Faecal immunochemical testing for haemoglobin in detecting bowel polyps in symptomatic patients: multicentre prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Measurement of faecal haemoglobin using faecal immunochemistry testing is recommended in patients presenting with symptoms suspicious for colorectal cancer, to aid in triage and prioritization of definitive investigations. While its role in colorectal cancer has been extensively investigated, the ability of faecal immunochemistry testing to detect adenomas in symptomatic patients is unclear. METHODS: A multicentre prospective observational study was conducted between April 2017 and March 2019, recruiting adults from 24 hospitals across England and 59 general practices in London who had been urgently referred with suspected colorectal cancer symptoms. Each patient provided a stool sample for faecal immunochemistry testing, in parallel with definitive investigation. A final diagnosis for each patient was recorded, including the presence, size, histology, and risk type of colonic polyps. The outcome of interest was the sensitivity of faecal immunochemistry testing in detecting the presence of adenomas. RESULTS: Of 3496 patients included in the analysis, 553 (15.8 per cent) had polyps diagnosed. Sensitivity of faecal immunochemistry testing for polyp detection was low across all ranges; with a cut-off for faecal haemoglobin of 4 µg/g or lower, sensitivity was 34.9 per cent and 46.8 per cent for all polyp types and high-risk polyps respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in detection probability was relatively low for both intermediate-risk (0.63) and high-risk polyps (0.63). CONCLUSION: While faecal immunochemistry testing may be useful in prioritizing investigations to diagnose colorectal cancer, if used as a sole test, the majority of polyps would be missed and the opportunity to prevent progression to colorectal cancer may be lost

Conference report:Improving outcomes for gastrointestinal cancer in the UK

Substantial steps are being made towards early diagnosis. A range of tools are available to help GPs appropriately categorise early symptoms during routine consultations. Various promising new tests and devices are being explored, especially for cancers that frequently present at late stages. The continuing increase in demand on endoscopy services is a major concern, not least because of the shortage of trained practitioners and other healthcare staff. However, screening and collaborative streamlining initiatives might help to improve the relevance of referrals. The question posed in the title of the conference was rhetorical, but a positive answer seems potentially achievable, even in austere times, through facilitating uptake of screening, working to develop the primary-secondary care interface, educating the public and by protecting funds for research

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of brief, habit-based, lifestyle advice for cancer survivors: exploring behavioural outcomes for the Advancing Survivorship Cancer Outcomes Trial (ASCOT)

Introduction Positive health behaviours such as regular physical activity and a healthy diet have significant effects on cancer outcomes. There is a need for simple but effective behaviour change interventions with the potential to be implemented within the cancer care pathway. Habit-based advice encourages repetition of a behaviour in a consistent context so that the behaviour becomes increasingly automatic in response to a specific contextual cue. This approach therefore encourages long-term behaviour change and can be delivered through printed materials. ‘Healthy Habits for Life’ is a brief intervention based on habit theory, and incorporating printed materials plus a personally tailored discussion, that has been designed specifically for patients with a diagnosis of cancer. The aim of this trial was to test the effect of ‘Healthy Habits for Life’ on a composite health behaviour risk index (CHBRI) over 3 months in patients with a diagnosis of breast, colorectal or prostate cancer. Method and analysis A 2-arm, individually randomised controlled trial in patients with breast, colorectal and prostate cancer. Patients will be recruited over 18 months from 7 National Health Service Trusts in London and Essex. Following baseline assessments and allocation to intervention or usual care, patients are followed up at 3 and 6 months. The primary outcome will be change in CHBRI at 3 months. Maintenance of any changes over 6 months, and changes in individual health behaviours (including dietary intake, physical activity, alcohol consumption and smoking status) will also be explored. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained through the National Research Ethics Service Committee South Central—Oxford B via the Integrated Research Application System (reference number 14/SC/1369). Results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and scientific presentation

Socioeconomic differences in help seeking for colorectal cancer symptoms during COVID-19: a UK-wide qualitative interview study of patient experiences in primary care

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has led to rapid changes in healthcare delivery, raising concern that these changes may exacerbate existing inequalities in patient outcomes. AIM: To understand how patients' help-seeking experiences in primary care for colorectal cancer symptoms during COVID-19 were affected by their socioeconomic status (SES). DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with males and females across the UK, recruited using purposive sampling by SES. METHOD: Interviews were carried out with 39 participants (20 higher SES; 19 lower SES) who contacted primary care about possible symptoms of colorectal cancer during COVID-19. Data were analysed using framework analysis followed by comparative thematic analysis to explore differences between groups. RESULTS: Three themes were identified with differences between SES groups: 1) how people decided to seek medical help through appraisal of symptoms; 2) how people navigated services; and 3) impact of COVID-19 on how patients interacted with healthcare professionals. The lower SES group expressed uncertainty appraising symptoms and navigating services (in terms of new processes resulting from COVID-19 and worries about infection). There was also potential for increased disparity in diagnosis and management, with other methods of getting in touch (for example, email or 111) taken up more readily by higher SES patients. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that COVID-19 exacerbated disparities between higher and lower SES participants. This study raises awareness around challenges in help seeking in the context of the pandemic, which are likely to persist (post-COVID-19) as healthcare systems settle on new models of care (for example, digital). Recommendations are provided to reduce inequalities of care

