Referrals for double-contrast barium examination. Factors influencing the probability of finding polyps or cancer

Possible Value of Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) When Added in Symptomatic Patients Referred for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review

If Colorectal cancer (CRC) is detected and treated early, the survival rate is high. This is one of the reasons that population-based screening programs for the early detection of CRC using the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) started worldwide. These programs compete with regular colonoscopy programs and increase the waiting time for symptomatic patients. However, the literature has shown that the correlation between intestinal complaints and the gain of colonoscopy is poor. The aim of this study is to assess the diagnostic utility of symptoms for the yield (CRC) of colonoscopy and to compare this with the diagnostic utility of FIT when offered to symptomatic patients. Methods: We performed a systematic review search for CRC as an outcome of colonoscopy in referred symptomatic patients and separately for CRC as an outcome in symptomatic patients with a positive FIT. We searched systematically for clinical trials or observational studies in databases, followed by hand-searching of reference lists. We used random Meta-Disc to evaluate the diagnostic performance, using the exploration of heterogeneity with a variety of test statistics and by computing the pooled estimates. Results: We included 35 studies, with almost 5 million symptomatic patients. In addition, we included nine prospective studies with a positive FIT in symptomatic patients, with more than 5000 patients. Significant heterogeneity was found for every symptom and the outcome of colonoscopy in the effect size of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio. In a random effect model, the pooled sensitivity of colonoscopy in symptomatic patients was very low (25%). However, the pooled sensitivity in symptomatic patients with a positive FIT was 83% and the pooled specificity 77%. A total of 75 symptomatic patients (1.4%) had a false-negative FIT. Conclusion: Adding FIT in symptomatic patients seems useful for predicting CRC as an outcome of colonoscopy. FIT seems a potential tool for an improved triage of colonoscopy in symptomatic patients.

The diagnostic accuracy of the faecal immunohistochemical test in identifying significant bowel disease in a symptomatic population

AIM

Provisional research on the faecal immunohistochemical test (FIT) for symptomatic colorectal patients has shown a high negative predictive value but has lacked long-term patient follow-up, raising the possibility of missed diagnoses of colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of this work is to describe the long-term diagnostic accuracy of the FIT for CRC and significant bowel disease (SBD) in a symptomatic population in NHS Lanarkshire.

METHOD

From October 2016 to February 2019, all primary care referrals of symptomatic colorectal patients in NHS Lanarkshire were asked to provide a FIT. The baseline demographics, investigations and diagnoses for each patient were prospectively completed until February 2021. A FIT result of ≥10 μg haemoglobin (Hb)/g faeces was considered to be positive.

RESULTS

A total of 5250 patients were identified (median age 62 years; 46% male; median follow-up 31 months) with 65.1% (3418) being FIT negative. The SBD rate was 6.2% and the CRC rate was 2.9% (151). The SBD rate was significantly higher in the FIT-positive group (13.8% vs. 2.2%; p < 0.001) and 32.9% of patients with FIT ≥ 400 μg Hb/g had SBD. The sensitivity of FIT ≥ 10 μg Hb/g for CRC was 87.4% and for SBD it was 76.9%. Specificity was 66.6% and 66.7%, and the negative-predictive value was 99.4% and 97.7%, respectively. Sensitivity for CRC could theoretically be increased to 94.8% if FIT-negative patients were to undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy.

CONCLUSION

A FIT-only referral pathway for symptomatic colorectal patients will miss over 12% of cancers and over 23% of SBD. Theoretically, combining FIT-negative patients with flexible sigmoidoscopy increases the sensitivity for CRC. The FIT offers a mechanism for prioritizing patient access to investigations, particularly in resource-limited areas; however, further work to identify FIT-negative patients diagnosed with CRC is required.

