An efficient strategy for evaluating new non-invasive screening tests for colorectal cancer: the guiding principles.

OBJECTIVE: New screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) are rapidly emerging. Conducting trials with mortality reduction as the end point supporting their adoption is challenging. We re-examined the principles underlying evaluation of new non-invasive tests in view of technological developments and identification of new biomarkers. DESIGN: A formal consensus approach involving a multidisciplinary expert panel revised eight previously established principles. RESULTS: Twelve newly stated principles emerged. Effectiveness of a new test can be evaluated by comparison with a proven comparator non-invasive test. The faecal immunochemical test is now considered the appropriate comparator, while colonoscopy remains the diagnostic standard. For a new test to be able to meet differing screening goals and regulatory requirements, flexibility to adjust its positivity threshold is desirable. A rigorous and efficient four-phased approach is proposed, commencing with small studies assessing the test's ability to discriminate between CRC and non-cancer states (phase I), followed by prospective estimation of accuracy across the continuum of neoplastic lesions in neoplasia-enriched populations (phase II). If these show promise, a provisional test positivity threshold is set before evaluation in typical screening populations. Phase III prospective studies determine single round intention-to-screen programme outcomes and confirm the test positivity threshold. Phase IV studies involve evaluation over repeated screening rounds with monitoring for missed lesions. Phases III and IV findings will provide the real-world data required to model test impact on CRC mortality and incidence. CONCLUSION: New non-invasive tests can be efficiently evaluated by a rigorous phased comparative approach, generating data from unbiased populations that inform predictions of their health impact.

Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) versus colonoscopy for surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness study.

OBJECTIVE: The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) recommends 3 yearly colonoscopy surveillance for patients at intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) postpolypectomy (those with three to four small adenomas or one ≥10 mm). We investigated whether faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) could reduce surveillance burden on patients and endoscopy services. DESIGN: Intermediate-risk patients (60-72 years) recommended 3 yearly surveillance were recruited within the BCSP (January 2012-December 2013). FITs were offered at 1, 2 and 3 years postpolypectomy. Invitees consenting and returning a year 1 FIT were included. Participants testing positive (haemoglobin ≥40 µg/g) at years one or two were offered colonoscopy early; all others were offered colonoscopy at 3 years. Diagnostic accuracy for CRC and advanced adenomas (AAs) was estimated considering multiple tests and thresholds. We calculated incremental costs per additional AA and CRC detected by colonoscopy versus FIT surveillance. RESULTS: 74% (5938/8009) of invitees were included in our study having participated at year 1. Of these, 97% returned FITs at years 2 and 3. Three-year cumulative positivity was 13% at the 40 µg/g haemoglobin threshold and 29% at 10 µg/g. 29 participants were diagnosed with CRC and 446 with AAs. Three-year programme sensitivities for CRC and AAs were, respectively, 59% and 33% at 40 µg/g, and 72% and 57% at 10 µg/g. Incremental costs per additional AA and CRC detected by colonoscopy versus FIT (40 µg/g) surveillance were £7354 and £180 778, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Replacing 3 yearly colonoscopy surveillance in intermediate-risk patients with annual FIT could reduce colonoscopies by 71%, significantly cut costs but could miss 30%-40% of CRCs and 40%-70% of AAs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18040196; Results.

