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.

The selective management of small abdominal aortic aneurysms: the Kingston study.

The management of small abdominal aortic aneurysms less than 5.0 cm maximum diameter remains controversial particularly in patients who are medically fit. All patients referred with abdominal aortic aneurysms less than 5.0 cm maximum diameter were prospectively followed regardless of their fitness for operation. Two hundred sixty-eight patients had been entered into the study by December 31, 1988, and monitored until December 31, 1990, by at least two aneurysm sizings by ultrasonography, CT scanning, or both. The mean follow-up was 42 months. Operations were performed on 114 patients (if they were fit for operation) when the aneurysm reached 5.0 cm, expanded more than 0.5 cm in a 6-month period, or when the patient had significant occlusive disease requiring repair. In this group the mean annual increase in diameter was 0.9 cm. One hundred fifty-four patients were monitored without operation for a mean period of 42 months. One rupture occurred in this group. The average annual increase in diameter in the group not undergoing operation was 0.24 cm. This study supports a policy of observation for abdominal aortic aneurysms less than 5.0 cm in maximum diameter.

Selective management of abdominal aortic aneurysms in a prospective measurement program.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to clarify the treatment of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) less than 5 cm in diameter and those believed to be unfit for operation with AAAs 5 cm diameter or greater. METHODS: Four hundred ninety two patients with AAAs less than 5 cm when first seen were entered in a prospective measurement program by ultrasonography or computed tomography scan (exclusively after 1998) every 6 months. A decision regarding operative fitness was made when the AAA was 5 cm. Patients then underwent operation if fit or continued follow-up if their AAA was larger than 5 cm but they were unfit. A further group of 91 patients with aneurysms 5 cm or greater when first seen but unfit for repair were entered in the prospective measurement program. RESULTS: In the group with AAAs less then 5 cm at entry, operation was performed in 201 patients as a result of increase in AAA size to 5 cm or greater (157), AAA expansion of more than 0.5 cm in 6 months (24), or for other reasons (20). Of those with AAAs smaller than 5 cm at entry, 291 have not undergone operation at a mean follow-up of 42 months. Expansion was significantly related to aneurysm size at entry and was highest in the 4.5 to 4.9 cm group at 0.7 cm/year. In the group of patients deemed unfit for operation with 5 cm AAAs [as a graduate of the less than 5 cm group at entry (85 patients) or first seen with AAA greater than 5 cm (91 patients)], 10 ruptures have occurred. Of these patients with ruptured AAAs, six had AAAs between 5.0 and 5.6 cm. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the risk of rupture demonstrated in our series in AAAs 5 cm or slightly greater and the progressive increase in expansion to a mean of 0.7 cm/year in those AAAs between 4.5 and 4.9 cm at entry, recommendation for elective operation in patients with AAAs between 4.5 and 4.9 cm at entry, recommendation for elective operation in patients with AAAs between 4.5 and 5.0 cm should be strongly considered in a fit patient.