Published diagnostic models safely excluded colorectal cancer in an independent primary care validation study

OBJECTIVE

To validate published diagnostic models for their ability to safely reduce unnecessary endoscopy referrals in primary care patients suspected of significant colorectal disease.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Following a systematic literature search, we independently validated the identified diagnostic models in a cross-sectional study of 810 Dutch primary care patients with persistent lower abdominal complaints referred for endoscopy. We estimated diagnostic accuracy measures for colorectal cancer (N = 37) and significant colorectal disease (N = 141; including colorectal cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, diverticulitis, or >1-cm adenomas).

RESULTS

We evaluated 18 models-12 specific for colorectal cancer-, of which most were able to safely rule out colorectal cancer: the best model (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-1) prevented 59% of referrals (95% confidence interval [CI]: 56-63%), with 96% sensitivity (95% CI: 83-100%), 100% negative predictive value (NPV; 95% CI: 99-100%), and an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.80-0.92). The models performed less for significant colorectal disease: the best model (Brazer) prevented 23% of referrals (95% CI: 20-26%), with 95% sensitivity (95% CI: 90-98%), 96% NPV (95% CI: 92-98%), and an AUC of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.69-0.78).

CONCLUSION

Most models safely excluded colorectal cancer in many primary care patients with lower gastrointestinal complaints referred for endoscopy. Models performed less well for significant colorectal disease.

Diagnostic value of rectal bleeding in predicting colorectal cancer: a systematic review

This study aimed at summarizing published study findings on the diagnostic value of rectal bleeding (RB) and informing clinical practice, preventive interventions and future research areas. We searched Medline and Embase for studies published by September 13, 2013 examining the risk of colorectal cancer in patients with RB using highly inclusive algorithms. Data for sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and positive predictive value (PPV) of RB were extracted by two researchers and analyzed applying Meta-Disc (version 1.4) and Stata (version 11.0). Methodological quality of studies was assessed according to QUADAS. A total of 38 studies containing 5,626 colorectal cancer patients and 73,174 participants with RB were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.47 (95% CI: 0.45-0.48) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.96-0.96) respectively. The overall PPVs ranged from 0.01 to 0.21 with a pooled value of 0.06 (95% CI: 0.05-0.08). Being over the age of 60 years, change in bowel habit, weight loss, anaemia, colorectal cancer among first-degree relatives and feeling of incomplete evacuation of rectum appeared to increase the predictive value of RB. Although RB greatly increases the probability of diagnosing colorectal cancer, it alone may not be sufficient for proposing further sophisticated investigations. However, given the high specificity, subjects without RB may be ruled out of further investigations. Future studies should focus on strategies using RB as an "alarm" symptom and finding additional indications to justify whether there is a need for further investigations.

Symptoms associated with finding colorectal cancer during colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Patients with an increased risk of having colorectal cancer (CRC) should have priority on the colonoscopy list.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether presenting symptoms of patients referred for colonoscopy could help in identifying patients with an increased risk of CRC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between February 2007 and November 2010, random outpatients referred for colonoscopy were asked to fill out a questionnaire with respect to symptoms for which the colonoscopy was performed. Informed consent was obtained to review the colonoscopy and histology reports. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify predictors for CRC.

RESULTS

In total, 1458 (21%) patients returned the questionnaire, of whom 925 (63.4%) had undergone previous sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. CRC was detected in 41 patients (2.8%). Age over 50 years [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.00; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30-6.91] and presenting symptoms of rectal blood loss (aOR 4.62; 95% CI 2.31-9.22) and a change in bowel habits (aOR 3.33; 95% CI 1.50-7.40) were associated independently with an increased risk of finding CRC. Previous sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy (aOR 0.24; 95% CI 0.12-0.49) and fatigue as presenting symptoms (aOR 0.22; 95% CI 0.09-0.56) were associated with a decreased risk of CRC. Weight loss, self-reported anemia, and abdominal pain were not associated with CRC in this study.

CONCLUSION

Patients presenting with rectal blood loss, change in bowel habits, and those older than 50 years of age have an increased risk of a finding of CRC during colonoscopy. We recommend that these risk groups should be prioritized on the colonoscopy list over patients who have undergone a previous endoscopy or who are presenting with fatigue.

