Colonoscopy vs. Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM): Rationale for Study Design.

RATIONALE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is preventable through screening, with colonoscopy and fecal occult blood testing comprising the two most commonly used screening tests. Given the differences in complexity, risk, and cost, it is important to understand these tests' comparative effectiveness. STUDY DESIGN: The CONFIRM Study is a large, pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, parallel group trial to compare screening with colonoscopy vs. the annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in 50,000 average risk individuals. CONFIRM examines whether screening colonoscopy will be superior to a FIT-based screening program in the prevention of CRC mortality measured over 10 years. Eligible individuals 50-75 years of age and due for CRC screening are recruited from 46 Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers. Participants are randomized to either colonoscopy or annual FIT. Results of colonoscopy are managed as per usual care and study participants are assessed for complications. Participants testing FIT positive are referred for colonoscopy. Participants are surveyed annually to determine if they have undergone colonoscopy or been diagnosed with CRC. The primary endpoint is CRC mortality. The secondary endpoints are (1) CRC incidence (2) complications of screening colonoscopy, and (3) the association between colonoscopists' characteristics and neoplasia detection, complications and post-colonoscopy CRC. CONFIRM leverages several key characteristics of the VA's integrated healthcare system, including a shared medical record with national databases, electronic CRC screening reminders, and a robust national research infrastructure with experience in conducting large-scale clinical trials. When completed, CONFIRM will be the largest intervention trial conducted within the VA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01239082).

Replacing the Guaiac Fecal Occult Blood Test With the Fecal Immunochemical Test Increases Proportion of Individuals Screened in a Large Healthcare Setting.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The most commonly used noninvasive test for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been the guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT). The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) detects CRC and colorectal polyps with higher levels of sensitivity than the gFOBT, and may be more acceptable to patients. However, the FIT has not replaced the gFOBT in many clinical settings. We analyzed data from a large healthcare system that replaced the gFOBT with the FIT to determine the effects on CRC screening. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study of 7898 patients at the Veterans' Administration San Diego Healthcare System, 50-75 years old, who were offered stool-based CRC screening as part of primary care March 2014 through January 2015. Test orders and results were extracted from electronic health records; we performed manual reviews of colonoscopy and pathology reports for Veterans with positive results from the tests. Our primary outcome was test completion within 1 year of order; secondary outcomes were positive results and detection of advanced neoplasia by diagnostic colonoscopy. The primary analysis used an intention-to-screen approach, which included all patients with test orders; as-screened analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Among 7898 patients, 3236 had gFOBT and 4662 FIT orders. In the intention to screen analysis, a significantly higher proportion of subjects completed a FIT (42.6%) than a gFOBT (33.4%) (P < .001); advanced neoplasia was detected in a significantly higher proportion of subjects offered a FIT (0.79%) than a gFOBT (0.28%) (P = .003). The numbers needed to invite to achieve 1 additional completed test and identify 1 additional patient with advanced neoplasia were 11 and 196, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective study of patients at a Veterans' administration healthcare system, replacing the gFOBT with the FIT increased the proportion of patients who completed CRC screening. Replacement of the gFOBT with the FIT should be strongly considered by all healthcare systems.

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.

Faecal immunochemical tests versus guaiac faecal occult blood tests: what clinicians and colorectal cancer screening programme organisers need to know.

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common cause of cancer-related death, it is fortunately amenable to screening with faecal tests for occult blood and endoscopic tests. Despite the evidence for the efficacy of guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests (gFOBT), they have not been popular with primary care providers in many jurisdictions, in part because of poor sensitivity for advanced colorectal neoplasms (advanced adenomas and CRC). In order to address this issue, high sensitivity gFOBT have been recommended, however, these tests are limited by a reduction in specificity compared with the traditional gFOBT. Where colonoscopy is available, some providers have opted to recommend screening colonoscopy to their patients instead of faecal testing, as they believe it to be a better test. Newer methods for detecting occult human blood in faeces have been developed. These tests, called faecal immunochemical tests (FIT), are immunoassays specific for human haemoglobin. FIT hold considerable promise over the traditional guaiac methods including improved analytical and clinical sensitivity for CRC, better detection of advanced adenomas, and greater screenee participation. In addition, the quantitative FIT are more flexible than gFOBT as a numerical result is reported, allowing customisation of the positivity threshold. When compared with endoscopy, FIT are less sensitive for the detection of advanced colorectal neoplasms when only one time testing is applied to a screening population; however, this is offset by improved participation in a programme of annual or biennial screens and a better safety profile. This review will describe how gFOBT and FIT work and will present the evidence that supports the use of FIT over gFOBT, including the cost-effectiveness of FIT relative to gFOBT. Finally, specific issues related to FIT implementation will be discussed, particularly with respect to organised CRC screening programmes.

