'Low' faecal immunochemical test (FIT) colorectal cancer: a 4-year comparison of the Nottingham '4F' protocol with FIT10 in symptomatic patients.

AIM: The aim of this work was to evaluate colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes after 'low' (sub-threshold) faecal immunochemical test (FIT) results in symptomatic patients tested in primary care. METHOD: This work comprised a retrospective audit of 35 289 patients with FIT results who had consulted their general practitioner with lower gastrointestinal symptoms and had subsequent CRC diagnoses. The Rapid Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis pathway was introduced in November 2017 to allow incorporation of FIT into clinical practice. The local '4F' protocol combined FIT results with blood tests and digital rectal examination (DRE): FIT, full blood count, ferritin and finger [DRE]. The outcome used was detection rates of CRC, missed CRC and time to diagnosis in local 4F protocols for patients with a subthreshold faecal haemoglobin (fHb) result compared with thresholds of 10 and 20 µg Hb/g faeces. RESULTS: A single threshold of 10 µg Hb/g faeces identifies a population in whom the risk of CRC is 0.2%, but this would have missed 63 (10.5%) of 599 CRCs in this population. The Nottingham 4F protocol would have missed fewer CRCs [42 of 599 (7%)] despite using a threshold of 20 µg Hb/g faeces for patients with normal blood tests. Subthreshold FIT results in patients subsequently diagnosed with a palpable rectal tumour yielded the longest delays in diagnosis. CONCLUSION: A combination of FIT with blood results and DRE (the 4F protocol) reduced the risk of missed or delayed diagnosis. Further studies on the impact of such protocols on the diagnostic accuracy of FIT are expected. The value of adding blood tests to FIT may be restricted to specific parts of the fHb results spectrum.

Characteristics of nonparticipants in a randomised colorectal cancer screening trial comparing sigmoidoscopy and faecal immunochemical testing.

Public health systems should guarantee universal access to health care services, including cancer screening. We assessed whether certain population subgroups were underrepresented among participants in colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy and faecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Between 2012 and 2019, about 140 000 individuals aged 50 to 74 years were randomly invited to once-only sigmoidoscopy or first round of FIT screening. Our study included 46 919 individuals invited to sigmoidoscopy and 70 019 to FIT between 2012 and 2017. We used logistic regression models to evaluate if demographic and socioeconomic factors and use of certain drugs were associated with participation. Twenty-four thousand one hundred and fifty-nine (51.5%) individuals attended sigmoidoscopy and 40 931 (58.5%) FIT screening. Male gender, young age, low education and income, being retired or unemployed, living alone, being an immigrant, long driving time to screening centre, and use of antidiabetic and psychotropic drugs were associated with low participation in both screening groups. Many of these factors also predicted low acceptance of colonoscopy after positive FIT. While male gender, young age and living alone were more strongly associated with nonparticipation in FIT than sigmoidoscopy, low education and income, being retired or immigrant and long driving time were more strongly associated with nonparticipation in sigmoidoscopy than FIT. In conclusion, participation was lower in sigmoidoscopy than FIT. Predictors of nonparticipation were similar between arms. However, low socioeconomic status, being an immigrant and long driving time affected participation more in sigmoidoscopy screening, suggesting that FIT may guarantee more equal access to screening services than sigmoidoscopy.

