Diagnostic work-up of patients presenting in primary care with lower abdominal symptoms:which faecal test and triage strategy should be used?

Bowel endoscopy referrals from primary care have increased steadily over recent years. However, most patients do not have significant colorectal disease (SCD). Therefore, strategies to select those who would benefit most from endoscopy are of current interest. A recent study developed a multivariable diagnostic model for SCD with routine clinical information, extended with quantitative faecal calprotectin (f-C) point-of-care (POC) testing and/or qualitative POC faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for haemoglobin (f-Hb) results. This study used POC tests for both f-C and f-Hb; however, POC tests have many disadvantages and there are several reasons why quantitative measurements of f-Hb are advantageous. Quantitative faecal immunochemical tests have been used very successfully in triage of patients presenting in primary care as a rule-out test. Studies have compared f-C and f-Hb in this clinical context and consider that f-C is not required in diagnosis. A single quantitative f-Hb result, without any clinical information, could be sufficient to decide whom to refer for endoscopy and, because of the significant overlap of symptoms in those with and without SCD, could be the primary investigation performed. Please see related article: http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0684-5

Do faecal test-based colorectal cancer screening pilots provide data that are reflected in subsequent programmes? Evidence from interval cancer proportions

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with guaiac faecal occult blood tests (gFOBTs) and faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) include the need for a pilot before a programme is introduced. Interval cancers (ICs), cancers arising after a negative screening test result but before the next scheduled invite, are important indicators of programme quality. Our aim was to compare IC in the gFOBT-based Scottish Bowel Screening Programme (SBoSP), a FIT-based pilot, and the FIT-based SBoSP, to assess if the pilot provided data that was reflected in the subsequent programme. DESIGN: The IC proportions (ICPs) data ([IC/(IC + screen detected CRC)] x 100) from the penultimate year of the gFOBT-based SBoSP, the 6-month pilot and the first year of the FIT-based SBoSP were compared. To ensure appropriate comparison, these data were only from the two pilot NHS Boards. RESULTS: For all participants, and females and males, the ICPs were very similar in the gFOBT-based SBoSP and the pilot. The faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb) threshold for the pilot was set at ≥80 μg Hb/g faeces. However, in marked contrast, in the FIT-based SBoSP, at the same threshold, the ICPs were lower. In all three groups, the ICPs were higher in females than in males. CONCLUSIONS: Data on variables in pilots, including ICP, can be informative, but only if variables such as FIT system are held consistent between pilot and programme. Lowering the f-Hb threshold for females to give the same ICP as males might be a strategy to minimise sex inequality