Cargando…

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in symptomatic patients: what are we missing?

OBJECTIVE: Faecal immunochemical test (FIT) shows promise as a non-invasive triage test for colorectal cancer (CRC) in the symptomatic population. The aim of this study was to assess the use of FIT within the recent NG12 and DG30 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. D...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Farrugia, Alexia, Widlak, Monika, Evans, Charles, Smith, Stephen Charles, Arasaradnam, Ramesh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6914294/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31885837
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/flgastro-2018-101174
_version_ 1783479780405936128
author Farrugia, Alexia
Widlak, Monika
Evans, Charles
Smith, Stephen Charles
Arasaradnam, Ramesh
author_facet Farrugia, Alexia
Widlak, Monika
Evans, Charles
Smith, Stephen Charles
Arasaradnam, Ramesh
author_sort Farrugia, Alexia
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Faecal immunochemical test (FIT) shows promise as a non-invasive triage test for colorectal cancer (CRC) in the symptomatic population. The aim of this study was to assess the use of FIT within the recent NG12 and DG30 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. DESIGN: A single-centre prospective study of patients referred to University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust via the 2-week wait (TWW) pathway between January 2015 and March 2016 was conducted. 612 patients were reviewed, of which 519 were found to meet the NG12 criteria and 79 met the DG30 criteria. Data included age, sex, symptoms, colonoscopy or CT colonography, histology and FIT results. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: FIT was performed in all patients and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value, with 95% CI, for cancers and adenomas within each pathway (TWW, NG12 and DG30) was calculated. RESULTS: CRC sensitivity in TWW pathway patients, NG12 and DG30 group was 86.84% (95% CI 71.91% to 95.59%), 84.85% (95% CI 68.1% to 94.89%) and 100% (95% CI 47.82% to 100%), respectively. Specificity was 82.23% (95% CI 78.85% to 85.27%), 81.28% (95% CI 77.52% to 84.65%) and 91.89% (95% CI 83.18% to 96.97%), respectively. Adenoma sensitivity in the groups was 30.69% (95% CI 29.9% to 40.66%), 30.77% (95% CI 21.51% to 41.32%) and 25% (95% CI 3.19% to 65.09%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Use of FIT within the remit of the NG12 NICE guidelines shows a high sensitivity and specificity and may be an effective triage tool when considering whether to perform investigations. However, there is still a miss rate. FIT within DG30 has excellent sensitivity and improved specificity; however, DG30 targets lower risk groups and accounts for only 13% of the entire referrals for suspected cancer. Therefore, managing the larger, higher risk NG12 group may require the addition of another test or marker to ensure that CRC is not missed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6914294
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69142942019-12-27 Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in symptomatic patients: what are we missing? Farrugia, Alexia Widlak, Monika Evans, Charles Smith, Stephen Charles Arasaradnam, Ramesh Frontline Gastroenterol Colorectal OBJECTIVE: Faecal immunochemical test (FIT) shows promise as a non-invasive triage test for colorectal cancer (CRC) in the symptomatic population. The aim of this study was to assess the use of FIT within the recent NG12 and DG30 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. DESIGN: A single-centre prospective study of patients referred to University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust via the 2-week wait (TWW) pathway between January 2015 and March 2016 was conducted. 612 patients were reviewed, of which 519 were found to meet the NG12 criteria and 79 met the DG30 criteria. Data included age, sex, symptoms, colonoscopy or CT colonography, histology and FIT results. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: FIT was performed in all patients and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value, with 95% CI, for cancers and adenomas within each pathway (TWW, NG12 and DG30) was calculated. RESULTS: CRC sensitivity in TWW pathway patients, NG12 and DG30 group was 86.84% (95% CI 71.91% to 95.59%), 84.85% (95% CI 68.1% to 94.89%) and 100% (95% CI 47.82% to 100%), respectively. Specificity was 82.23% (95% CI 78.85% to 85.27%), 81.28% (95% CI 77.52% to 84.65%) and 91.89% (95% CI 83.18% to 96.97%), respectively. Adenoma sensitivity in the groups was 30.69% (95% CI 29.9% to 40.66%), 30.77% (95% CI 21.51% to 41.32%) and 25% (95% CI 3.19% to 65.09%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Use of FIT within the remit of the NG12 NICE guidelines shows a high sensitivity and specificity and may be an effective triage tool when considering whether to perform investigations. However, there is still a miss rate. FIT within DG30 has excellent sensitivity and improved specificity; however, DG30 targets lower risk groups and accounts for only 13% of the entire referrals for suspected cancer. Therefore, managing the larger, higher risk NG12 group may require the addition of another test or marker to ensure that CRC is not missed. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6914294/ /pubmed/31885837 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/flgastro-2018-101174 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Colorectal
Farrugia, Alexia
Widlak, Monika
Evans, Charles
Smith, Stephen Charles
Arasaradnam, Ramesh
Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in symptomatic patients: what are we missing?
title Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in symptomatic patients: what are we missing?
title_full Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in symptomatic patients: what are we missing?
title_fullStr Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in symptomatic patients: what are we missing?
title_full_unstemmed Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in symptomatic patients: what are we missing?
title_short Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in symptomatic patients: what are we missing?
title_sort faecal immunochemical testing (fit) in symptomatic patients: what are we missing?
topic Colorectal
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6914294/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31885837
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/flgastro-2018-101174
work_keys_str_mv AT farrugiaalexia faecalimmunochemicaltestingfitinsymptomaticpatientswhatarewemissing
AT widlakmonika faecalimmunochemicaltestingfitinsymptomaticpatientswhatarewemissing
AT evanscharles faecalimmunochemicaltestingfitinsymptomaticpatientswhatarewemissing
AT smithstephencharles faecalimmunochemicaltestingfitinsymptomaticpatientswhatarewemissing
AT arasaradnamramesh faecalimmunochemicaltestingfitinsymptomaticpatientswhatarewemissing