Exploring the utility and acceptability of Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) as a novel intervention for the improvement of colorectal Cancer (CRC) surveillance in individuals with lynch syndrome (FIT for lynch study): a single-arm, prospective, multi-centre, non-randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Lynch Syndrome (LS) is an inherited cancer predisposition syndrome defined by pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair (MMR) or EPCAM genes. In the United Kingdom, people with LS are advised to undergo biennial colonoscopy from as early as 25 until 75 years of age to mitigate a high lifetime colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, though the consideration of additional surveillance intervention(s) through the application of non-invasive diagnostic devices has yet to be longitudinally observed in LS patients. In this study, we will examine the role of annual faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) alongside biennial colonoscopy for CRC surveillance in people with LS. METHODS/DESIGN: In this single-arm, prospective, non-randomised study, 400 LS patients will be recruited across 11 National Health Service (NHS) Trusts throughout the United Kingdom. Study inclusion requires a LS diagnosis, between 25 and 73 years old, and a routine surveillance colonoscopy scheduled during the recruitment period. Eligible patients will receive a baseline OC-Sensor™ FIT kit ahead of their colonoscopy, and annually for 3 years thereafter. A pre-paid envelope addressed to the central lab will be included within all patient mailings for the return of FIT kits and relevant study documents. A questionnaire assessing attitudes and perception of FIT will also be included at baseline. All study samples received by the central lab will be assayed on an OC-Sensor™ PLEDIA Analyser. Patients with FIT results of ≥6 µg of Haemoglobin per gram of faeces (f-Hb) at Years 1 and/or 3 will be referred for colonoscopy via an urgent colonoscopy triage pathway. 16S rRNA gene V4 amplicon sequencing will be carried out on residual faecal DNA of eligible archived FIT samples to characterise the faecal microbiome. DISCUSSION: FIT may have clinical utility alongside colonoscopic surveillance in people with LS. We have designed a longitudinal study to examine the efficacy of FIT as a non-invasive modality. Potential limitations of this method will be assessed, including false negative or false positive FIT results related to specific morphological features of LS neoplasia or the presence of post-resection anastomotic inflammation. The potential for additional colonoscopies in a subset of participants may also impact on colonoscopic resources and patient acceptability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial Registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN15740250 . Registered 13 July 2021.

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®.

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.

New horizons in iron deficiency anaemia in older adults.

Iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) is common in older adults and associated with a range of adverse outcomes. Differentiating iron deficiency from other causes of anaemia is important to ensure appropriate investigations and treatment. It is possible to make the diagnosis reliably using simple blood tests. Clinical evaluation and assessment are required to help determine the underlying cause and to initiate appropriate investigations. IDA in men and post-menopausal females is most commonly due to occult gastrointestinal blood loss until proven otherwise, although there is a spectrum of underlying causative pathologies. Investigation decisions should take account of the wishes of the patient and their competing comorbidities, individualising the approach. Management involves supplementation using oral or intravenous (IV) iron then consideration of treatment of the underlying cause of deficiency. Future research areas are outlined including the role of Hepcidin and serum soluble transferrin receptor measurement, quantitative faecal immunochemical testing, alternative dosing regimens and the potential role of IV iron preparations.

Repeat Faecal Immunochemical Testing for Colorectal Cancer Detection in Symptomatic and Screening Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is widely used in bowel screening programmes and assessing symptomatic patients for suspected colorectal cancer (CRC). The evidence for single test performance of FIT in both settings is considerable; however, the use of a repeat test to increase sensitivity remains uncertain. We aimed to review what increase in test positivity would be generated by additional FITs, whether a repeated FIT detects previously missed CRC and advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN), and to estimate the sensitivity of double-FIT strategies to diagnose CRC and ACRN. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was performed using key search terms. Studies reporting the use of more than one FIT in the same screening round or planned assessment of a single symptomatic patient episode were included. Studies were categorised by the reported study population into asymptomatic, mixed (cohorts of combined asymptomatic, symptomatic, or high-risk surveillance), or symptomatic cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 68 studies were included for analysis (39 asymptomatic, 21 mixed, 7 symptomatic, and 1 study with discrete asymptomatic and symptomatic data). At a threshold of 10 µg Hb/g, the two-test positivity ranged between 8.1 and 34.5%, with an increase from the second test of 3-9.2 percentage points. Four out of five studies comparing one versus two tests for diagnosing CRC at 10 µg Hb/g identified additional cases with the second test, with a minimum of 50% reduction in missed CRC. At a threshold of 20 µg Hb/g, the second test increased the positivity by 1.3-6.7 percentage points, with a two-test positivity of between 5.1 and 25.0%. Using a threshold of 20 µg Hb/g, five out of seven studies had a 25% reduction in missed CRC. A meta-analysis estimated the double-FIT sensitivity at 10 µg Hb/g for CRC in mixed-risk and symptomatic cohorts to be 94% and 98%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated use of FIT helps to diagnose more cases of CRC with a moderate increase in positivity. A double-FIT strategy at 10 µg Hb/g in mixed and symptomatic cohorts has a very high sensitivity for CRC.

