Public preferences for using quantitative faecal immunochemical test versus colonoscopy as diagnostic test for colorectal cancer: evidence from an online survey

Patient and healthcare professionals' perceptions of a combined blood and faecal immunochemical test for excluding colorectal cancer diagnosis in primary care

OBJECTIVES

To explore the perceptions of patients and healthcare professionals on Raman-faecal immunochemical test (FIT) as an alternative test for colorectal cancer exclusion in primary care.

DESIGN

Semi-structured interviews within a feasibility study.

SETTING

Patients presenting to primary care with colorectal symptoms and healthcare professionals working in primary and secondary care.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 23 patients and 12 healthcare professionals.

METHODS

Patient participants were asked to complete a novel combined Raman-FIT test before being seen in secondary care. This study sought their opinions about the test. We also sought the views of healthcare professionals.

FINDINGS

Patients and healthcare professionals agreed that Raman-FIT was a suitable test to be given in primary care. It aligned with routine practice and was a simple test for most patients to complete.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients are willing and able to complete the Raman-FIT test in primary care. Raman-FIT may accelerate access to diagnosis with the potential to improve cancer outcomes.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Lay members (J. H. and I. H.) with experience and knowledge of colorectal cancer and screening contributed to developing, undertaking, and disseminating all aspects of the research. They were supported to collaborate as equal members of the research team. They were involved in developing the study as coapplicants, using personal experience to ensure that the research and its methods were relevant to the patient and public needs. Both prepared participant information sheets, coanalysed data, and contributed to study reporting and dissemination through papers, conference presentations and a lay summary.

Can we do better? A qualitative study in the East of England investigating patient experience and acceptability of using the faecal immunochemical test in primary care

OBJECTIVES

The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is increasingly used in UK primary care to triage patients presenting with symptoms and at different levels of colorectal cancer risk. Evidence is scarce on patients' views of using FIT in this context. We aimed to explore patients' care experience and acceptability of using FIT in primary care.

DESIGN

A qualitative semi-structured interview study. Interviews were conducted via Zoom between April and October 2020. Transcribed recordings were analysed using framework analysis.

SETTING

East of England general practices.

PARTICIPANTS

Consenting patients (aged ≥40 years) who presented in primary care with possible symptoms of colorectal cancer, and for whom a FIT was requested, were recruited to the FIT-East study. Participants were purposively sampled for this qualitative substudy based on age, gender and FIT result.

RESULTS

44 participants were interviewed with a mean age 61 years, and 25 (57%) being men: 8 (18%) received a positive FIT result. Three themes and seven subthemes were identified. Participants' familiarity with similar tests and perceived risk of cancer influenced test experience and acceptability. All participants were happy to do the FIT themselves and to recommend it to others. Most participants reported that the test was straightforward, although some considered it may be a challenge to others. However, test explanation by healthcare professionals was often limited. Furthermore, while some participants received their results quickly, many did not receive them at all with the common assumption that 'no news is good news'. For those with a negative result and persisting symptoms, there was uncertainty about any next steps.

CONCLUSIONS

While FIT is acceptable to patients, elements of communication with patients by the healthcare system show potential for improvement. We suggest possible ways to improve the FIT experience, particularly regarding communication about the test and its results.

Double faecal immunochemical testing in patients with symptoms suspicious of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-directed pathways based on a single test have been implemented for symptomatic patients. However, with a single test, the sensitivity is 87 per cent at 10 µg haemoglobin (Hb) per g faeces. This aims of this study were to define the diagnostic performance of a single FIT, compared with double FIT in symptomatic populations.

METHODS

Two sequential prospective patient cohorts referred with symptoms from primary care were studied. Patients in cohort 1 were sent a single FIT, and those in cohort 2 received two tests in succession before investigation. All patients were investigated, regardless of having a positive or negative test (threshold 10 µg Hb per g).

RESULTS

In cohort 1, 2260 patients completed one FIT and investigation. The sensitivity of single FIT was 84.1 (95 per cent c.i. 73.3 to 91.8) per cent for colorectal cancer and 67.4 (61.0 to 73.4) per cent for significant bowel pathology. In cohort 2, 3426 patients completed at least one FIT, and 2637 completed both FITs and investigation. The sensitivity of double FIT was 96.6 (90.4 to 99.3) per cent for colorectal cancer and 83.0 (77.4 to 87.8) per cent for significant bowel pathology. The second FIT resulted in a 50.0 per cent reduction in cancers missed by the first FIT, and 30.0 per cent for significant bowel pathology. Correlation between faecal Hb level was only modest (rs = 0.58), and 16.8 per cent of double tests were discordant, 11.4 per cent in patients with colorectal cancer and 18.3 per cent in those with significant bowel pathology.

