The repeat FIT (RFIT) study: Does repeating faecal immunochemical tests provide reassurance and improve colorectal cancer detection?

AIM: Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) are highly sensitive for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection. Little evidence exists regarding repeat FIT. The repeat FIT (RFIT) study aimed to determine whether second and third FIT provide reassurance and improve CRC or significant bowel disease (SBD) identification. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study. Patients recruited from urgent referrals returned three FIT and underwent colonoscopy. Chi-square tests compared categorical data. Diagnostic accuracy variables (sensitivity/specificity/positive predictive value [PPV]/negative predictive value [NPV]) were calculated for one, two and three FIT (95% CI). Three negative FIT (<10 µg Hb/g of faeces [µg/g]) groups (one, two, three) were compared with positive groups (one or more FIT ≥10 µg/g). CRC and SBD detection rates were compared by strategy. RESULTS: A total of 460 patients (mean age: 66.8 years, 233 males and 227 females, 23 CRC, 80 SBD) were included in the study. For one, two and three negative FIT, CRC sensitivity remained static (95.7%); specificity (44.6%, 40.7% and 38.4%) and NPV decreased (99.5%, 99.4% and 99.4%). For SBD, sensitivity increased (78.8%, 83.8% and 86.3%), specificity decreased (47.4%, 43.7% and 41.6%) and NPV increased (91.4%, 92.7% and 93.5%). In one, two and three positive FIT groups, CRC detection was 8.3%,16.1% and 20.9%. CRC mean FIT was 150 µg/g, <6 µg/g for benign pathology. CONCLUSIONS: One or more negative FIT increases the sensitivity for CRC/SBD. Repeating FIT provides greater differentiation of patients with and without CRC/SBD compared to single FIT but is associated with decreased specificity and PPV. Multiple negative FIT may offer reassurance; however, application of repeating FIT may be restricted given the associated increase in investigations S1.

Sample comparison of BÜHLMANN fCAL Turbo and OC-FCa faecal calprotectin methods.

BACKGROUND: Faecal calprotectin is an inflammatory marker used to triage patients for further investigation with suspected inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Our current method requires faecal samples be sent to the laboratory, where calprotectin is extracted before analysis. This is a time-consuming, potential bottleneck in the pathway. We have recently evaluated the OC-SENSOR PLEDIA fCAL method that uses the same sampling device as used in some bowel cancer screening and symptomatic colorectal cancer programmes that detect faecal haemoglobin. The below study is a comparison of the OC-FCa method with the BÜHLMANN fCAL Turbo which is used routinely within BSPS. METHOD: 150 homogenised and 110 non-homogenised faecal samples were loaded into OC-Sampling Bottle 3 and BÜHLMANN CALEX cap sampling devices. The samples were then analysed on their respective systems according to manufacturer's instructions. RESULTS: The OC-FCa assay had a mean positive bias of 67.3% (homogenised) and 88.4% (non-homogenised). Homogenised samples showed substantial agreement between the methods for normal (<50 µg/g) and elevated (150+µg/g) risk categories (k = 0.794, k = 0.788, respectively) and moderate agreement for borderline (51-150 µg/g) (k = 0.25) according to the current Berkshire and Surrey Pathology Service (BSPS) guidelines. Non-homogenised samples had none to slight agreement for normal and borderline values (k = 0.02 for both) and moderate agreement for elevated (k = 0.596). CONCLUSION: The OC-FCa method is a viable alternative for faecal calprotectin testing, but requires an adjustment to clinical cut-off values due to the lack of standardisation and strong positive bias. A clinical comparative study is required to assess the impact of patients collecting their own samples into the devices, as this may negate any potential degradation samples may exhibit during transit to the laboratory.

Comparison and commutability study among four faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) systems.

OBJECTIVES: Faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT) are used in colorectal cancer screening programs around the world and increasingly for triage of symptomatic patients. FIT results are currently not traceable to a common reference standard and results obtained on various FIT systems may not be equivalent. The size of the bias between the systems is difficult to quantify due to the complex pre-analytical aspects of FIT. METHODS: This study aimed to quantify the bias and the correlation between four FIT systems by measuring a panel of 38 faecal samples while limiting the effect of the pre-analytical aspects. In addition, the commutability of seven candidate reference materials (RM) was assessed. RESULTS: Pairwise method comparisons based on faecal samples demonstrated Pearson correlation coefficients ranging between 0.944 and 0.970 and an average proportional bias of -30 to -35 % for one FIT system compared to the other three. The relative standard deviation among biases of the individual samples was around 20 %. Due to these sample specific differences, no decisive conclusions could be drawn in the commutability study. However, two candidate RMs, prepared in the FIT system-specific storage/extraction buffers, had a better commutable profile than the other five. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a common threshold for all FIT systems is currently not possible due to the presence of a proportional bias. We have identified potential commutable RMs to take to further studies on the production of a common calibrator, with the aim being to reduce the analytical bias observed on different FIT systems.