Critical research gaps and recommendations to inform research prioritisation for more effective prevention and improved outcomes in colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) leads to significant morbidity/mortality worldwide. Defining critical research gaps (RG), their prioritisation and resolution, could improve patient outcomes. DESIGN: RG analysis was conducted by a multidisciplinary panel of patients, clinicians and researchers (n=71). Eight working groups (WG) were constituted: discovery science; risk; prevention; early diagnosis and screening; pathology; curative treatment; stage IV disease; and living with and beyond CRC. A series of discussions led to development of draft papers by each WG, which were evaluated by a 20-strong patient panel. A final list of RGs and research recommendations (RR) was endorsed by all participants. RESULTS: Fifteen critical RGs are summarised below: RG1: Lack of realistic models that recapitulate tumour/tumour micro/macroenvironment; RG2: Insufficient evidence on precise contributions of genetic/environmental/lifestyle factors to CRC risk; RG3: Pressing need for prevention trials; RG4: Lack of integration of different prevention approaches; RG5: Lack of optimal strategies for CRC screening; RG6: Lack of effective triage systems for invasive investigations; RG7: Imprecise pathological assessment of CRC; RG8: Lack of qualified personnel in genomics, data sciences and digital pathology; RG9: Inadequate assessment/communication of risk, benefit and uncertainty of treatment choices; RG10: Need for novel technologies/interventions to improve curative outcomes; RG11: Lack of approaches that recognise molecular interplay between metastasising tumours and their microenvironment; RG12: Lack of reliable biomarkers to guide stage IV treatment; RG13: Need to increase understanding of health related quality of life (HRQOL) and promote residual symptom resolution; RG14: Lack of coordination of CRC research/funding; RG15: Lack of effective communication between relevant stakeholders. CONCLUSION: Prioritising research activity and funding could have a significant impact on reducing CRC disease burden over the next 5 years.

Risk-adjusted colorectal cancer screening using the FIT and routine screening data: development of a risk prediction model.

BACKGROUND: The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is replacing the guaiac faecal occult blood test in colorectal cancer screening. Increased uptake and FIT positivity will challenge colonoscopy services. We developed a risk prediction model combining routine screening data with FIT concentration to improve the accuracy of screening referrals. METHODS: Multivariate analysis used complete cases of those with a positive FIT (⩾20 µg g-1) and diagnostic outcome (n=1810; 549 cancers and advanced adenomas). Logistic regression was used to develop a risk prediction model using the FIT result and screening data: age, sex and previous screening history. The model was developed further using a feedforward neural network. Model performance was assessed by discrimination and calibration, and test accuracy was investigated using clinical sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Discrimination improved from 0.628 with just FIT to 0.659 with the risk-adjusted model (P=0.01). Calibration using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test was 0.90 for the risk-adjusted model. The sensitivity improved from 30.78% to 33.15% at similar specificity (FIT threshold of 160 µg g-1). The neural network further improved model performance and test accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Combining routinely available risk predictors with the FIT improves the clinical sensitivity of the FIT with an increase in the diagnostic yield of high-risk adenomas.

Increased uptake and improved outcomes of bowel cancer screening with a faecal immunochemical test: results from a pilot study within the national screening programme in England.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England uses a guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBt). A quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for haemoglobin (Hb) has many advantages, including being specific for human blood, detecting Hb at a much lower concentration with a single faecal sample and improved uptake. METHODS: In 2014, a large comparative pilot study was performed within BCSP to establish the acceptability and diagnostic performance of FIT. Over a 6-month period, 40 930 (1 in 28) subjects were sent a FIT (OC-SENSOR) instead of a gFOBt. A bespoke FIT package was used to mail FIT sampling devices to and from FIT subjects. All participants positive with either gFOBt or FIT (cut-off 20 µg Hb/g faeces) were referred for follow-up. Subgroup analysis included cut-off concentrations, age, sex, screening history and deprivation quintile. RESULTS: While overall uptake increased by over 7 percentage points with FIT (66.4% vs 59.3%, OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.38), uptake by previous non-responders almost doubled (FIT 23.9% vs gFOBt 12.5%, OR 2.20, 95% CI 2.10 to 2.29). The increase in overall uptake was significantly higher in men than women and was observed across all deprivation quintiles. With the conventional 20 µg/g cut-off, FIT positivity was 7.8% and ranged from 5.7% in 59-64-year-old women to 11.1% in 70-75-year-old men. Cancer detection increased twofold and that for advanced adenomas nearly fivefold. Detection rates remained higher with FIT for advanced adenomas, even at 180 µg Hb/g. CONCLUSIONS: Markedly improved participation rates were achieved in a mature gFOBt-based national screening programme and disparities between men and women were reduced. High positivity rates, particularly in men and previous non-respondents, challenge the available colonoscopy resource, but improvements in neoplasia detection are still achievable within this limited resource.

