do not have better survival outcomes when compared to those referred via the non-2WW pathway. In addition, this study has identified socio-economic groups that need to be targeted with public health campaigns to improve screening uptake.

Faecal immunochemical test for patients with 'high-risk' bowel symptoms: a large prospective cohort study and updated literature review

Background

We evaluated whether faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) can rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) among patients presenting with ‘high-risk’ symptoms requiring definitive investigation.

Methods

Three thousand five hundred and ninety-six symptomatic patients referred to the standard urgent CRC pathway were recruited in a multi-centre observational study. They completed FIT in addition to standard investigations. CRC miss rate (percentage of CRC cases with low quantitative faecal haemoglobin [f-Hb] measurement) and specificity (percentage of patients without cancer with low f-Hb) were calculated. We also provided an updated literature review.

Results

Ninety patients had CRC. At f-Hb < 10 µg/g, the miss rate was 16.7% (specificity 80.1%). At f-Hb < 4 µg/g, the miss rate was 12.2% (specificity 73%), which became 3.3% if low FIT plus the absence of anaemia and abdominal pain were considered (specificity 51%). Within meta-analyses of 9 UK studies, the pooled miss rate was 7.2% (specificity 74%) for f-Hb < 4 µg/g.

Discussion

FIT alone as a triage tool would miss an estimated 1 in 8 cases in our study (1 in 14 from meta-analysis), while many people without CRC could avoid investigations. FIT can focus secondary care diagnostic capacity on patients most at risk of CRC, but more work on safety netting is required before incorporating FIT triage into the urgent diagnostic pathway.

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.

The effectiveness of the colorectal cancer referral pathway - identification of colorectal cancer in a Swedish region

INTRODUCTION

To shorten the time for diagnosis of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC), a standardized colorectal cancer referral pathway (CCRP) was introduced in Sweden in September 2016. However, the effects of the CCRP are still uncertain, and CRC is also found in patients undergoing a routine colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To identify all CRC-cases in the Region Örebro County and to investigate via which diagnostic pathway they were diagnosed. Furthermore, to investigate the reasons for and possible effect of not being included in the CCRP for cases found via colonoscopy.

METHODS

Review of medical records of patients with CRC referred to the department of surgery in the Region Örebro County in 2016-2018 (n = 459).

RESULTS

In CRC-cases found through colonoscopy (n = 347), 37.5% were diagnosed via a routine waiting list and 62.5% within the CCRP. No difference in tumor stage or tumor grade was found between the two groups. The non-CCRP showed a longer time to diagnosis than the CCRP group (21.5 days, IQR 7-43 vs. 13 days, IQR 8-17 (p < .001), respectively). Non-rectal cancer was more common in the non-CCRP group (81.5% vs. 57.6%, p < .001). The non-CCRP group had lower median Hb-value (106, IQR 87-129 vs. 117, IQR 101-136, p = .001). 85% of the non-CCRP group was found to meet one or more CCRP referral criteria, with bleeding anemia being the dominant criterion to meet.

CONCLUSION

The CCRP did not appear to improve prognostic outcomes for CRC-patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04585516.

Recognising Colorectal Cancer in Primary Care

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide. Primary care professionals can play an important role in both prevention and early detection of CRC. Most CRCs are attributed to modifiable lifestyle factors, which can be addressed within primary care, and promotion of population-based screening programmes can aid early cancer detection in asymptomatic patients. Primary care professionals have a vital role in clinically assessing patients presenting with symptoms that may indicate cancer, as most patients with CRC first present with symptoms. These assessments are often challenging—many of the symptoms of CRC are non-specific and commonly occur in patients presenting with non-malignant disease. The range of options for investigating symptomatic patients in primary care is rapidly growing. Simple tests, such as faecal immunochemical testing (FIT), are now being used to guide decisions around referral for more invasive tests, such as colonoscopy, while direct access to specialist investigations is also becoming more common. Clinical decision support tools (CDSTs) which calculate cancer risk based on symptomatology, patient characteristics and test results can provide an additional resource to guide decisions on further investigation. This article explores the challenges of CRC prevention and detection from the primary care perspective, discusses current evidence-based approaches for CRC detection used in primary care (with examples from UK guidelines), and highlights emerging research which may likely alter practice in the future.

[Enhanced recovery after surgery-Does the ERAS concept keep its promises]

INTRODUCTION

Perioperative enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) concepts or fast-track are supposed to accelerate recovery after surgery, reduce postoperative complications and shorten the hospital stay when compared to traditional perioperative treatment.

METHODS

Electronic search of the PubMed database to identify systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SR) comparing ERAS and traditional treatment.