Healthcare Professional and Patient Perceptions of Changes in Colorectal Cancer Care Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Impact on Health Inequalities

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic changed the way in which people were diagnosed and treated for cancer. We explored healthcare professional and patient perceptions of the main changes to colorectal cancer delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic and how they impacted on socioeconomic inequalities in care. METHODS: In 2020, using a qualitative approach, we interviewed patients (n = 15) who accessed primary care with colorectal cancer symptoms and were referred for further investigations. In 2021, we interviewed a wide range of healthcare professionals (n = 30) across the cancer care pathway and gathered national and local documents/guidelines regarding changes in colorectal cancer care. RESULTS: Changes with the potential to exacerbate inequalities in care, included: the move to remote consultations; changes in symptomatic triage, new COVID testing procedures/ways to access healthcare, changes in visitor policies and treatment (e.g., shorter course radiotherapy). Changes that improved patient access/convenience or the diagnostic process have the potential to reduce inequalities in care. DISCUSSION: Changes in healthcare delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic have the ongoing potential to exacerbate existing health inequalities due to changes in how patients are triaged, changes to diagnostic and disease management processes, reduced social support available to patients and potential over-reliance on digital first approaches. We provide several recommendations to help mitigate these harms, whilst harnessing the gains

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. METHODS: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. FINDINGS: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96-1·28). INTERPRETATION: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

Background: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. Methods: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. Findings: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96–1·28). Interpretation: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

Socioeconomic differences in help-seeking experiences in primary care for symptoms related to colorectal cancer during COVID-19: A UK-wide qualitative interview study

Background COVID-19 has led to rapid changes in healthcare delivery, raising concern that these changes may exacerbate existing inequalities in patient outcomes.Aim To understand how patients’ help-seeking experiences in primary care for colorectal cancer symptoms during COVID-19 were affected by their socioeconomic status (SES).Design and setting Qualitative semi-structured interviews with males and females across the UK, recruited using purposive sampling by SES.Method Interviews were carried out with 39 participants (20 higher SES; 19 lower SES) who contacted primary care about possible symptoms of colorectal cancer during COVID-19. Data were analysed using framework analysis followed by comparative thematic analysis to explore differences between groups.Results Three themes were identified with differences between SES groups: 1) how people decided to seek medical help through appraisal of symptoms; 2) how people navigated services; and 3) impact of COVID-19 on how patients interacted with healthcare professionals. The lower SES group expressed uncertainty appraising symptoms and navigating services (in terms of new processes resulting from COVID-19 and worries about infection). There was also potential for increased disparity in diagnosis and management, with other methods of getting in touch (for example, email or 111) taken up more readily by higher SES patients.Conclusion The findings suggest that COVID-19 exacerbated disparities between higher and lower SES participants. This study raises awareness around challenges in help seeking in the context of the pandemic, which are likely to persist (post-COVID-19) as healthcare systems settle on new models of care (for example, digital). Recommendations are provided to reduce inequalities of care

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. [Abstract copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

FDG-PET/CT in colorectal cancer:potential for vascular-metabolic imaging to provide markers of prognosis

PURPOSE: This study assesses the potential for vascular-metabolic imaging with FluoroDeoxyGlucose (FDG)–Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) perfusion to provide markers of prognosis specific to the site and stage of colorectal cancer. METHODS: This prospective observational study comprised of participants with suspected colorectal cancer categorized as either (a) non-metastatic colon cancer (M0colon), (b) non-metastatic rectal cancer (M0rectum), or (c) metastatic colorectal cancer (M+). Combined FDG-PET/CT perfusion imaging was successfully performed in 286 participants (184 males, 102 females, age: 69.60 ± 10 years) deriving vascular and metabolic imaging parameters. Vascular and metabolic imaging parameters alone and in combination were investigated with respect to overall survival. RESULTS: A vascular-metabolic signature that was significantly associated with poorer survival was identified for each patient group: M0colon – high Total Lesion Glycolysis (TLG) with increased Permeability Surface Area Product/Blood Flow (PS/BF), Hazard Ratio (HR) 3.472 (95% CI: 1.441–8.333), p = 0.006; M0rectum – high Metabolic Tumour Volume (MTV) with increased PS/BF, HR 4.567 (95% CI: 1.901–10.970), p = 0.001; M+ participants, high MTV with longer Time To Peak (TTP) enhancement, HR 2.421 (95% CI: 1.162–5.045), p = 0.018. In participants with stage 2 colon cancer as well as those with stage 3 rectal cancer, the vascular-metabolic signature could stratify the prognosis of these participants. CONCLUSION: Vascular and metabolic imaging using FDG-PET/CT can be used to synergise prognostic markers. The hazard ratios suggest that the technique may have clinical utility