The two-week rule colorectal cancer pathway: an update on recent practice, the unsustainable burden on diagnostics and the role of faecal immunochemical testing

The increasing burden of the 2-week wait colorectal cancer pathway in a single centre: the impact of faecal immunochemical tests

INTRODUCTION

Two-week wait (TWW) volume and colorectal cancer (CRC) detection pose an increasing challenge for NHS cancer services. Primary aims were to assess the introduction of faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) into clinical practice at our centre, the impact on TWW referral volume and CRC diagnoses, and to provide an update to previously published work. A secondary aim was to correlate FIT value and investigation.

METHODS

TWW CRC data following incorporation of FIT into clinical practice were analysed (1 June 2019-31 July 2021). Parameters assessed were monthly referral volume, CRC detection, primary care FIT volume and secondary care investigations. Referrals and CRC detection rates were compared with previously published data (2009-2019). Data relating to primary care FIT were collated from Berkshire and Surrey Pathology Services.

RESULTS

TWW referrals increased 360% (2009-2020). CRC incidence decreased from 8.87% to 3.24%. Following incorporation into clinical practice, primary care FIT requests have increased to >450/month and accompanied 1,722/4,796 referrals. CRC incidence is static (3-4%). Patients with FIT <10µg Hb/g faeces undergo radiological imaging more commonly, whereas FIT-positive patients are more likely to undergo endoscopy, although the difference is not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant change in CRC diagnosis was observed, despite increasing TWW referrals. Increasing utilisation of FIT in both primary and secondary care has helped maintain CRC detection while avoiding diagnostic delay. This study supports growing evidence highlighting the value of FIT in triage, referral and TWW investigation. FIT appears increasingly important for allocating secondary care resources (endoscopy), while guiding primary care referral. Additional low-cost strategies to determine prioritisation or reassurance (e.g. repeat FIT) require further evaluation.

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.

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.

Two-Week Wait Gastrointestinal (GI) Cancer Pathway: A Single Tertiary Centre Experience During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

This article investigated the impact of COVID-19 on the two-week wait referral pathway at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust. The conversion rate of these referrals was also explored as an indicator of the appropriateness of referrals from primary care.

METHODS

Two-week wait referrals to the Cancer Centre of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust from 2018 to 2020 were collected for upper gastrointestinal (UGI), lower gastrointestinal (LGI), and hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery. The confirmed cancer cases out of these referrals were also recorded. Additionally, the outcomes of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings for all patients discussed in June 2018, 2019, and 2020 were collected, and their staging and treatment data were examined.

RESULTS

The number of two-week referrals decreased in 2020 compared to the previous two years across the three specialities. This was more pronounced in April, with a reduction of over 50%. The conversion rate of these referrals increased in 2020 compared to 2018 and 2019 among all three specialities. The increase in conversion rate was statistically significant for LGI referrals (2018 vs 2020 p = 0.0056; 2019 vs 2020 p = 0.0005). There was no significant difference in the MDT outcome across the three specialities.

CONCLUSION

Two-week wait remains a cornerstone pathway in the management of patients with suspected cancer in the National Health Service. The COVID-19 pandemic appeared to have reduced inappropriate referrals, as evidenced by the increased conversion rate. This did not appear to negatively impact tumour staging and outcomes for those patients who were referred on the pathway.

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.

Role of the faecal immunochemical test in patients with risk-stratified suspected colorectal cancer symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis to inform the ACPGBI/BSG guidelines

Background

The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), recommended in 2017 the use of the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to guide investigations in patients presenting with NICE-defined low-risk symptoms suspicious for colorectal cancer (CRC). At that time, NICE did not recommend FIT use for high-risk symptoms. This is the first systematic review to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FIT in NICE-defined high and low-risk symptoms and was designed to inform the joint ACPGBI/BSG guidelines.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021224674. Medline and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to 31st March 2022. We included studies recruiting adult patients presenting with suspected CRC symptoms in whom FIT was performed and diagnostic accuracy data for CRC detection could be derived at a limit of detection (LoD) and/or 10 µg haemoglobin/gram faeces threshold in four commonly used analysers. FIT performance was assessed for high-risk, low-risk and individual symptoms where possible. Bivariate meta-analysis was performed where study numbers allowed.

Findings

Thirty-one studies (79566 patients) met inclusion criteria. At 10 µg/g, for "all symptoms" (n = 35,945) sensitivity and specificity were 91.0% (95% CI: 88.9, 92.7) and 75.2% (95% CI: 69.6, 80.1); for "high-risk" symptoms (n = 18,264), 88.7% (95% CI: 84.4, 92.0) and 78.5% (95% CI: 73.0, 83.2); and for "low-risk" symptoms (n = 2161), 88.7% (95% CI: 78.1, 95.3) and 88.5% (95% CI: 87.1, 89.9), respectively. At LoD, for "all symptoms" (n = 26,056) sensitivity and specificity were 94.7% (95% CI: 90.5, 97.1) and 66.5% (95% CI: 58.7, 73.6); for "high-risk" symptoms (n = 16,768), 92.8% (95% CI: 86.4, 96.3) and 70.3% (95% CI: 66.5, 73.8); and for "low-risk" symptoms (n = 2082), 94.7% (95% CI: 85.4, 98.9) and 71.9% (95% CI: 69.9, 73.9), respectively. Summary estimates were similar across different analysers.

Interpretation

FIT sensitivity for CRC detection is maximised at the LoD; its performance is similar in high and low-risk symptoms, and across different analysers where a common threshold is used. FIT performance for CRC detection is adequate and transferrable to clinical diagnostic pathways.

Funding

This review was part-funded by NHS England awarded to RM Partners. RB and RC were funded by research fellowships awarded by Croydon University Hospital.

