Quantitative faecal immunochemical test for patients with 'high risk' bowel symptoms: a prospective cohort study

Objectives: To evaluate whether quantitative measurement of faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) using faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) can be used to rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) for patients who present to primary care with ‘high risk’ symptoms defined by national guidelines for urgent referral for suspected cancer (NICE NG12). / Design: Prospective cohort study carried out between April 2017 and March 2019. / Setting: 59 GP practices in London and 24 hospitals in England. / Participants: Symptomatic patients in England referred to the urgent CRC pathway who provided a faecal sample for FIT in addition to standard investigations for cancer. / Main outcome measures: CRC was confirmed by established clinical and histopathology procedures. f-Hb (μg per gram of stool) was measured in a central laboratory blinded to cancer outcome. We calculated sensitivity (percentage of patients with CRC who have f-Hb exceeding specified cut-offs); false-positive rate [FPR] (percentage of patients without CRC whose f-Hb exceeds the same cut-offs); and positive predictive value [PPV] (percentage of all patients with f-Hb above the cut-offs who have CRC). / Results: 4676 patients were recruited of whom 3596 patients were included (had a valid FIT test and a known definitive diagnosis). Among the 3596, median age was 67 years, 53% were female and 78% had colonoscopy. 90 patients were diagnosed with CRC, 7 with other cancers, and 3499 with no cancer found. f-Hb did not correlate with age, sex or ethnicity. Using f-Hb ≥4μg/g (lowest limit of detection), sensitivity, FPR and PPV were 87.8%, 27.0% and 7.7% respectively. Using f-Hb ≥10μg/g, the corresponding measures were 83.3%, 19.9% and 9.7%. 15 patients with CRC had f-Hb below 10μg/g. If FIT had been used at thresholds of 10μg/g or 4μg/g, 1 in 6 or 1 in 8 patients with cancer respectively would have been missed. If the absence of anaemia or abdominal pain is used alongside f-Hb 10 μg/g, only 1 in 18 cancers would be missed but 56% of people without CRC could potentially avoid further investigations including colonoscopies. / Conclusions: In our study, if FIT alone had been used to determine urgent referral for patients with ‘high risk’ symptoms for definitive cancer investigation, some patients with bowel cancer would not have been diagnosed. If used in conjunction with clinical features, particularly in the absence of anaemia, the efficacy of FIT is significantly improved. With appropriate safety netting, FIT could be used to focus secondary care diagnostic capacity on patients most at risk of CRC

Faecal immunochemical test for patients with 'high-risk' bowel symptoms: a large prospective cohort study and updated literature review

Background: We evaluated whether faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) can rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) among patients presenting with ‘high-risk’ symptoms requiring definitive investigation. Methods: Three thousand five hundred and ninety-six symptomatic patients referred to the standard urgent CRC pathway were recruited in a multi-centre observational study. They completed FIT in addition to standard investigations. CRC miss rate (percentage of CRC cases with low quantitative faecal haemoglobin [f-Hb] measurement) and specificity (percentage of patients without cancer with low f-Hb) were calculated. We also provided an updated literature review. Results: Ninety patients had CRC. At f-Hb < 10 µg/g, the miss rate was 16.7% (specificity 80.1%). At f-Hb < 4 µg/g, the miss rate was 12.2% (specificity 73%), which became 3.3% if low FIT plus the absence of anaemia and abdominal pain were considered (specificity 51%). Within meta-analyses of 9 UK studies, the pooled miss rate was 7.2% (specificity 74%) for f-Hb < 4 µg/g. Discussion: FIT alone as a triage tool would miss an estimated 1 in 8 cases in our study (1 in 14 from meta-analysis), while many people without CRC could avoid investigations. FIT can focus secondary care diagnostic capacity on patients most at risk of CRC, but more work on safety netting is required before incorporating FIT triage into the urgent diagnostic pathway

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

The impact of chemotherapy on cognitive performance post-surgery in patients with colorectal cancer: A prospective cohort study

Objectives Subjective reports of cognitive impairment following chemotherapy are frequent in cancer patients. Objective cognitive impairment has been observed in cancer patients regardless of treatment regimen suggesting the relationship between cognitive impairment and chemotherapy is not clear cut. Little research has explored the effects of chemotherapy on cognition following surgery in colorectal cancer(CRC). The present study explored the effects of chemotherapy on cognitive performance in a sample of CRC patients. Methods 136 participants were recruited into a prospective cohort study: 78 CRC patients undergoing surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, 58 CRC patients undergoing surgery only. A battery of neuropsychological tests was administered to participants four weeks post-surgery(T1), twelve weeks after first chemotherapy(T2) and three months after last chemotherapy(T3) or equivalent time-points. Results Using the criterion of scoring at least two standard-deviations below the group norm on at least one neuropsychological test, 45%-55% of all CRC patients showed cognitive deficits ten months after surgery(T3) and 14% on at least 3 tests. However, cognition did not significantly differ between patients who had chemotherapy and those who did not. A time by group interaction effect was found on the composite cognition score using multi-level modelling suggesting a greater improvement in cognition in the surgery only group over time(p<.05). Conclusions CRC patients display cognitive impairment ten months after surgery. Chemotherapy did not worsen cognitive impairment but did appear to slow cognitive recovery relative to those undergoing surgery only. The findings demonstrate a clear need for supportive cognitive interventions for all CRC patients following treatment

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

Global overview of the management of acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic (CHOLECOVID study)

Background: This study provides a global overview of the management of patients with acute cholecystitis during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: CHOLECOVID is an international, multicentre, observational comparative study of patients admitted to hospital with acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on management were collected for a 2-month study interval coincident with the WHO declaration of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and compared with an equivalent pre-pandemic time interval. Mediation analysis examined the influence of SARS-COV-2 infection on 30-day mortality. Results: This study collected data on 9783 patients with acute cholecystitis admitted to 247 hospitals across the world. The pandemic was associated with reduced availability of surgical workforce and operating facilities globally, a significant shift to worse severity of disease, and increased use of conservative management. There was a reduction (both absolute and proportionate) in the number of patients undergoing cholecystectomy from 3095 patients (56.2 per cent) pre-pandemic to 1998 patients (46.2 per cent) during the pandemic but there was no difference in 30-day all-cause mortality after cholecystectomy comparing the pre-pandemic interval with the pandemic (13 patients (0.4 per cent) pre-pandemic to 13 patients (0.6 per cent) pandemic; P = 0.355). In mediation analysis, an admission with acute cholecystitis during the pandemic was associated with a non-significant increased risk of death (OR 1.29, 95 per cent c.i. 0.93 to 1.79, P = 0.121). Conclusion: CHOLECOVID provides a unique overview of the treatment of patients with cholecystitis across the globe during the first months of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The study highlights the need for system resilience in retention of elective surgical activity. Cholecystectomy was associated with a low risk of mortality and deferral of treatment results in an increase in avoidable morbidity that represents the non-COVID cost of this pandemic

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