An observational study of replicate faecal immunochemical tests in the urgently referred symptomatic cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Triage of patients with suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) utilises a single faecal immunochemical test (FIT) at a defined threshold. Limited evidence exists regarding whether replicate FIT improves the positive and negative predictive value in symptomatic patients. This study examines urgently referred symptomatic patients undergoing replicate FIT. Primary aim is to assess two FITs and CRC/serious bowel disease. Secondary aims are to determine correlation and utility of replicate FIT. METHODOLOGY: Patients carried out one additional FIT during COVID-19 pandemic. FIT 1 and FIT 2 (the replicate sample) were analysed in relation to symptoms, diagnoses, investigations, future colonoscopy and missed CRC. Study period was 01/03/2020-31/07/2020. Three subgroups were compared; double positive (≥10 µg Hb/g faeces), double negative, and discordant FIT (one positive). RESULTS: 111 patients had replicate FIT (50 male, 61 female). 43 (38.7%) patients had double negative, 32 (28.8%) double positive and 36 (32.4%) had discordant FITs. Median time between FITs was 14 days (IQR = 11-19). 83% of double positive patients underwent colonoscopy/virtual colonoscopy (61% in double negative patients). Six CRC and one high-risk polyp were in double positive patients (none in other groups). One discordant patient was not investigated and a CRC missed. CONCLUSIONS: Replicate FIT as a triage strategy appears most effective where both FITs are negative. CRC risk is low when FIT results are discordant. Double negative FITs are reassuring given benign associated diagnoses, or for patients where endoscopic investigation is high-risk. Larger studies are required to evaluate discordant FITs, enabling refinement of urgent investigation pathways.

Efficacy and accuracy of faecal sampling by a digital rectal examination for faecal immunochemical testing.

AIM: A digital rectal examination (DRE) during routine assessment for patients with abdominal symptoms provides an opportunity to obtain faeces from the glove for faecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Here, we compared sampling via DRE to the standard faecal sampling by patients. METHOD: Patients were recruited to a prospective observational cohort study between July 2019 and March 2020. Patients provided a sample for the FOB Gold Wide® which was compared to a further sample taken at clinic via DRE. Clinicians reported whether they obtained a 'good' sample filling all the grooves, a 'poor' sample filling some of the grooves or no faecal sample. Cohen's kappa was used to compare percentage agreement around a negative threshold of <10 µg haemoglobin/g of faeces. Sensitivity for serious bowel disease (SBD) was calculated. RESULTS: Of 596 patients who underwent attempted DRE sampling, there were 258 (43.3%) 'good' samples, 117 (19.6%) 'poor' samples and 221 (37.1%) with no sample to wipe in the grooves. Cohen's kappa dropped from 0.70 to 0.30 for the 'good' and 'poor' samples, respectively. Of those with DRE samples and definitive diagnostic outcomes, the sensitivity for SBD dropped significantly from 76.0% to 41.7% between 'good' and 'poor' samples, respectively (p = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: A 'good' sample obtained by DRE provides comparable results to samples obtained by patients. This creates potential benefit in speed and ease of testing for patients. However, not all DRE sampling attempts are successful, and the clinician must be satisfied that enough faeces is obtained to wipe adequately into all grooves.

Replicate and repeat faecal immunochemical tests in symptomatic patients: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Faecal Immunochemical tests (FITs) in the assessment of patients presenting with symptoms have generally used a single sample. Little evidence pertains to the use of replicate, where a number of tests are done prior to decision-making or repeat FIT, where additional FIT are performed following clinical decision-making. Overwhelmingly, research has focussed on FIT to help identify colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of this review is to assess the available literature concerning replicate and repeat FIT in symptomatic patients to help generate consensus and guide future research. METHODS: The terms 'faecal immunochemical test' or 'FIT' were combined with 'multiple' or 'repeat'. EMBASE, Medline and PubMed database and other searches were conducted. All papers published in English were included with no exclusion date limits until November 2021. RESULTS: Of the 161 initial papers screened, seven were included for review. Qualitative and quantitative FIT outcomes were assessed in the studies. The primary aims of most related to whether replicate FIT increased diagnostic yield of CRC, with colonoscopy used as the reference standard. One publication assessed the impact of a new COVID-adapted pathway on CRC detection. No consensus on replicate FIT was apparent. Some concluded that FITs may help minimise missed CRC diagnoses: others showed no increase in diagnostic yield of CRC. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence on replicate and repeat FIT is both minimal and conflicting. FIT is a superb clinical tool, but significant gaps surrounding application remain. Further studies relating to replicate and repeat FIT are required.