Examining the potential use and long-term stability of guaiac faecal occult blood test cards for microbial DNA 16S rRNA sequencing.

AIMS: With a growing interest in the influence the gut microbiome has on the development of colorectal cancer (CRC), we investigated the feasibility and stability of isolating and typing microbial DNA from guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt) cards. This has the future potential to screen the microbial populations present in confirmed colorectal neoplasia cases with aims to predict the presence and development of CRC. METHODS: Fresh stool samples from three healthy volunteers were applied to gFOBt cards. DNA was extracted from both the cards and fresh stool samples. A series of additional cards were prepared from one volunteer, and extracted at time points between 2 weeks and 3 years. The V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene was amplified and sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq at 2×250 bp read lengths. Data were analysed using QIIME software. RESULTS: Samples were grouped both by volunteer and by type (fresh or gFOBt), and compared a variety of ways: visual inspection of taxa, α and ß diversity, intraclass correlation. In all comparisons, samples grouped by volunteer, and not by sample type. The different time points showed no appreciable differences with increased storage time. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated that there is good concordance between microbial DNA isolated from fresh stool sample, and from the matched gFOBt card. Samples stored for up to 3 years showed no detrimental effect on measureable microbial DNA. This study has important future implications for investigating microbial influence on CRC development and other pathologies.

Using a hypothetical scenario to assess public preferences for colorectal surveillance following screening-detected, intermediate-risk adenomas: annual home-based stool test vs. triennial colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: To assess public preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance tests for intermediate-risk adenomas, using a hypothetical scenario. METHODS: Adults aged 45-54 years without CRC were identified from three General Practices in England (two in Cumbria, one in London). A postal survey was carried out during a separate study on preferences for different first-line CRC screening modalities (non- or full-laxative computed tomographic colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy). Individuals were allocated at random to receive a pack containing information on one first-line test, and a paragraph describing CRC surveillance recommendations for people who are diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas during screening. All participants received a description of two surveillance options: annual single-sample, home-based stool testing (consistent with Faecal Immunochemical Tests; FIT) or triennial colonoscopy. Invitees were asked to imagine they had been diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas, and then complete a questionnaire on their surveillance preferences. RESULTS: 22.1 % (686/3,100) questionnaires were returned. 491 (15.8 %) were eligible for analysis. The majority of participants stated a surveillance preference for the stool test over colonoscopy (60.8 % vs 31.0 %; no preference: 8.1 %; no surveillance: 0.2 %). Women were more likely to prefer the stool test than men (66.7 % vs. 53.6 %; p = .011). The primary reason for preferring the stool test was that it would be done more frequently. The main reason to prefer colonoscopy was its superiority at finding polyps. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of participants stated a preference for a surveillance test resembling FIT over colonoscopy. Future research should test whether this translates to greater adherence in a real surveillance setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, ISRCTN85697880 , prospectively registered on 25/04/2013.

Reducing the Social Gradient in Uptake of the NHS Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme Using a Narrative-Based Information Leaflet: A Cluster-Randomised Trial.