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.

Population screening for colorectal cancer means getting FIT: the past, present, and future of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin (FIT).

Fecal immunochemical tests for hemoglobin (FIT) are changing the manner in which colorectal cancer (CRC) is screened. Although these tests are being performed worldwide, why is this test different from its predecessors? What evidence supports its adoption? How can this evidence best be used? This review addresses these questions and provides an understanding of FIT theory and practices to expedite international efforts to implement the use of FIT in CRC screening.

Racial and ethnic differences in health care utilization and outcomes among ulcerative colitis patients in an integrated health-care organization.

BACKGROUND: Current knowledge of racial disparities in healthcare utilization and disease outcomes for ulcerative colitis (UC) is limited. We sought to investigate these differences among Caucasian, African American, Asian, and Hispanic patients with ulcerative colitis in Kaiser Permanente, a large integrated health-care system in Northern California. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used computerized clinical data from 5,196 Caucasians, 387 African-Americans, 550 Asians, and 801 Hispanics with prevalent UC identified between 1996 and 2007. Healthcare utilization and outcomes were compared at one and five-year follow-up by use of multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Compared with whites, the male-to-female ratio differed for African-Americans (0.68 vs. 0.91, p < 0.01) and Asians (1.3 vs. 0.91, p < 0.01). Asians had fewer co-morbid conditions (p < 0.01) than whites, whereas more African-Americans had hypertension and asthma (p < 0.01). Use of immunomodulators did not differ significantly among race and/or ethnic groups. Among Asians, 5-ASA use was highest (p < 0.05) and the incidence of surgery was lowest (p < 0.01). Prolonged steroid exposure was more common among Hispanics (p < 0.05 at 1-year) who also had more UC-related surgery (p < 0.01 at 5-year) and hospitalization (<0.05 at 5-year), although these differences were not significant in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In this population of UC patients with good access to care, overall health-care utilization patterns and clinical outcomes were similar across races and ethnicity. Asians may have milder disease than other races whereas Hispanics had a trend toward more aggressive disease, although the differences we observed were modest. These differences may be related to biological factors or different treatment preferences.

Incidence and mortality of colorectal adenocarcinoma in persons with inflammatory bowel disease from 1998 to 2010.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The relationship between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and the incidence and mortality of colorectal adenocarcinoma (CRC) has not been evaluated recently. METHODS: We calculated the incidence and standardized incidence and mortality rate ratios of CRC among adult individuals with intact colons using Kaiser Permanente of Northern California's database of members with IBD and general membership data for the period of 1998 to June 2010 (data through 2008 were used to calculate mortality). We also evaluated trends in medication use and rates of cancer detection over time. RESULTS: We identified 29 cancers among persons with Crohn's disease (CD) and 53 among persons with ulcerative colitis (UC). Overall, the incidence rates of cancer among individuals with CD, UC, or in the general membership were 75.0, 76.0, and 47.1, respectively, per 100,000 person-years. In the general population, the incidence of CRC was 21% higher in 2007-2010 than in 1998-2001 (P for trend, <.0001), coincident with the growth of CRC screening programs. The incidence of CRC among individuals with CD or UC was 60% higher than in the general population (95% confidence interval [CI] for CD, 20%-200%; 95% CI for UC, 30%-200%) and was stable over time (P for trend was as follows: CD, .98; UC, .40). During 1998-2008, the standardized mortality ratio for CRC in individuals with CD was 2.3 (95% CI, 1.6-3.0) and 2.0 in those with UC (95% CI, 1.3-2.7). Over the study period, anti-tumor necrosis factor agents replaced other therapies for CD and UC; the rate of colonoscopy increased by 33% among patients with CD and decreased by 9% in those with UC. CONCLUSIONS: From 1998 to 2010, the incidence of CRC in patients with IBD was 60% higher than in the general population and essentially stable over time.