Developing a Nomogram for Predicting Colorectal Cancer and Its Precancerous Lesions Based on Data from Three Non-Invasive Screening Tools, APCS, FIT, and sDNA.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop and validate a nomogram for predicting positive colonoscopy results using the data from non-invasive screening strategies. Methods: The volunteers participated in primary colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings using Asia-Pacific colorectal screening (APCS) scoring, faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and stool deoxyribonucleic acid (sDNA) testing and underwent a colonoscopy. The positive colonoscopy results included CRC, advanced adenoma (AA), high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN), and low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN). The enrolled participants were randomly selected for training and validation sets in a 7:3 ratio. A model for predicting positive colonoscopy results was virtualized by the nomogram using logistic regression analysis. Results: Among the 179 enrolled participants, 125 were assigned to training set, while 54 were assigned to validation set. After multivariable logistic regression was done, APCS score, FIT result, and sDNA result were all identified as the predictors for positive colonoscopy results. A model that incorporated the above independent predictors was developed and presented as a nomogram. The C-index of the nomogram in the validation set was 0.768 (95% CI, 0.644-0.891). The calibration curve demonstrated a good agreement between prediction and observation. The decision curve analysis (DCA) curve showed that the model achieved a net benefit across all threshold probabilities. The AUC of the prediction model for predicting positive colonoscopy results was much higher than that of the FIT + sDNA test scheme. Conclusion: The nomogram for predicting positive colonoscopy results was successfully developed based on 3 non-invasive screening tools (APCS scoring, FIT and sDNA test).

Advanced-stage CRC incidence patterns following the phased implementation of the CRC screening programme in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: From 2014, the Dutch colorectal cancer (CRC) faecal immunochemical testing-based screening programme was gradually rolled out by birth cohort. We evaluated changes in advanced-stage CRC incidence by timing of invitation to further strengthen the evidence for the effectiveness of CRC screening. METHODS: Data on advanced-stage CRC incidence in the period 2010-2019 by invitation cohort were collected through the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Crude rates of advanced-stage CRC incidence and cumulative advanced-stage CRC incidence were calculated. Observed advanced-stage CRC incidence and cumulative advanced-stage CRC incidence were compared with expected advanced-stage CRC incidence and cumulative advanced-stage CRC incidence by invitation cohort using trend lines extrapolating data prior to the introduction of screening. RESULTS: For the invitation cohort that was first invited for screening in 2014, advanced-stage CRC incidence increased before the introduction of screening from 94.1 to 124.7 per 100,000 individuals in the period 2010-2013. In 2014, the observed increase was higher than in preceding years, to 184.9 per 100,000 individuals. Hereafter, a decrease in incidence was observed to levels below expected incidence based on trends before the introduction of screening. A similar pattern was observed for invitation cohorts in subsequent years, coinciding with the first invitation to the screening programme. In 2019, the observed incidence for all invitation cohorts remained below expected incidence. The cumulative advanced-stage CRC incidence in the 2014-2016 invitation cohorts was significantly lower than the expected cumulative CRC incidence in the period 2010-2019. CONCLUSIONS: In the period 2014-2019, an increase in advanced-stage CRC incidence was observed for all invitation cohorts first invited for screening, followed by a decrease below expected incidence, following the pattern of the phased implementation. The cumulative advanced-stage CRC incidence in invitation cohorts invited for screening multiple times was lower than expected based on trends from the pre-screening era. These findings support a causal relationship between the introduction of the Dutch screening programme and a decrease in advanced-stage CRC incidence.

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.

