Patient-reported outcome measures show FIT as an acceptable investigation to rule out colorectal cancer in the two-week wait cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Use of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for symptomatic patients is increasing. FIT is recommended as a triage tool from primary care to the two-week wait (TWW) suspected cancer pathway, but there is still little known about patient attitudes. AIM: The aim of this study was to explore patient opinions of FIT and how it might be applied in the TWW pathway. METHODS: A telephone survey was conducted for patients from the TWW pathway who had undergone both conventional colonic investigation and FIT. Five questions explored expectations, attitudes towards results and experience of the investigations using a Likert scale 1-5. Differences in opinion were compared using median and mode scores and visualised using bar charts. RESULTS: One hundred and nine TWW patients agreed to answer the five questions. All had taken a stool sample for FIT, 50 underwent colonoscopy, 51 had a CT colonography and 8 underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy. Most patients (85%) scored 5 (completely satisfied) with these conventional colonic investigation methods they underwent for ruling out colorectal cancer (median 5). However, 30% of patients scored 5 (completely satisfied) if using a negative FIT to not require additional colonic investigation. The median score to perform FIT was 5 (very easy) compared with a median of 4 (easy) to undergo the other colonic investigations. CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic patients can perform FIT with little difficulty, and often would have been happy to avoid conventional colonic investigations with a negative result. However, shared decision-making should be employed to identify those who would be dissatisfied with relying on FIT for further investigation decisions.

Faecal immunochemical testing in symptomatic patients to prioritize investigation: diagnostic accuracy from NICE FIT Study.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated whether a quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) could be used to select patients with either high- or low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer for urgent investigation. METHODS: A double-blinded diagnostic accuracy study was conducted in 50 hospitals in England between October 2017 and December 2019. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had been referred to secondary care with suspected colorectal cancer symptoms meeting national criteria for urgent referral and triaged to investigation with colonoscopy. RESULTS: The study included 9822 patients, of whom 7194 (73.2 per cent) had high-risk symptoms, 1994 (20.3 per cent) low-risk symptoms, and 634 (6.5 per cent) had other symptoms warranting urgent referral. In patients with high-risk symptoms, the sensitivity of FIT for colorectal cancer at cut-off values of 2 and 10 µg haemoglobin per g faeces was 97.7 (95 per cent c.i. 95.0 to 99.1) and 92.2 (88.2 to 95.2) per cent respectively, compared with 94.3 (84.3 to 98.8) and 86.8 (74.7 to 94.5) per cent in patients with low-risk symptoms at the same cut-off points. At cut-off values of 2, 10, and 150 µg/g, the positive predictive value for colorectal cancer was 8.9, 16.2, and 30.5 per cent respectively for those with high-risk symptoms, and 8.4, 16.9, and 35.5 per cent for those with low-risk symptoms. CONCLUSION: FIT safely selects patients with high or low risk symptoms of colorectal cancer for investigation.

The diagnostic accuracy of the faecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer in risk-stratified symptomatic patients.

INTRODUCTION: The faecal immunochemical test detects blood in the faeces, reporting faecal haemoglobin quantitatively in micrograms of haemoglobin per gram of faeces. The aim of this pilot study was to determine the feasibility of using the faecal immunochemical test as a rule-out test in symptomatic patients at low and high risk of colorectal cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between November 2016 and October 2017, consecutive symptomatic patients within a multicultural part of London were recruited to perform a faecal immunochemical test prior to colonoscopy. Analysis was performed on the HM-JACKarc analyser. RESULTS: Faecal immunochemical test samples were returned by 298 patients who underwent colonoscopy. There was no significant variation in faecal haemoglobin levels by age, sex, ethnicity or deprivation. The overall detection rate for colorectal cancer was 100% at 2 µg/g and 92% at 10 µg/g. If a faecal haemoglobin threshold for investigation of 2 µg/g (ie detectable) or 10 µg/g had been employed, the number of colonoscopies would have been reduced by 70% and 84%, respectively, in all symptomatic patients. For low-risk patients, the sensitivity of the faecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer at both thresholds of 2 µg/g or 10 µg/g remained 100%, with the number of colonoscopies reduced by 80% and 91%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the faecal immunochemical test is a promising technology that detected colorectal cancer in all high- or low-risk symptomatic patients in our cohort at a threshold of detectable faecal haemoglobin. Data from adequately powered cohort studies will elucidate the true diagnostic accuracy of the test and the rate and patterns of undetected colorectal cancer.