A proposal to standardize reporting units for fecal immunochemical tests for hemoglobin.

Fecal immunochemical tests for hemoglobin are replacing traditional guaiac fecal occult blood tests in population screening programs for many reasons. However, the many available fecal immunochemical test devices use a range of sampling methods, differ with regard to hemoglobin stability, and report hemoglobin concentrations in different ways. The methods for sampling, the mass of feces collected, and the volume and characteristics of the buffer used in the sampling device also vary among fecal immunochemical tests, making comparisons of test performance characteristics difficult. Fecal immunochemical test results may be expressed as the hemoglobin concentration in the sampling device buffer and, sometimes, albeit rarely, as the hemoglobin concentration per mass of feces. The current lack of consistency in units for reporting hemoglobin concentration is particularly problematic because apparently similar hemoglobin concentrations obtained with different devices can lead to very different clinical interpretations. Consistent adoption of an internationally accepted method for reporting results would facilitate comparisons of outcomes from these tests. We propose a simple strategy for reporting fecal hemoglobin concentration that will facilitate the comparison of results between fecal immunochemical test devices and across clinical studies. Such reporting is readily achieved by defining the mass of feces sampled and the volume of sample buffer (with confidence intervals) and expressing results as micrograms of hemoglobin per gram of feces. We propose that manufacturers of fecal immunochemical tests provide this information and that the authors of research articles, guidelines, and policy articles, as well as pathology services and regulatory bodies, adopt this metric when reporting fecal immunochemical test results.

Role of thiopurine and anti-TNF therapy in lymphoma in inflammatory bowel disease.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) medications in relation to lymphoma risk. METHODS: Information on IBD and relevant medications and other utilization was obtained from the Kaiser Permanente IBD Registry, 1996-2009. Lymphoma cases were ascertained from the Kaiser Permanente Cancer Registry. Lymphoma incidence was compared between the IBD cohort and the general Kaiser Permanente population. RESULTS: Of the 16,023 IBD patients without human immunodeficiency virus followed an average 5.8 years, 43 developed lymphoma. IBD patients with and without lymphoma did not differ with respect to past IBD-related visits, procedures, or tests. The standardized incidence rate ratio (SIRR) for lymphoma among IBD patients with no dispensing of thiopurine or anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) was 1.0 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.96-1.1). Of the 21,282 person-years involving exposure to thiopurine or anti-TNF, 81% involved thiopurine alone; 3%, anti-TNF alone; and 16%, combination therapy. Among patients with thiopurine but not anti-TNF dispensings, the SIRR was 0.3 (95% CI: 0.2-0.4) for past use and 1.4 for current use (95% CI: 1.2-2.7). Among patients with dispensing of anti-TNF (with and without thiopurine), the SIRR was 5.5 for past use (95% CI: 4.5-6.6) and 4.4 for current use (95% CI: 3.4-5.4). The most common lymphoma subtypes were diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (44%), follicular lymphoma (14%), and Hodgkin's disease (12%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence that IBD alone is not associated with the risk of lymphoma. Use of anti-TNF with thiopurine and current use of thiopurine alone were associated with increased risk, although the effect of disease severity merits further evaluation.

FIT: a valuable but underutilized screening test for colorectal cancer-it's time for a change.

Although fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) have been used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in several countries for years, this has not been the case in the United States. The reasons for this are multifactorial, but if the United States hopes to increase screening rates, the evidence is in regarding FIT's benefits and potential. A publication in this issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology provides "gold standard" evidence of its superiority over the standard guaiac test and opens opportunities for investigators to discover the most effective uses of this test for population screening.