Comparison of the QuikRead go® point-of-care faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin with the FOB Gold Wide® laboratory analyser to diagnose colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients.

OBJECTIVES: Faecal immunochemical testing for haemoglobin (FIT) is used to triage patients for colonic investigations. Point-of-care (POC) FIT devices on the market have limited data for their diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer (CRC). Here, a POC FIT device is compared with a laboratory-based FIT system using patient collected samples from the urgent referral pathway for suspected CRC. METHODS: A prospective, observational cohort study. Patients collected two samples from the same stool. These were measured by POC QuikRead go® (Aidian Oy, Espoo, Finland) and laboratory-based FOB Gold Wide® (Sentinel Diagnostics, Italy). Faecal haemoglobin <10 µg haemoglobin/g of faeces was considered as negative. At this threshold, comparisons between the two systems were made by calculating percentage agreement and Cohen's kappa coefficient. Proportion of negative results were compared with Chi squared testing. Sensitivities for CRC were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 629 included patients provided paired samples for FIT to compare the QuikRead go® and FOB Gold Wide®. The agreement around the negative threshold was 83.0% and Cohen's kappa coefficient was 0.54. The QuikRead go® reported 440/629 (70.0% of samples) as negative compared to 523/629 (83.1%) for the FOB Gold Wide®, this difference was significant (p-value<0.001). Sensitivities for CRC detection by the QuikRead go® and FOB Gold Wide® were 92.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 68.5-98.7%) and 100% (CI: 78.5-100%) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both systems were accurate in their ability to detect CRC. Whilst good agreement around the negative threshold was identified, more patients would be triaged to further colonic investigation if using the QuikRead go®.

Diagnostic accuracy of point of care faecal immunochemical testing using a portable high-speed quantitative analyser for diagnosis in 2-week wait patients.

AIM: Laboratory-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is the gold standard for detecting the presence of blood in the stool. The aim was to perform a diagnostic accuracy study to confirm if a point of care (POC) analyser for FIT could be safely used as an adjunct in the triage and management of 2-week wait (TWW) colorectal patients. METHODS: The Point of Care Faecal Immunochemical Testing (POC FIT) prospective observational cohort study was designed for TWW patients at a regional referral centre. Between July 2019 and March 2020, patients were invited to perform and bring a FIT sample to clinic. FIT was completed within the clinic appointment using a POC quantitative analyser that has a 2-min processing time (QuikRead go®). Patients and clinicians were blinded to results within the clinic appointment. The results were compared with subsequent diagnostic outcomes. Faecal haemoglobin of <10 µg haemoglobin/g of faeces was considered a negative result. Sensitivities for colorectal cancer (CRC) and combined serious bowel disease (SBD) were calculated using this pre-determined cut-off. RESULTS: A total of 553 patients were included for analytical comparison with diagnostic outcomes. There were 14 (2.5%) patients with CRC and 52 (9.4%) with SBD. The sensitivities for CRC and SBD were 92.9% (95% CI 68.5%-98.7%) and 76.9% (95% CI 63.9%-86.3%) respectively. 379 (68.5%) patients had a negative FIT result (negative predictive value for CRC was 99.7%). CONCLUSIONS: This POC FIT device is a useful adjunct to better manage TWW patients. The high observed sensitivity for CRC offers opportunities, within a single consultation, for improved triage and rationalization of investigation for those with bowel symptoms.

Adoption of faecal immunochemical testing for 2-week-wait colorectal patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational cohort study reporting a new service at a regional centre.

AIM: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the near-complete loss of routine endoscopy services. We describe a major reorganization of service at a regional referral centre (Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust) to manage the crisis. Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) was implemented for triage to make optimum use of limited diagnostic resources. Consultations were switched from face-to-face to telephone. Our aim was to evaluate the impact FIT had on resource allocation and patient diagnoses in the first 3 months of use. METHOD: All colorectal 2-week-wait patient referrals were posted a pack requesting FIT and notification of telephone consultation. A prepaid envelope was included for return of the samples. At consultation, FIT was incorporated with the presenting symptoms to guide the choice of investigation and triage urgency. FIT ≥10 µg/g was interpreted as positive. Outcome data were collected prospectively and compared with retrospective audit data from prepandemic levels across 3 months. RESULTS: From 26 March 2020 to 2 July 381 patients were referred who were invited to provide FIT samples and underwent telephone consultations. Three hundred and fifty eight FIT samples were returned (94%). Onward referral for colonoscopy reduced from 62% to 34% (P < 0.001). There were 14 colorectal cancers (CRC) (3.7%) diagnosed, which was not statistically different from the prepandemic level of 3.9% (P = 0.995). Twelve of the 14 patients with a CRC diagnosis had provided samples; all 12 had FIT ≥10 µg/g and were offered fast-track investigations. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of FIT optimized the allocation of limited resources to triage those who required urgent colonic investigation for detecting CRC.