Diagnostic accuracy of features predicting lower gastrointestinal malignancy: a colonoscopy database review of 10,603 Chinese patients

AIM

The diagnostic accuracy of colonoscopic features in predicting colorectal cancer (CRC) malignancy was studied.

METHOD

Consecutive patients who underwent first-time colonoscopy for lower gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms from 1998 to 2009 were identified. Gender, age, symptoms, endoscopic and pathologic findings were reviewed.

RESULTS

There were 10,603 patients. The overall prevalence of malignancy was 3.0% (313). Among these, only 58% (181/313) had features indicative of tumour formation. The overall sensitivity and specificity was 9.6% and 94.1%, respectively. The overall positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio were 2.66, 0.96 and 2.77, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of Chinese patients with CRC presented without features indicative of tumour formation.

Most bowel cancer symptoms do not indicate colorectal cancer and polyps: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Bowel symptoms are often considered an indication to perform colonoscopy to identify or rule out colorectal cancer or precancerous polyps. Investigation of bowel symptoms for this purpose is recommended by numerous clinical guidelines. However, the evidence for this practice is unclear. The objective of this study is to systematically review the evidence about the association between bowel symptoms and colorectal cancer or polyps.

METHODS

We searched the literature extensively up to December 2008, using MEDLINE and EMBASE and following references. For inclusion in the review, papers from cross sectional, case control and cohort studies had to provide a 2×2 table of symptoms by diagnosis (colorectal cancer or polyps) or sufficient data from which that table could be constructed. The search procedure, quality appraisal, and data extraction was done twice, with disagreements resolved with another reviewer. Summary ROC analysis was used to assess the diagnostic performance of symptoms to detect colorectal cancer and polyps.

RESULTS

Colorectal cancer was associated with rectal bleeding (AUC 0.66; LR+ 1.9; LR- 0.7) and weight loss (AUC 0.67, LR+ 2.5, LR- 0.9). Neither of these symptoms was associated with the presence of polyps. There was no significant association of colorectal cancer or polyps with change in bowel habit, constipation, diarrhoea or abdominal pain. Neither the clinical setting (primary or specialist care) nor study type was associated with accuracy.Most studies had methodological flaws. There was no consistency in the way symptoms were elicited or interpreted in the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that the common practice of performing colonoscopies to identify cancers in people with bowel symptoms is warranted only for rectal bleeding and the general symptom of weight loss. Bodies preparing guidelines for clinicians and consumers to improve early detection of colorectal cancer need to take into account the limited value of symptoms.

Value of symptoms and additional diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To summarise available evidence on diagnostic tests that might help primary care physicians to identify patients with an increased risk for colorectal cancer among those consulting for non-acute lower abdominal symptoms.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, and reference screening. Study eligibility criteria Studies were selected if the design was a diagnostic study; the patients were adults consulting because of non-acute lower abdominal symptoms; tests included signs, symptoms, blood tests, or faecal tests. Study appraisal and synthesis methods Two reviewers independently assessed quality with a modified version of the QUADAS tool and extracted data. We present diagnostic two by two tables and pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. We refrained from pooling when there was considerable clinical or statistical heterogeneity.

RESULTS

47 primary diagnostic studies were included. Sensitivity was consistently high for age >or=50 (range 0.81-0.96, median 0.91), a referral guideline (0.80-0.94, 0.92), and immunochemical faeces tests (0.70-1.00, 0.95). Of these, only specificity of the faeces tests was good. Specificity was consistently high for family history (0.75-0.98, 0.91), weight loss (0.72-0.96, 0.89), and iron deficiency anaemia (0.83-0.95, 0.92), but all tests lacked sensitivity. None of these six tests was (sufficiently) studied in primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

Although combinations of symptom and results of immunochemical faeces tests showed good diagnostic performance for colorectal cancer, evidence from primary care is lacking. High quality studies on their role in the diagnostic investigation of colorectal cancer in primary care are urgently needed.