A Comparison of Single and Combined Schemes of Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening, Faecal Immunochemical and Stool Deoxyribonucleic Acid Testing for Community Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Objective: To compare the screening efficacy of colonoscopy and pathologically confirmed single and combined Asia-Pacific colorectal screening (APCS), faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and stool deoxyribonucleic acid (sDNA) testing protocols. Methods: From April 2021 to April 2022, 842 volunteers participated in primary colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings using APCS scoring, FIT and sDNA testing and 115 underwent a colonoscopy. One hundred high-risk participants were then identified from the results of both processes. The differences in the three CRC screening tests in combination with the colonoscopy pathology diagnostics were evaluated using Cochran's Q test, the Dunn-Bonferroni test and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) value analysis. Results: Both FIT and sDNA testing demonstrated a 100% performance in detecting CRC. For advanced adenoma, the sensitivity of the FIT + sDNA test scheme (double positive) was 29.2%, and the sensitivities of the combined FIT + sDNA test and APCS scoring + sDNA test schemes were 62.5% and 95.8%, respectively. The FIT + sDNA testing kappa value of advanced colorectal neoplasia was 0.344 (p = 0.011). The sensitivity for nonadvanced adenoma of the APCS score + sDNA test scheme was 91.1%. In terms of positive results, the sensitivity of the APCS score + FIT + sDNA detection protocol was significantly higher than that of the APCS score, FIT, sDNA detection, and FIT + sDNA detection methods (adjusted p < 0.001, respectively). For the FIT + sDNA test, the kappa value was 0.220 (p = 0.015) and the AUC was 0.634 (p = 0.037). The specificity of the FIT + sDNA test scheme was 69.0%. Conclusion: The FIT + sDNA test scheme demonstrated superior diagnostic efficacy, and the combined APCS score + FIT + sDNA test scheme demonstrated remarkable improvements in CRC screening efficiency and sensitivity for detecting positive lesions.

Faecal Immunochemical Testing to Detect Colorectal Cancer in Symptomatic Patients: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

(1) Background: NHS England recommended faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for symptomatic patients in June 2020 to rationalise limited diagnostic services during COVID-19. (2) Aim: to investigate the diagnostic performance of FIT, analysing the proportion of FIT-negative colorectal cancers (CRC) missed in symptomatic patients and how this risk could be mitigated. (3) Design and Setting: a retrospective study of biochemistry and cancer databases involving patients referred from primary healthcare with suspected CRC to a single secondary care trust in North East London. (4) Methods: a retrospective cohort diagnostic accuracy study was undertaken to determine the performance of FIT for detecting CRC at 10 µgHb/g. (5) Results: between January and December 2020, 7653 patients provided a stool sample for FIT analysis; 1679 (22%) samples were excluded due to inadequate or incorrect specimens; 48% of suspected CRC referrals completed FIT before evaluation; 86 FIT tested patients were diagnosed with histologically proven CRC. At 10 µgHb/g, FIT performance was comparable with the existing literature with a sensitivity of 0.8140 (95% CI 0.7189-0.8821), a specificity of 0.7704 (95% CI 0.7595-0.7809), a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.04923 (95% CI 0.03915-0.06174), a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.9965 (95% CI 0.9943-0.9978), and a likelihood ratio (LR) of 3.545; 16 patients with CRC had an FIT of ≤10 µgHb/g (18.6% 95% CI 11.0-28.4%). (6) Conclusions: this study raises concerns about compliance with FIT testing and the incidence of FIT-negative CRC at the NICE recommended threshold and how this risk can be mitigated without colonic imaging. Whilst FIT may have facilitated prioritisation during COVID-19, we must be cautious about using FIT alone to determine which patients are referred to secondary care or receive further investigation.