Assessment of the analytical performance of point-of-care faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin.

BACKGROUND: The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) detects the presence of haemoglobin (Hb) in faeces. It is used as a screening tool for colorectal cancer (CRC) and increasingly to triage patients presenting with symptoms of CRC. A number of quantitative point-of-care (POC) FIT systems marketed for professional use and intended for use in a clinical setting are available. Here we reviewed the POC FIT systems available; three (Eurolyser Cube, OC-Sensor iO and QuikRead go) were evaluated to assess their performance against manufacturers' claims and suitability for use in a clinical setting. METHODS: The analytical evaluation of the POC FIT systems was undertaken using Hb lysates, patient samples and an external quality assessment sample. The evaluation focused on linearity, recovery, imprecision, prozone effect, Hb variant detection and suitability for use in a clinical setting. RESULTS: All three POC FIT systems performed to their manufacturer's claims and demonstrated good analytical performance with acceptable linearity, recovery, within- and between-run imprecision. The QuikRead go and OC-Sensor iO were able to accurately detect samples with results above their measuring range. However, because of a prozone effect the Eurolyser Cube gave falsely low results when using high concentrations of Hb. The QuikRead go performed best in the usability assessment due to portability and timeliness of result. CONCLUSION: Each system performed according to their manufacturers' claims. The QuikRead go and OC-Sensor iO are suitable for use. The Eurolyser Cube is not recommended because of the risk of falsely low results.

Is 3D faster and safer than 4K laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A randomised-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has well-established benefits for patients; however, laparoscopic procedures have a long and difficult learning curve, in large part due to the lack of stereoscopic depth perception. Developments in high-definition and stereoscopic imaging have attempted to overcome this. Three-dimensional high-definition (3D HD) systems are thought to improve operating times compared to two-dimensional high-definition systems. However their performance against new, ultra-high-definition ('4K') systems is not known. METHODS: Patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised to 3D HD or 4K laparoscopy. Operative videos were recorded, and the time from gallbladder exposure to separation from the liver (minus on table cholangiogram) was calculated. Blinded video assessment was performed to calculate intraoperative error scores. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty patients were randomised, of which 109 were analysed (3D HD n = 54; 4K n = 55). No reduction in operative time was detected with 3D HD compared to 4K laparoscopy (median [IQR]; 23.41 min [17.00-37.98] vs 20.90 min [17.67-33.03]; p = 0.91); nor was there any decrease observed in error scores (60 [56-62] vs 58 [56-60]; p = 0.27), complications or reattendance. Stone spillage occurred more frequently with 3D HD, but there were no other differences in individual error rates. Gallbladder grade and operating surgeon had significant effects on time to complete the operation. Gallbladder grade also had a significant effect on the error score. CONCLUSIONS: A 3D HD laparoscopic system did not reduce operative time or error scores during laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with a new 4K imaging system.

3D laparoscopy does not reduce operative duration or errors in day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary 3D platforms have overcome past deficiencies. Available trainee and laboratory studies suggest stereoscopic imaging improves performance but there is little clinical data or studies assessing specialists. We aimed to determine whether stereoscopic (3D) laparoscopic systems reduce operative time and number of intraoperative errors during specialist-performed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). METHODS: A parallel arm (1:1) randomised controlled trial comparing 2D and 3D passive-polarised laparoscopic systems in day-case LC using was performed. Eleven consultant surgeons that had each performed > 200 LC (including > 10 3D LC) participated. Cases were video recorded and a four-point difficulty grade applied. The primary outcome was overall operative time. Subtask time and the number of intraoperative consequential errors as identified by two blinded assessors using a hierarchical task analysis and the observational clinical human reliability analysis technique formed secondary endpoints. RESULTS: 112 patients were randomised. There was no difference in operative time between 2D and 3D LC (23:14 min (± 10:52) vs. 20:17 (± 9:10), absolute difference - 14.6%, p = 0.148) although 3D surgery was significantly quicker in difficulty grade 3 and 4 cases (30:23 min (± 9:24), vs. 18:02 (± 7:56), p < 0.001). No differences in overall error count was seen (total 47, median 1, range 0-4 vs. 45, 1, 0-3, p = 0.62) although there were significantly fewer 3D gallbladder perforations (15 vs. 6, p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: 3D laparoscopy did not reduce overall operative time or error frequency in laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed by specialist surgeons. 3D reduced Calot's dissection time and operative time in complex cases as well as the incidence of iatrogenic gallbladder perforation (NCT01930344).