Objective. To test the effectiveness of adding a narrative leaflet to the current information material delivered by the NHS English colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme on reducing socioeconomic inequalities in uptake. Participants. 150,417 adults (59-74 years) routinely invited to complete the guaiac Faecal Occult Blood test (gFOBt) in March 2013. Design. A cluster randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN74121020) to compare uptake between two arms. The control arm received the standard NHS CRC screening information material (SI) and the intervention arm received the standard information plus a supplementary narrative leaflet, which had previously been shown to increase screening intentions (SI + N). Between group comparisons were made for uptake overall and across socioeconomic status (SES). Results. Uptake was 57.7% and did not differ significantly between the two trial arms (SI: 58.5%; SI + N: 56.7%; odds ratio = 0.93; 95% confidence interval: 0.81-1.06; p = 0.27). There was no interaction between group and SES quintile (p = 0.44). Conclusions. Adding a narrative leaflet to existing information materials does not reduce the SES gradient in uptake. Despite the benefits of using a pragmatic trial design, the need to add to, rather than replace, existing information may have limited the true value of an evidence-based intervention on behaviour.

Recommendations for a step-wise comparative approach to the evaluation of new screening tests for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: New screening tests for colorectal cancer continue to emerge, but the evidence needed to justify their adoption in screening programs remains uncertain. METHODS: A review of the literature and a consensus approach by experts was undertaken to provide practical guidance on how to compare new screening tests with proven screening tests. RESULTS: Findings and recommendations from the review included the following: Adoption of a new screening test requires evidence of effectiveness relative to a proven comparator test. Clinical accuracy supported by programmatic population evaluation in the screening context on an intention-to-screen basis, including acceptability, is essential. Cancer-specific mortality is not essential as an endpoint provided that the mortality benefit of the comparator has been demonstrated and that the biologic basis of detection is similar. Effectiveness of the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test provides the minimum standard to be achieved by a new test. A 4-phase evaluation is recommended. An initial retrospective evaluation in cancer cases and controls (Phase 1) is followed by a prospective evaluation of performance across the continuum of neoplastic lesions (Phase 2). Phase 3 follows the demonstration of adequate accuracy in these 2 prescreening phases and addresses programmatic outcomes at 1 screening round on an intention-to-screen basis. Phase 4 involves more comprehensive evaluation of ongoing screening over multiple rounds. Key information is provided from the following parameters: the test positivity rate in a screening population, the true-positive and false-positive rates, and the number needed to colonoscope to detect a target lesion. CONCLUSIONS: New screening tests can be evaluated efficiently by this stepwise comparative approach.

Factors associated with completion of bowel cancer screening and the potential effects of simplifying the screening test algorithm.

BACKGROUND: The primary colorectal cancer screening test in England is a guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt). The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) interprets tests on six samples on up to three test kits to determine a definitive positive or negative result. However, the test algorithm fails to achieve a definitive result for a significant number of participants because they do not comply with the programme requirements. This study identifies factors associated with failed compliance and modifications to the screening algorithm that will improve the clinical effectiveness of the screening programme. METHODS: The BCSP Southern Hub data for screening episodes started in 2006-2012 were analysed for participants aged 60-69 years. The variables included age, sex, level of deprivation, gFOBt results and clinical outcome. RESULTS: The data set included 1,409,335 screening episodes; 95.08% of participants had a definitively normal result on kit 1 (no positive spots). Among participants asked to complete a second or third gFOBt, 5.10% and 4.65%, respectively, failed to return a valid kit. Among participants referred for follow up, 13.80% did not comply. Older age was associated with compliance at repeat testing, but non-compliance at follow up. Increasing levels of deprivation were associated with non-compliance at repeat testing and follow up. Modelling a reduction in the threshold for immediate referral led to a small increase in completion of the screening pathway. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing the number of positive spots required on the first gFOBt kit for referral for follow-up and targeted measures to improve compliance with follow-up may improve completion of the screening pathway.