Sociodemographic variations in the uptake of faecal immunochemical tests in primary care: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Faecal immunochemical test (FIT) usage for symptomatic patients is increasing, but variations in use caused by sociodemographic factors are unknown. A clinical pathway for colorectal cancer (CRC) was introduced in primary care for symptomatic patients in November 2017. The pathway was commissioned to provide GPs with direct access to FITs. AIM: To identify whether sociodemographic factors affect FIT return in symptomatic patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective study was undertaken in Nottingham, UK, following the introduction of FIT as triage tool in primary care. It was mandated for all colorectal referrals (except rectal bleeding or mass) to secondary care. FIT was used, alongside full blood count and ferritin, to stratify CRC risk. METHOD: All referrals from November 2017 to December 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Sociodemographic factors affecting FIT return were analysed by multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 35 289 (90.7%) patients returned their index FIT, while 3631 (9.3%) did not. On multivariate analysis, males were less likely to return an FIT (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03 to 1.19). Patients aged ≥65 years were more likely to return an FIT (OR 0.78 for non-return, 95% CI = 0.72 to 0.83). Unreturned FIT more than doubled in the most compared with the least deprived quintile (OR 2.20, 95% CI = 1.99 to 2.43). Patients from Asian (OR 1.82, 95% CI = 1.58 to 2.10), Black (OR 1.21, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.49), and mixed or other ethnic groups (OR 1.29, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.59) were more likely to not return an FIT compared with patients from a White ethnic group. A total of 599 (1.5%) CRCs were detected; 561 in those who returned a first FIT request. CONCLUSION: FIT return in those suspected of having CRC varied by sex, age, ethnic group, and socioeconomic deprivation. Strategies to mitigate effects on FIT return and CRC detection should be considered as FIT usage expands.

Patient experience and satisfaction with symptomatic faecal immunochemical testing: an explanatory sequential mixed-methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) can rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in symptomatic adults. To date, there has been little research exploring experiences of FIT for this population. AIM: To explore patient experience and satisfaction with FIT in an 'early adopter' site in England. DESIGN: Explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach combining mailed quantitative surveys with semi-structured telephone interviews. METHOD: Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyse quantitative data. Thematic analysis was used to assess qualitative transcripts. RESULTS: The survey had 260 responders, and it found that satisfaction with FIT was high (88.7%). Compared with test satisfaction, the proportion of responders satisfied with their GP consultation and how they received their results was lower (74.4% and 76.2%, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that increased area-level deprivation and not receiving an explanation of the purpose of the test were associated with lower satisfaction with the GP consultation (both P-values <0.05), while increased area-level deprivation and not receiving results from the GP were associated with lower satisfaction with receiving results (both P-values <0.05). Interviews with responders (n = 20) helped explain the quantitative results. They revealed that 'not knowing the purpose of the test' caused 'anxiety' and 'confusion', which led to dissatisfaction. 'Not receiving results from GP' was considered 'unacceptable', as this left patients with a 'niggling doubt' and lack of diagnosis or assurance that they did not have cancer. CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction with symptomatic FIT is high. Efforts to improve satisfaction should focus on ensuring that patients understand the purpose of the test and always receive their test results.

Is qFIT a useful tool in prioritising symptomatic patients referred with suspect colorectal cancer in the COVID-19 era?

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is an evolving healthcare challenge causing secondary disruption of cancer services. Quantitative Faecal Immunochemical Testing (qFIT) has been established as a screening method in asymptomatic patients. We aim to assess its utility as a triage tool to prioritise investigations in symptomatic patients with suspected colorectal cancer. Methods: At the commencement of the COVID-19 pandemic a database was established to include patients awaiting red flag outpatient consultation or colonic investigations and new red flag referrals from March to June 2020. Patients were supplied with qFIT kits and returned results categorised into 3 priority groups according to the qFIT value. Group 1 >150µg Hb/g, Group 2 ≥10 to ≤150µg Hb/g and Group 3 <10µg Hb/g. Subsequent colonic evaluation was offered by colonoscopy or cross-sectional imaging with urgency determined by qFIT priority group. When identified colorectal cancer, inflammatory bowel disease or high-risk polyps were recorded as "significant colorectal pathology." Findings: Three hundred and seventeen patients were identified with data analysed on 290 patients. Colorectal malignancy was identified in 17 patients; 94% of these patients were in Group 1. A qFIT result >150 µg Hb/g had a sensitivity and specificity for colorectal cancer of 94.12% (95% CI 71.31-99.85) and 91.21% (95% CI 87.20-94.29) respectively. No malignancy was detected in Priority Group 3; negative predictive value of 100% (95% CI 98.06-100). Conclusions: In symptomatic, suspect lower GI cancer patients qFIT is a useful adjunct for prioritising patients and can be used to determine the urgency of colorectal investigations.