Evolution of stereoscopic imaging in surgery and recent advances.

In the late 1980s the first laparoscopic cholecystectomies were performed prompting a sudden rise in technological innovations as the benefits and feasibility of minimal access surgery became recognised. Monocular laparoscopes provided only two-dimensional (2D) viewing with reduced depth perception and contributed to an extended learning curve. Attention turned to producing a usable three-dimensional (3D) endoscopic view for surgeons; utilising different technologies for image capture and image projection. These evolving visual systems have been assessed in various research environments with conflicting outcomes of success and usability, and no overall consensus to their benefit. This review article aims to provide an explanation of the different types of technologies, summarise the published literature evaluating 3D vs 2D laparoscopy, to explain the conflicting outcomes, and discuss the current consensus view.

3-D robotic tele-surgery and training over next generation wireless networks.

The latest advances on robotic surgery enable the performance of many surgical procedures by utilizing minimally invasive techniques. In particular, recent 3-D endoscopes have improved the performance of minimally invasive surgical procedures. Based on these advances, performing or visualizing in real-time surgical procedures at a distance can be envisaged. In this paper, we present a performance evaluation of 3-D robotic tele-surgery and training over next generation wireless networks, namely wireless networks based on the long term evolution (LTE) 3GPP standard. Different scheduling strategies are compared and results are analyzed in term of the resulting quality of experience (QoE) for the surgeon.

Survival following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is known to provide increased benefits to patients during the postoperative recovery period. Initial scepticism over the oncological adequacy of resection has been dismissed by a number of major randomized trials. Emerging evidence indicates that laparoscopic surgery may provide a potential survival benefit in colorectal cancer. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or open resection for colorectal cancer between October 2003 and December 2010 were analyzed. Data were collated and a database compiled. Survival analysis was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 665 resections were performed with 457 laparoscopically and 208 open. The median length of stay was 4 days following laparoscopic resection and 7 days following open (p < 0.0005). There was no significant difference between the two groups apart from gender (p = 0.03), ASA (p = 0.03), and the number of patients with extranodal metastatic disease (p = 0.01). The 5-year overall survival (OS) in the completed laparoscopic group was 75.8 versus 72.5 % in the open group (p = 0.12). The 5-year OS in patients who were converted was 52 %. The 5-year OS for nonmetastatic disease in the completed laparoscopic group was significantly greater at 79.4 versus 74 % in the open group (p = 0.03). There was no difference between the groups in OS for rectal cancer (p = 0.66), but there was an OS advantage for laparoscopically resected colon cancer (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic resection for nonmetastatic colon cancer may provide an overall survival advantage.

Laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer: a case series.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic colonic resection for cancer is becoming well established within the surgical community. However, the current evidence for laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) is scanty but does point toward a potential for improved short-term outcomes and oncological equivalency to open resection. METHODS: Patients undergoing laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer in 1 hospital between October 2003 and December 2010 were analyzed. Data were collated from a prospective database. Survival analysis was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: 79 patients were analyzed (96.3% of all TMEs). There was a median length of stay of 5 days, with no postoperative mortality. The 5-year overall survival was 70% and the 5-year disease-free survival was 65.5%. There was a conversion rate of 10.1%. The 5-year overall survival for completed laparoscopic cases was 70.6% versus 62.5% for converted cases (P=0.041). CONCLUSIONS: There seems to be increasing evidence that laparoscopic TME is equivalent to open TME for rectal cancer. Conversion may be deleterious to overall survival.

The emergency surgical team - the way forward in emergency care?

INTRODUCTION: With reduced working hours and shift patterns, surgical training and continuity of patient care is being put at risk. We have devised a system for managing the emergency surgical patients in an effort to counteract these perceived problems. This study describes the emergency surgical team and audits its activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The emergency surgery team concept is described in detail. Over a 2-week period, general surgical referral data, patient management and operative activity were audited. RESULTS: A total of 229 patients were referred to the emergency surgical team with 159 treated conservatively, 45 underwent operative intervention and 25 were discharged without admission. Of the emergency surgical team referrals, 58% had gallstone pathology, appendicitis or constipation/non-specific abdominal pain. Average daily number of patients under the care of the emergency surgical team was 26 (range, 10-40). CONCLUSIONS: The consultant-led emergency surgical team look after many of the acutely sick surgical patients. Our system not only provides good teaching opportunities but ensures optimal continuity of patient care in a busy district general hospital. Such an approach to emergency surgical care has been successfully developed to optimise training opportunities and improve patient care in a setting of reduced working hours and shift systems in our hospital.