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.

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.

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.

Tests and investigations for colorectal cancer screening.

Worldwide, colorectal (CRC) is the third most common form of cancer, after lung and breast cancer, and the fourth most common cause of cancer death, although in developed countries CRC incidence is higher and it accounts for an even higher proportion of cancer deaths. Successful treatment of early-stage CRC confers substantial survival advantage, and there is now overwhelming evidence that screening average-risk individuals for CRC reduces the incidence and disease-specific mortality. In spite of considerable research for new biomarkers for CRC, the detection of blood in faeces remains the most effective screening tool. The best evidence to date for population-based CRC screening comes from randomised-controlled trials that used a guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBt) as the first-line screening modality, whereby test-positive individuals are referred for follow-up investigations, usually colonoscopy. A major innovation in the last ten years or so has been the development of other more analytically sensitive and specific screening techniques for blood in faeces. The faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin (FIT) confers substantial benefits over gFOBt in terms of analytical sensitivity, specificity and practicality and FIT are now recommended for CRC screening by the European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. The challenge internationally is to develop high quality CRC screening programmes for which uptake is high. This is especially important for developing countries witnessing an increase in the incidence of CRC as populations adopt more westernised lifestyles. This review describes the tests available for CRC screening and how they are being used worldwide. The reader will gain an understanding of developments in CRC screening and issues that arise in choosing the most appropriate screening test (or tests) for organised population-based screening internationally and optimising the performance of the chosen test (or tests). Whilst a wide range of literature has been cited, this is not a systematic review. The authors provide FOBT CRC screening for a population of 14.6 million in the south of England and the senior author (SPH) was the lead author of the European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis and leads the World Endoscopy Organization Colorectal Cancer Committee's Expert Working Group on 'FIT for Screening'.

Venous thromboembolism and cyproterone acetate in men with prostate cancer: a study using the General Practice Research Database.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with the use of cyproterone acetate (CPA) amongst men with prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using data from the General Practice Research Database, cases of VTE were identified amongst men with prostate cancer. Four controls with no evidence of a VTE were selected for each case. The time from diagnosis of prostate cancer to first hormonal treatment, and from first hormonal treatment to VTE, was compared for different treatments. Adjusted risk estimates for VTE were derived from further analysis using a nested case-control study design amongst all men with advanced prostate cancer, qualified by evidence of hormonal treatment. RESULTS: The time between diagnosis and first treatment was significantly shorter for men first treated with CPA than for men first treated with a luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) analogue (adjusted hazard ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.06-1.67). When the first treatment was CPA, the treatment-free period after diagnosis was significantly shorter for men who later had a VTE than for those who did not. The case-control study yielded an adjusted risk estimate for VTE amongst CPA users that was significantly higher than amongst men who were prescribed an LHRH analogue or who had had an orchidectomy (adjusted odds ratio 5.23, 95% CI 3.12-8.79). CONCLUSION: There was a greater risk of VTE associated with CPA, which might be due to differences in disease severity between users of different products. The clinical significance of this finding is unclear.