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

Faecal Immunochemical Testing to Detect Colorectal Cancer in Symptomatic Patients: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study

(1) Background: NHS England recommended faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for symptomatic patients in June 2020 to rationalise limited diagnostic services during COVID-19. (2) Aim: to investigate the diagnostic performance of FIT, analysing the proportion of FIT-negative colorectal cancers (CRC) missed in symptomatic patients and how this risk could be mitigated. (3) Design and Setting: a retrospective study of biochemistry and cancer databases involving patients referred from primary healthcare with suspected CRC to a single secondary care trust in North East London. (4) Methods: a retrospective cohort diagnostic accuracy study was undertaken to determine the performance of FIT for detecting CRC at 10 µgHb/g. (5) Results: between January and December 2020, 7653 patients provided a stool sample for FIT analysis; 1679 (22%) samples were excluded due to inadequate or incorrect specimens; 48% of suspected CRC referrals completed FIT before evaluation; 86 FIT tested patients were diagnosed with histologically proven CRC. At 10 µgHb/g, FIT performance was comparable with the existing literature with a sensitivity of 0.8140 (95% CI 0.7189-0.8821), a specificity of 0.7704 (95% CI 0.7595-0.7809), a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.04923 (95% CI 0.03915-0.06174), a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.9965 (95% CI 0.9943-0.9978), and a likelihood ratio (LR) of 3.545; 16 patients with CRC had an FIT of ≤10 µgHb/g (18.6% 95% CI 11.0-28.4%). (6) Conclusions: this study raises concerns about compliance with FIT testing and the incidence of FIT-negative CRC at the NICE recommended threshold and how this risk can be mitigated without colonic imaging. Whilst FIT may have facilitated prioritisation during COVID-19, we must be cautious about using FIT alone to determine which patients are referred to secondary care or receive further investigation.

Prevalence of repeat faecal immunochemical testing in symptomatic patients attending primary care

AIM

The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) helps determine the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and has been integrated into symptomatic referral pathways. 'Safety netting' advice includes considering referral for persistent symptoms, but no published data exists on repeated FITs. We aimed to examine the prevalence of serial FITs in primary care and CRC risk in these patients.

METHOD

A multicentre, retrospective, observational study was conducted of patients with two or more consecutive f-Hb results within a year from three Scottish Health Boards which utilize FIT in primary care. Cancer registry data ensured identification of CRC cases.

RESULTS

Overall, 135 396 FIT results were reviewed, of which 12 359 were serial results reported within 12 months (9.1%), derived from 5761 patients. Of these, 42 (0.7%) were diagnosed with CRC. A total of 3487 (60.5%) patients had two f-Hb < 10 μg/g, 944 (16.4%) had f-Hb ≥ 10 μg/g followed by <10 μg/g, 704 (12.2%) f-Hb < 10 μg/g followed by ≥10 μg/g and 626 (10.9%) had two f-Hb ≥ 10 μg/g. The CRC rate in each group was 0.1%, 0.4%, 1.4% and 4.0%, respectively. Seven hundred and thirty four patients submitted more than two FITs within a year. The likelihood of one or more f-Hb ≥ 10 μg/g rose from 40.4% with two samples to 100% with six, while the CRC rate fell from 0.8% to 0%.

CONCLUSION

Serial FITs within a year account for 9.1% of all results in our Boards. CRC prevalence amongst symptomatic patients with serial FIT is lower than in single-FIT cohorts. Performing two FITs within a year for patients with persistent symptoms effectively acts as a safety net, while performing more than two within this timeframe is unlikely to be beneficial.

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.

Socioeconomic differences in help-seeking experiences in primary care for symptoms related to colorectal cancer during COVID-19: A UK-wide qualitative interview study

Background

COVID-19 has led to rapid changes in healthcare delivery, raising concern that these changes may exacerbate existing inequalities in patient outcomes.

Aim

To understand how patients’ help-seeking experiences in primary care for colorectal cancer symptoms during COVID-19 were affected by their socioeconomic status (SES).

Design and setting

Qualitative semi-structured interviews with males and females across the UK, recruited using purposive sampling by SES.

Method

Interviews were carried out with 39 participants (20 higher SES; 19 lower SES) who contacted primary care about possible symptoms of colorectal cancer during COVID-19. Data were analysed using framework analysis followed by comparative thematic analysis to explore differences between groups.

Results

Three themes were identified with differences between SES groups: 1) how people decided to seek medical help through appraisal of symptoms; 2) how people navigated services; and 3) impact of COVID-19 on how patients interacted with healthcare professionals. The lower SES group expressed uncertainty appraising symptoms and navigating services (in terms of new processes resulting from COVID-19 and worries about infection). There was also potential for increased disparity in diagnosis and management, with other methods of getting in touch (for example, email or 111) taken up more readily by higher SES patients.

Conclusion

The findings suggest that COVID-19 exacerbated disparities between higher and lower SES participants. This study raises awareness around challenges in help seeking in the context of the pandemic, which are likely to persist (post-COVID-19) as healthcare systems settle on new models of care (for example, digital). Recommendations are provided to reduce inequalities of care.