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

Faecal haemoglobin and faecal calprotectin as indicators of bowel disease in patients presenting to primary care with bowel symptoms

OBJECTIVE: In primary care, assessing which patients with bowel symptoms harbour significant disease (cancer, higher-risk adenoma or IBD) is difficult. We studied the diagnostic accuracies of faecal haemoglobin (FHb) and faecal calprotectin (FC) in a cohort of symptomatic patients. DESIGN: From October 2013 to March 2014, general practitioners were prompted to request FHb and FC when referring patients with bowel symptoms to secondary care. Faecal samples were analysed for haemoglobin (EIKEN OC-Sensor io) and calprotectin (BÜHLMANN Calprotectin ELISA). Patients triaged to endoscopy were investigated within 6 weeks. All clinicians and endoscopists were blind to the faecal test results. The diagnostic accuracies of FHb and FC for identification of significant bowel disease were assessed. RESULTS: 1043 patients returned samples. FHb was detectable in 57.6% (median 0.4 µg/g, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.8; range 0–200). FC at 50 µg/g or above was present in 60.0%. 755 patients (54.6% women, median age 64 years (range 16–90, IQR 52–73)) returned samples and completed colonic investigations. 103 patients had significant bowel disease; the negative predictive values of FHb for colorectal cancer, higher-risk adenoma and IBD were 100%, 97.8% and 98.4%, respectively. Using cut-offs of detectable FHb and/or 200 µg/g FC detected two further cases of IBD, one higher-risk adenoma and no additional cancers. CONCLUSIONS: In primary care, undetectable FHb is a good ‘rule-out’ test for significant bowel disease and could guide who requires investigation

Comparison with first round findings of faecal haemoglobin concentrations and clinical outcomes in the second round of a biennial faecal immunochemical test based colorectal cancer screening programme

OBJECTIVE: How faecal haemoglobin concentrations (f-Hb) vary from one round to the next in a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme, and relate to colonoscopy findings, are unknown. Our aim was to use data from the first two rounds of the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) based Scottish Bowel Screening Programme (SBoSP) to explore these issues. METHODS: Faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb) percentiles in the second round were compared with those in the first when the first round yielded a negative FIT result (<80 µg Hb/g faeces), a positive FIT but no colonoscopy, CRC, all adenoma, and a negative colonoscopy. In addition, the outcomes in the first and second rounds were compared. RESULTS: The profiles of f-Hb in the first and second rounds differed in (a) those who had had a negative FIT result in the first round and (b) those in whom neoplastic pathology had been found. In contrast, the pattern of difference between profiles in those who had had a negative colonoscopy was very similar to that in those in whom an adenoma had been found. In addition, the risk of CRC being diagnosed in the second round after a negative colonoscopy in the first was 3.0%, not very different to that after a negative test result (4.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Adenomas may be rarely the cause of a positive FIT result. An alternative explanation as to why these are detected using FIT is required. In addition, a negative colonoscopy for a positive FIT result does not rule out the finding of significant neoplastic pathology in the next round