CONCLUSION

FIT in patients with high-risk symptoms twice in succession reduces missed significant colorectal pathology and has an acceptable workload impact.

Diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer of a quantitative faecal immunochemical test in symptomatic primary care patients: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence supporting the use of faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) in patients reporting symptoms associated with colorectal cancer (CRC), but most studies until now have focused on selected subjects already referred for investigation. We therefore set out to determine the accuracy and predictive values of FIT in a primary care population.

METHOD

A prospective, multicentre, single-gated comparative diagnostic study on quantitative FIT in patients aged 40 years and above presenting in primary care with symptoms associated with CRC will be conducted. Patients representing the whole spectrum of severity of such symptoms met with in primary care will be eligible and identified by GPs. Participants will answer a short form on symptoms during the last month. They will provide two faecal samples from two separate days. Analyses will be performed within 5 days (QuikRead go®, Aidian Oy). The analytical working range is 10-200 μg Hb/g faeces. Reference test will be linked to the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry up to 2 years after inclusion. Accuracy, area under ROC curves, and predictive values will be calculated for one FIT compared to the highest value of two FIT and at cutoff < 10, 10-14.9, 15-19.9 and ≥ 20 μg Hb/g faeces. Subgroup analyses will be conducted for patients with anaemia and those reporting rectal bleeding. A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis based on the clinical accuracy study will be performed. Based on previous literature, we hypothesized that the sensitivity of the highest value of two FIT at cutoff 10 μg Hb/g faeces will be 95% (95% CI + / - 15%). The prevalence of CRC in the study population was estimated to be 2%, and the rate of non-responders to be 1/6. In all, 3000 patients will be invited at 30 primary care centres.

DISCUSSION

This study will generate important clinical real-life structured data on accuracy and predictive values of FIT in the most critical population for work-up of CRC, i.e. patients presenting with at times ambiguous symptoms in primary care. It will help establish the role of FIT in this large group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05156307 . Registered on 14 December 2021-retrospectively registered.

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in patients with signs or symptoms of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC): a joint guideline from the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) has a high sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC). In a symptomatic population FIT may identify those patients who require colorectal investigation with the highest priority. FIT offers considerable advantages over the use of symptoms alone, as an objective measure of risk with a vastly superior positive predictive value for CRC, while conversely identifying a truly low risk cohort of patients. The aim of this guideline was to provide a clear strategy for the use of FIT in the diagnostic pathway of people with signs or symptoms of a suspected diagnosis of CRC. The guideline was jointly developed by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/British Society of Gastroenterology, specifically by a 21-member multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG). A systematic review of 13 535 publications was undertaken to develop 23 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the triage of people with symptoms of a suspected CRC diagnosis in primary care. In order to achieve consensus among a broad group of key stakeholders, we completed an extended Delphi of the GDG, and also 61 other individuals across the UK and Ireland, including by members of the public, charities and primary and secondary care. Seventeen research recommendations were also prioritised to inform clinical management.

Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) versus colonoscopy: Does knowing that a positive FIT requires a follow-up colonoscopy affect initial decision making in the US?

Although many people prefer fecal immunochemical test (FIT) over colonoscopy due to its noninvasive nature, it is unclear whether FIT would still be preferred for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening if they were explicitly informed that + FIT requires follow-up colonoscopy. To address this gap, we administered two conjoint analysis surveys-one that explained the need for a follow-up colonoscopy after + FIT while the other did not-to a US nationwide sample of Americans and then assessed whether there were differences in colonoscopy/FIT preferences between cohorts. We recruited adults ≥ 40yo who had not undergone CRC screening via an online survey research firm. We deployed two surveys that used conjoint analysis to assess decision making surrounding CRC screening tests: Survey 1 (4/2-4/15/2021)-did not inform participants that they need a colonoscopy following a + FIT; Survey 2 (4/29-6/2/2021)-informed respondents of the potential need. Using the conjoint analysis data, we determined the proportion of those who preferred FIT or colonoscopy and then used logistic regression to assess for differences in colonoscopy/FIT preferences between the cohorts. Overall, 501 and 1,000 individuals completed Survey 1 (without description of need for colonoscopy after + FIT) and Survey 2 (with description), respectively. There was no difference in test preference between cohorts after adjusting for covariates in the logistic regression (adjusted p = 0.09): Survey 1 (without description)-colonoscopy 28.5%, FIT 71.5%; Survey 2 (with description)-colonoscopy 26.7%, FIT 73.3%. Thus, knowledge that a + FIT requires a follow-up colonoscopy does not alter people's strong preference for non-invasive stool testing with FIT.