Evaluation of a faecal calprotectin method using the OC-SENSOR PLEDIA

OBJECTIVES

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends faecal calprotectin (f-cal) to help differentiate inflammatory bowel diseases from irritable bowel syndrome. Faecal samples for calprotectin have historically been collected at home by patients into screw-top pots and sent to laboratories where calprotectin is extracted and analysed. Faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) samples are collected at home into specific collection devices containing stabilising buffer. We evaluated the OC-FCa method for f-cal, developed by Eiken Chemical Co., Ltd. (Japan) that uses the same collection device and analyser as f-Hb.

METHODS

OC-FCa was assessed for limit of blank (LOB), limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantification (LOQ), within and between-run imprecision, linearity, prozone, recovery and carryover. A method comparison against the BÜHLMANN fCAL^® turbo (BÜHLMANN Laboratories AG, Switzerland) was performed using patient samples and EQA.

RESULTS

The LOB was 3 µg calprotectin/g faeces (µg/g), LOD 8 μg/g and LOQ 20 μg/g. Within and between-run imprecision was <5%; linearity was good (R² > 0.99); prozone was appropriately detected; recovery was 99.6%; no observed carryover. OC-FCa showed a strong positive bias compared with BÜHLMANN fCAL^® turbo (Z=-5.3587, p < 0.001). When categorised using our local pathway, which interprets calprotectin concentrations and need for further investigation, Cohen's Kappa demonstrates substantial agreement at <50 μg/g (κ=0.80) and >150 μg/g (κ=0.63) and fair agreement (κ=0.22) in the borderline category 50-150 μg/g.

CONCLUSIONS

The OC-FCa method performed well in the evaluation. With the lack of standardisation for f-cal a clinical study is required to evaluate the positive bias and establish suitable cut-off levels.

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.

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.

Risk of missing colorectal cancer with a COVID-adapted diagnostic pathway using quantitative faecal immunochemical testing

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has brought an unprecedented challenge to healthcare services. The authors' COVID-adapted pathway for suspected bowel cancer combines two quantitative faecal immunochemical tests (qFITs) with a standard CT scan with oral preparation (CT mini-prep). The aim of this study was to estimate the degree of risk mitigation and residual risk of undiagnosed colorectal cancer.

METHOD

Decision-tree models were developed using a combination of data from the COVID-adapted pathway (April-May 2020), a local audit of qFIT for symptomatic patients performed since 2018, relevant data (prevalence of colorectal cancer and sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tools) obtained from literature and a local cancer data set, and expert opinion for any missing data. The considered diagnostic scenarios included: single qFIT; two qFITs; single qFIT and CT mini-prep; two qFITs and CT mini-prep (enriched pathway). These were compared to the standard diagnostic pathway (colonoscopy or CT virtual colonoscopy (CTVC)).

RESULTS

The COVID-adapted pathway included 422 patients, whereas the audit of qFIT included more than 5000 patients. The risk of missing a colorectal cancer, if present, was estimated as high as 20.2 per cent with use of a single qFIT as a triage test. Using both a second qFIT and a CT mini-prep as add-on tests reduced the risk of missed cancer to 6.49 per cent. The trade-off was an increased rate of colonoscopy or CTVC, from 287 for a single qFIT to 418 for the double qFIT and CT mini-prep combination, per 1000 patients.

CONCLUSION

Triage using qFIT alone could lead to a high rate of missed cancers. This may be reduced using CT mini-prep as an add-on test for triage to colonoscopy or CTVC.

Adoption of faecal immunochemical testing for 2-week-wait colorectal patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational cohort study reporting a new service at a regional centre

AIM

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the near-complete loss of routine endoscopy services. We describe a major reorganization of service at a regional referral centre (Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust) to manage the crisis. Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) was implemented for triage to make optimum use of limited diagnostic resources. Consultations were switched from face-to-face to telephone. Our aim was to evaluate the impact FIT had on resource allocation and patient diagnoses in the first 3 months of use.

METHOD

All colorectal 2-week-wait patient referrals were posted a pack requesting FIT and notification of telephone consultation. A prepaid envelope was included for return of the samples. At consultation, FIT was incorporated with the presenting symptoms to guide the choice of investigation and triage urgency. FIT ≥10 μg/g was interpreted as positive. Outcome data were collected prospectively and compared with retrospective audit data from prepandemic levels across 3 months.

RESULTS

From 26 March 2020 to 2 July 381 patients were referred who were invited to provide FIT samples and underwent telephone consultations. Three hundred and fifty eight FIT samples were returned (94%). Onward referral for colonoscopy reduced from 62% to 34% (P < 0.001). There were 14 colorectal cancers (CRC) (3.7%) diagnosed, which was not statistically different from the prepandemic level of 3.9% (P = 0.995). Twelve of the 14 patients with a CRC diagnosis had provided samples; all 12 had FIT ≥10 μg/g and were offered fast-track investigations.

CONCLUSIONS

The incorporation of FIT optimized the allocation of limited resources to triage those who required urgent colonic investigation for detecting CRC.

Faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin: Analytical challenges and potential solutions

Quantitative faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT) are being used increasingly around the world in colorectal cancer screening programmes, and in patients presenting with lower bowel symptoms to determine who should proceed to further bowel visualisation investigations, usually colonoscopy. The clinical utility of FIT is well reported. There are a number of analytical challenges including pre-analytical variation, difficulty setting up external quality assessment schemes, access to third party internal quality control material and a lack of standardisation or harmonisation of FIT methods. Here we report the work of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry FIT Working Group. We provide an overview of the main pre-analytical variables; discuss different approaches to external quality assurance of FIT; propose a solution to third party internal quality assurance materials and summarise the challenges of standardisation and harmonisation of FIT.