RESULTS

The presented SR investigated 70 randomized controlled studies (RCT) with 12,986 patients and 93 non-RCT (24,335 patients) concerning abdominal, thoracic and vascular as well as orthopedic surgery. The complication rates were decreased under ERAS following colorectal esophageal, liver and pulmonary resections as well as after implantation of hip endoprostheses. Pulmonary complications were reduced after ERAS esophageal, gastric and pulmonary resections. The first bowel movements occurred earlier after ERAS colorectal resections and delayed gastric emptying was less often observed after ERAS pancreatic resection. Following ERAS fast-track esophageal resection, anastomotic leakage was diagnosed less often as well as surgical complications after ERAS pulmonary resection. The ERAS in all studies concerning orthopedic surgery and trials investigating implantation of a hip endoprosthesis or knee endoprosthesis reduced the risk for postoperative blood transfusions. Regardless of the type of surgery, ERAS shortened hospital stay without increasing readmissions.

CONCLUSION

Numerous clinical trials have confirmed that ERAS reduces postoperative morbidity, shortens hospital stay and accelerates recovery without increasing readmission rates following most surgical operations.

Removing hospital-based triage from suspected colorectal cancer pathways: the impact and learning from a primary care-led electronic straight-to-test pathway

BACKGROUND

The 2-week wait referral pathway for suspected colorectal cancer was introduced in England to improve time from referral from a general practitioner (GP) to diagnosis and treatment. Patients are required to be seen by a hospital clinician within 2 weeks if their symptoms meet the criteria set by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and to start cancer treatment within 62 days. To achieve this, many hospitals have introduced a straight-to-test (STT) strategy requiring hospital-based triage of referrals. We describe the impact and learning from a new pathway which has removed triage and moved the process of requesting tests from hospital to GPs in primary care.

METHOD

An electronic STT pathway was introduced allowing GPs to book tests supported by a decision aid based on NICE guidance eliminating the need for a standard referral form or triage process. The hospital identified referrals as being on a cancer pathway and dealt with all ongoing management. Routinely collected cancer data were used to identify time to cancer diagnosis compared with national data RESULTS: 11357 patients were referred via the new pathway over 3 years. Time from referral to diagnosis reduced from 39 to 21 days and led to a dramatic improvement in patients starting treatment within 62 days. Challenges included adapting to a change in referral criteria and developing a robust hospital system to monitor the pathway.

CONCLUSION

We have changed the way patients with suspected colorectal cancer are managed within the National Health Service by giving GPs the ability to order tests electronically within a monitored cancer pathway halving time from referral to diagnosis.

Rapid cancer diagnosis for patients with vague symptoms: a cost-effectiveness study

BACKGROUND

A pilot rapid diagnosis centre (RDC) allows GPs within targeted clusters to refer adults with vague and/or non-specific symptoms suspicious of cancer, who do not meet criteria for referral under an urgent suspected cancer (USC) pathway, to a multidisciplinary RDC clinic where they are seen within 1 week.

AIM

To explore the cost-effectiveness of the RDC compared with standard clinical practice.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cost-effectiveness modelling using routine data from Neath Port Talbot Hospital, Wales.

METHOD

Discrete-event simulation modelled a cohort of 1000 patients from referral to radiological diagnosis based on routine RDC and hospital data. Control patients were those referred to a USC pathway but then downgraded. Published sources provided estimates of patient quality of life (QoL) and pre-diagnosis anxiety. The model calculates time to diagnosis, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and estimates the probability of the RDC being a cost-effective strategy.

RESULTS

The RDC reduces mean time to diagnosis from 84.2 days in usual care to 5.9 days if a diagnosis is made at clinic, or 40.8 days if further investigations are booked during RDC. RDC provision is the superior strategy (that is, less costly and more effective) compared with standard clinical practice when run near or at full capacity. However, it is not cost-effective if capacity utilisation drops below 80%.

CONCLUSION

An RDC for patients presenting with vague or non-specific symptoms suspicious of cancer in primary care reduces time to diagnosis and provides excellent value for money if run at ≥80% capacity.

The diagnostic value of a change in bowel habit for colorectal cancer within different age groups

BACKGROUND

Change in bowel habit as a sole alarm symptom for colorectal cancer is disputed.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the diagnostic value of change in bowel habit for colorectal cancer, particularly as a single symptom and within different age groups.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study examined colorectal cancer fast track referrals and outcomes across four Swedish hospitals (April 2016-May 2017). Entry criteria constituted one or more of three alarm features: anaemia, visible rectal bleeding, or change in bowel habit for more than 4 weeks in patients over 40 years of age. Patients were grouped as having only change in bowel habit, change in bowel habit plus anaemia/bleeding or anaemia/bleeding only.

RESULTS

Of 628 patients, 22% were diagnosed with colorectal cancer. There were no cases of colorectal cancer in the only change in bowel habit group under 55 years, while this was 6% for 55-64 years, 8% for 65-74 years and 14% for 75 years and older. Among subjects under 55 years, 2% with anaemia/bleeding had colorectal cancer, this increased to 34% for 55 years and older (P < 0.0001). Change in bowel habit plus anaemia/bleeding gave a colorectal cancer prevalence of 16% in under 55 years and increased to 30% for 55 years and older (P = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

Change in bowel habit as the only alarm feature has a low diagnostic yield for colorectal cancer in patients under 55 years.