Faecal immunochemical test for suspected colorectal cancer symptoms: patient survey of usability and acceptability

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence suggests that the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) can rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in symptomatic patients. To date, there is no research on usability and perception of FIT for these patients.

AIM

To measure variation in attitudes and perception of FIT in patients with suspected CRC symptoms.

DESIGN & SETTING

A cross-sectional survey of a subset of participants of the NICE FIT study.

METHOD

A questionnaire was co-developed with patients covering four themes on a Likert scale: FIT feasibility, faecal aversion, patient knowledge, and future intentions. Questionnaire and FIT kits were sent to patients with suspected CRC symptoms participating in the NICE FIT study. Logistic regression explored differences in patients' test perception by ethnic group, language, age, location, deprivation, FIT use, and previous experience.

RESULTS

A total of 1151 questionnaires were analysed; 90.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 88.3% to 91.8%) of patients found faecal collection straightforward, 76.3% (95% CI = 73.7% to 78.6%) disagreed FIT was unhygienic, and 78.1% (95% CI = 75.6% to 80.4%) preferred FIT to colonoscopy. Preference for FIT over colonoscopy was weaker in patients aged 40-64 years than those >65 years (odds ratio [OR] 0.60; 95% CI = 0.43 to 0.84). Intention to use FIT again was stronger in patients who successfully used FIT than those unsuccessful (OR 11.08; 95% CI = 2.74 to 44.75), and white compared with non-white patients assessed (OR 3.20; 95% CI = 1.32 to 7.75).

CONCLUSION

While most patients found FIT practical and hygienic, perception differences were found. Strategies to engage patients with more negative FIT perception should underpin symptomatic FIT pathways.

Faecal immunochemical testing for adults with symptoms of colorectal cancer attending English primary care: a retrospective cohort study of 14 487 consecutive test requests

BACKGROUND

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to triage symptomatic primary care patients for further investigation of colorectal cancer.

AIM

To ascertain the diagnostic performance of FIT in symptomatic adult primary care patients.

METHODS

Faecal samples from routine primary care practice in Oxfordshire, UK were analysed using the HM-JACKarc FIT method between March 2017 and March 2020. Clinical details were recorded. Patients were followed for up to 36 months in linked hospital records for evidence of benign and serious (colorectal cancer, high-risk adenomas and bowel inflammation) colorectal disease. The diagnostic accuracy of FIT is reported by gender, age group and FIT threshold.

RESULTS

In 9896 adult patients with at least 6-month follow-up, a FIT result ≥10 µg Hb/g faeces had a sensitivity for colorectal cancer of 90.5% (95% CI 84.9%-96.1%), specificity 91.3% (90.8%-91.9%), positive predictive value (PPV) 10.1% (8.15%-12.0%) and negative predictive value (NPV) 99.9% (99.8%-100.0%). The PPV and specificity for serious colorectal disease were higher and the sensitivity and NPV lower than for colorectal cancer alone. The area under the curve for all adults did not change substantially by gender or by increasing the minimum age of testing. Using ≥10 µg Hb/g faeces, 10% of adults would be investigated to detect 91% of cancers, a number needed to scope of ten to detect one cancer. Using ≥7, ≥50 and ≥150 µg Hb/g faeces, 11%, 4% and 3% of adults would be investigated, and 91%, 74% and 54% cancers detected, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A FIT threshold of ≥10 µg Hb/g faeces would be appropriate to triage adult patients presenting to primary care with symptoms of serious colorectal disease. FIT may be used to reprioritise patients referred with colorectal cancer symptoms whose investigations have been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic.