Role of the faecal immunochemical test in patients with risk-stratified suspected colorectal cancer symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis to inform the ACPGBI/BSG guidelines.

Background: The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), recommended in 2017 the use of the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to guide investigations in patients presenting with NICE-defined low-risk symptoms suspicious for colorectal cancer (CRC). At that time, NICE did not recommend FIT use for high-risk symptoms. This is the first systematic review to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FIT in NICE-defined high and low-risk symptoms and was designed to inform the joint ACPGBI/BSG guidelines. Methods: We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021224674. Medline and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to 31st March 2022. We included studies recruiting adult patients presenting with suspected CRC symptoms in whom FIT was performed and diagnostic accuracy data for CRC detection could be derived at a limit of detection (LoD) and/or 10 µg haemoglobin/gram faeces threshold in four commonly used analysers. FIT performance was assessed for high-risk, low-risk and individual symptoms where possible. Bivariate meta-analysis was performed where study numbers allowed. Findings: Thirty-one studies (79566 patients) met inclusion criteria. At 10 µg/g, for "all symptoms" (n = 35,945) sensitivity and specificity were 91.0% (95% CI: 88.9, 92.7) and 75.2% (95% CI: 69.6, 80.1); for "high-risk" symptoms (n = 18,264), 88.7% (95% CI: 84.4, 92.0) and 78.5% (95% CI: 73.0, 83.2); and for "low-risk" symptoms (n = 2161), 88.7% (95% CI: 78.1, 95.3) and 88.5% (95% CI: 87.1, 89.9), respectively. At LoD, for "all symptoms" (n = 26,056) sensitivity and specificity were 94.7% (95% CI: 90.5, 97.1) and 66.5% (95% CI: 58.7, 73.6); for "high-risk" symptoms (n = 16,768), 92.8% (95% CI: 86.4, 96.3) and 70.3% (95% CI: 66.5, 73.8); and for "low-risk" symptoms (n = 2082), 94.7% (95% CI: 85.4, 98.9) and 71.9% (95% CI: 69.9, 73.9), respectively. Summary estimates were similar across different analysers. Interpretation: FIT sensitivity for CRC detection is maximised at the LoD; its performance is similar in high and low-risk symptoms, and across different analysers where a common threshold is used. FIT performance for CRC detection is adequate and transferrable to clinical diagnostic pathways. Funding: This review was part-funded by NHS England awarded to RM Partners. RB and RC were funded by research fellowships awarded by Croydon University Hospital.

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in patients with signs or symptoms of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC): a joint guideline from the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG).

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) has a high sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC). In a symptomatic population FIT may identify those patients who require colorectal investigation with the highest priority. FIT offers considerable advantages over the use of symptoms alone, as an objective measure of risk with a vastly superior positive predictive value for CRC, while conversely identifying a truly low risk cohort of patients. The aim of this guideline was to provide a clear strategy for the use of FIT in the diagnostic pathway of people with signs or symptoms of a suspected diagnosis of CRC. The guideline was jointly developed by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/British Society of Gastroenterology, specifically by a 21-member multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG). A systematic review of 13 535 publications was undertaken to develop 23 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the triage of people with symptoms of a suspected CRC diagnosis in primary care. In order to achieve consensus among a broad group of key stakeholders, we completed an extended Delphi of the GDG, and also 61 other individuals across the UK and Ireland, including by members of the public, charities and primary and secondary care. Seventeen research recommendations were also prioritised to inform clinical management.

Establishing a colorectal cancer research database from routinely collected health data: the process and potential from a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer is a common cause of death and morbidity. A significant amount of data are routinely collected during patient treatment, but they are not generally available for research. The National Institute for Health Research Health Informatics Collaborative in the UK is developing infrastructure to enable routinely collected data to be used for collaborative, cross-centre research. This paper presents an overview of the process for collating colorectal cancer data and explores the potential of using this data source. METHODS: Clinical data were collected from three pilot Trusts, standardised and collated. Not all data were collected in a readily extractable format for research. Natural language processing (NLP) was used to extract relevant information from pseudonymised imaging and histopathology reports. Combining data from many sources allowed reconstruction of longitudinal histories for each patient that could be presented graphically. RESULTS: Three pilot Trusts submitted data, covering 12 903 patients with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer since 2012, with NLP implemented for 4150 patients. Timelines showing individual patient longitudinal history can be grouped into common treatment patterns, visually presenting clusters and outliers for analysis. Difficulties and gaps in data sources have been identified and addressed. DISCUSSION: Algorithms for analysing routinely collected data from a wide range of sites and sources have been developed and refined to provide a rich data set that will be used to better understand the natural history, treatment variation and optimal management of colorectal cancer. CONCLUSION: The data set has great potential to facilitate research into colorectal cancer.

Prognostic Importance of MRI-Detected Extramural Venous Invasion in Rectal Cancer: A Literature Review and Systematic Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Extramural venous invasion (EMVI) is recognized as a poor prognostic factor in rectal cancer. There are well-documented limitations associated with pathology detection of EMVI, including variable reporting and the inability to use it preoperatively to guide neoadjuvant treatment. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-detected EMVI (mrEMVI) has been proposed as an imaging biomarker. This review assesses the prognostic significance of mrEMVI on survival outcomes and whether regression of mrEMVI after neoadjuvant therapy is associated with improvements in survival. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An electronic search was carried out using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases using the search terms "rectum," "cancer,", "MRI," and "outcomes." A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out in accordance with Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using Review Manager software. A qualitative review was performed. RESULTS: A total of 7399 articles were identified, of which 33 were relevant to the review question. After a qualitative assessment, 20 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Baseline mrEMVI positivity is associated with significantly worsened overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-2.54; P = .0001) and significantly worsened disease-free survival (HR 2.41; 95% CI, 2.02-2.89; P < .00001). After neoadjuvant treatment, a positive mrEMVI status is associated with a significantly worsened overall and disease-free survival. Only 3 papers specifically looked at mrEMVI regression, but the results show that persistent mrEMVI-positive status after treatment is associated with significantly worsened disease-free survival compared with a change in mrEMVI from positive to negative (HR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.39-2.68; P < .0001). A subgroup analysis of MRI-detected lymph node metastases showed no significant association with survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.33 (95% CI, 0.98-1.80; P = .06). CONCLUSION: mrEMVI is significantly associated with worsened survival outcomes, both at baseline and after neoadjuvant treatment. Additionally, there is evidence that regression of mrEMVI after neoadjuvant treatment is associated with improved survival compared with mrEMVI persistence. The findings of this review emphasize the need for accurate and consistent reporting of mrEMVI status before and after neoadjuvant treatment and support the inclusion of mrEMVI into staging systems preferentially over lymph node metastases.