Effects of evidence-based strategies to reduce the socioeconomic gradient of uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): four cluster-randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Uptake in the national colorectal cancer screening programme in England varies by socioeconomic status. We assessed four interventions aimed at reducing this gradient, with the intention of improving the health benefits of screening. METHODS: All people eligible for screening (men and women aged 60-74 years) across England were included in four cluster-randomised trials. Randomisation was based on day of invitation. Each trial compared the standard information with the standard information plus the following supplementary interventions: trial 1 (November, 2012), a supplementary leaflet summarising the gist of the key information; trial 2 (March, 2012), a supplementary narrative leaflet describing people's stories; trial 3 (June, 2013), general practice endorsement of the programme on the invitation letter; and trial 4 (July-August, 2013) an enhanced reminder letter with a banner that reiterated the screening offer. Socioeconomic status was defined by the Index of Multiple Deprivation score for each home address. The primary outcome was the socioeconomic status gradient in uptake across deprivation quintiles. This study is registered, number ISRCTN74121020. FINDINGS: As all four trials were embedded in the screening programme, loss to follow-up was minimal (less than 0·5%). Trials 1 (n=163,525) and 2 (n=150,417) showed no effects on the socioeconomic gradient of uptake or overall uptake. Trial 3 (n=265 434) showed no effect on the socioeconomic gradient but was associated with increased overall uptake (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·07, 95% CI 1·04-1·10, p<0·0001). In trial 4 (n=168 480) a significant interaction was seen with socioeconomic status gradient (p=0·005), with a stronger effect in the most deprived quintile (adjusted OR 1·11, 95% CI 1·04-1·20, p=0·003) than in the least deprived (1·00, 0·94-1·06, p=0·98). Overall uptake was also increased (1·07, 1·03-1·11, p=0·001). INTERPRETATION: Of four evidence-based interventions, the enhanced reminder letter reduced the socioeconomic gradient in screening uptake, but further reducing inequalities in screening uptake through written materials alone will be challenging. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening: the past or the future.

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) reduces CRC mortality; many countries have implemented population-based CRC screening programmes and many more are poised to do so. Whilst several different CRC screening modalities are available, choice will be influenced by cost, available resources (e.g. high-quality colonoscopy) and acceptability of the test by the invited population. For CRC screening, no screening test has so far surpassed the practicality, affordability and effectiveness of tests for the presence of blood in faeces (faecal occult blood tests, FOBt). The results of several large FOBt-based randomised controlled trials provide the best clinical evidence to support their use in population-based CRC screening. This review considers the current options for CRC screening and the future for FOBt.

Advances in Fecal Occult Blood Tests: the FIT revolution.

UNLABELLED: There is a wide choice of fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) for colorectal cancer screening. GOAL: To highlight the issues applicable when choosing a FOBT, in particular which FOBT is best suited to the range of screening scenarios. Four scenarios characterize the constraints and expectations of screening programs: (1) limited colonoscopy resource with a need to constrain test positivity rate; (2) a priority for maximum colorectal neoplasia detection with little need to constrain colonoscopy workload; (3) an "adequate" endoscopy resource that allows balancing the benefits of detection with the burden of service provision; and (4) a need to maximize participation in screening. Guaiac-based FOBTs (gFOBTs) have significant deficiencies, and fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for hemoglobin have emerged as better tests. gFOBTs are not sensitive to small bleeds, specificity can be affected by diet or drugs, participant acceptance can be low, laboratory quality control opportunities are limited, and they have a fixed hemoglobin concentration cutoff determining positivity. FITs are analytically more specific, capable of quantitation and hence provide flexibility to adjust cutoff concentration for positivity and the balance between sensitivity and specificity. FITs are clinically more sensitive for cancers and advanced adenomas, and because they are easier to use, acceptance rates are high. CONCLUSIONS: FOBT must be chosen carefully to meet the needs of the applicable screening scenario. Quantitative FIT can be adjusted to suit Scenarios 1, 2 and 3, and for each, they are the test of choice. FITs are superior to gFOBT for Scenario 4 and gFOBT is only suitable for Scenario 1.

Screening: Colorectal cancer screening--insights and challenges.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, the decade's most promising cancer-related public health development, is evolving. Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) will be the primary population-based CRC screening biomarker for the next 10-15 years. Will the international community exploit the full potential of FIT and other CRC risk indicators to enable a revolution in the effectiveness of screening?