Abstract
Objectives To evaluate the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for primary care clinicians to triage patients with low-risk symptoms of possible colorectal cancer, and to estimate its diagnostic performance.
Design Service delivery evaluation.
Setting All primary and secondary care providers in the South West of England, approximate population 4 million.
Participants 3890 patients aged ≥50 years presenting in primary care with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer, following NICE NG12 and DG30, with a FIT (HM-JACKarc assay) analysed from 01/06/2018 to 31/12/2018.
Main outcome measures Diagnosis of colorectal cancer.
Results 618 (15.9%) patients tested positive at a threshold of 10μg Hb/g faeces (median 36μg Hb/g faeces (IQR 17 to 149)); 458 (74.1%) of these had an urgent referral to specialist lower gastrointestinal (GI) services within three months. 43 were diagnosed with colorectal cancer within 12 months. 3272 patients tested negative; 324 (9.9%) were referred on an urgent lower GI pathway in secondary care within three months. 8 were diagnosed with colorectal cancer within 12 months. The positive predictive value of FIT for colorectal cancer in the low-risk symptomatic population was 7.0% (95% CI 5.1% to 9.3%) and the negative predictive value was 99.8% (CI 99.5% to 99.9%). Sensitivity was 84.3% (CI 71.4% to 93.0%),and specificity 85.0% (CI 83.8% to 86.1%). The area under the ROC curve was 0.92 (CI 0.86 to 0.96). A threshold of 37μg Hb/g faeces would identify patients with an individual 3% risk of cancer.
Conclusions FIT performs exceptionally well to triage patients with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer in primary care. The threshold value of 10μg Hb/g faeces represents a risk of cancer below 3% used in current NICE guidance; however, this lower value may be appropriate to meet the national aspiration of improving cancer diagnostics.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research arises from the CanTest Collaborative, which is funded by Cancer Research UK [C8640/A23385], of which WH and FMW are Directors, GAA is Co-investigator and SB is Senior Postdoctoral Researcher. It was also supported by the Peninsula Cancer Alliance, the Somerset, Wiltshire, Avon, and Gloucestershire (SWAG) Cancer Alliance, and NHS England.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust's Health Research Authority Confidentiality Advice Team were consulted on the requirement for ethical approval for this study. They advised that we should contact individual Trusts participating in the evaluation and seek approval and confirmation from the Trust(s) Caldicott Guardian(s) that the flows of confidential patient information are legitimate and in accordance with national laws and guidelines. Each Trust involved in the evaluation was satisfied that this was the case, and that as this project was evaluating service delivery, and not changing routine clinical practice, ethical approval was not required. Data sharing agreements were drawn up between all parties, and Caldicott guardian approvals were in place to allow data sharing. The requirement for individual NHS numbers for use within this evaluation meets the criteria set out in section 6 of the General Data Protection Regulation: Guidance on Lawful Processing. The processing of data is based upon GDPR Article 6(1)(e) exercise of official authority and article 9(2)(h) management of health and care services. The enabling legislation is the NHS Act 2006 section 13E, including the duty on NHS England to secure continuous improvement in the quality of services. The same basis supported the secondary care providers supplying data.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
As the raw data analysed in this study include patient identifiable information, we cannot share them currently. We are happy to discuss requests for data with the Caldicott guardian (JR).