Participation in faecal immunochemical testing-based colorectal cancer screening programmes in the northwest of Europe.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the participation in four faecal immunochemical testing-based screening programmes for colorectal cancer in Flanders, France, Basque country and the Netherlands, to identify factors to further optimize faecal immunochemical testing programmes. METHOD: Background information and data on performance indicators were collected and compared for the four programmes. RESULTS: Invitation method, reminders, funding, faecal immunochemical testing cut-off and follow-up after positive faecal immunochemical testing differed in the four programmes. In France, only an invitation letter is sent by mail, while the sample kit must be collected from the general practitioner. In the other programmes, an invitation letter including the sample kit is sent by mail. Participation rates vary substantially according to the method of invitation, with the highest participation rates in the Netherlands (73.0%) and Basque country (72.4%), followed by Flanders (54.5%) and France (28.6%). Basque country (92.8%) and France (88.4%), the two programmes with most active involvement of general practitioners in referral for colonoscopy, had the highest participation rates for colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Large differences in screening participation observed between programmes according to the invitation method used suggest that changes to the design of the programme, such as including the sample kit with the invitation, or active involvement of GPs, might increase participation.

Experience with a colorectal cancer campaign in Swiss pharmacies.

Background Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide. Screening with several methods can accurately detect early-stage cancer and polyps and reduce colorectal cancer mortality in adults aged 50 to 75 years. Objective Test the feasibility, interest and potential impact of a colorectal cancer screening in Swiss community pharmacies. Setting 771 community pharmacies of Switzerland participated in a 6-week campaign. Method The pharmacists evaluated the risk factors through a questionnaire among individuals aged between 50 to 75 years old who did not have had a colonoscopy over the previous 10 years. Pharmacists delivered a Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) to those without risk. Patients with identified risk factors or with a positive result were referred to a physician. Patients with a negative result were given lifestyle advice and invited for a new screening in two years. Main outcome measure The impact was measured through the number of persons screened, of tests delivered and of referrals to a physician performed. Results Within 6 weeks, 23,024 persons were screened in pharmacies. In total, 760 patients (3%) had risk factors and were directly referred to physicians. The remaining 22,264 received a FIT, and 97% of these individuals performed and sent the FIT to the laboratory. Of the 21,701 tests analysed, 93% were negative. All individuals with positive results (7%) were referred to a physician. Conclusion Having the opportunity to take colorectal cancer prevention measures with a low threshold, like in a community pharmacy encourages the population to perform the screening.

Evaluation of sample stability for a quantitative faecal immunochemical test and comparison of two sample collection approaches.

Background Faecal immunochemical testing is increasingly being used to triage symptomatic patients for suspected colorectal cancer. However, there are limited data on the effect of preanalytical factors on faecal haemoglobin when measured by faecal immunochemical testing. The aim of this work was to evaluate the stability of faecal haemoglobin in faeces and to compare two methods of faecal haemoglobin sampling for faecal immunochemical testing. Methods Six patients provided faeces for faecal haemoglobin measurement which were transferred into specialized collection devices at baseline and at 1, 2, 3 and 7 days after storage at either room temperature or 4°C. A total of 137 patients returned both faeces transferred into the specialized collection device and faeces in a standard collection pot. A quantitative immunoturbidometric method was used to measure faecal haemoglobin and results were compared categorically. Discrepant results were assessed against diagnosis. Results Faecal haemoglobin concentration declined rapidly within a day of storage at room temperature but results remained ≥10 µg Hb/g faeces in 5/6 patients after two days. A faecal haemoglobin result ≥10 µg Hb/g faeces was obtained in 4/6 patients after storage for seven days at 4°C. Results obtained when patients used specialized collection devices were significantly different from results obtained when faeces was transferred into the specialized collection device in the laboratory. Conclusion There is considerable heterogeneity in the sample stability of faecal haemoglobin; therefore, samples should be transferred rapidly into specialized collection devices to prevent false-negative results. Use of collection devices by patients can lead to false-positive results compared with their use in a laboratory.