Jayne Digby1, Callum G Fraser2, Francis A Carey3, Jaroslaw Lang4, Greig Stanners4, Robert Jc Steele5. 1. Scottish Bowel Screening Research Unit, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland Centre for Research into Cancer Prevention and Screening, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland jaynedigby@nhs.net. 2. Scottish Bowel Screening Research Unit, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland Centre for Research into Cancer Prevention and Screening, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland. 3. Department of Pathology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland. 4. Information Services Division, NHS National Services Scotland, Meridian Court, Glasgow, Scotland. 5. Scottish Bowel Screening Research Unit, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland Centre for Research into Cancer Prevention and Screening, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland Medical Research Institute, Division of Cancer, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Scotland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Quantitative faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) for faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening pose challenges when colonoscopy is limited. For low positivity rates, high f-Hb concentration cut-offs are required, but little is known about interval cancer (IC) proportions using FIT. We assessed IC proportions using an 80 µg Hb/g cut-off. METHODS: In two NHS Boards in the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme, f-Hb was estimated for 30,893 participants aged 50-75, of whom 753 participants with f-Hb ≥ 80 µg Hb/g were referred for colonoscopy. ICs, defined as CRC within two years of a negative result, were identified from the Scottish Cancer Registry. RESULTS: There were 31 ICs and 30 screen-detected (SD) CRCs, an IC proportion of 50.8% (48.4% for men, 53.3% for women). CRC site distribution was similar between ICs and SD, but ICs were later stage (46.7% and 33.3%, Dukes' stages C and D, respectively). Of 31 ICs, 23 had f-Hb < 10 µg Hb/g, including six with undetectable f-Hb. A f-Hb cut-off of 10 µg Hb/g would have raised the positivity rate from 2.4% to 9.4%, increased colonoscopy requirement from 753 to 2147, and reduced the IC proportion to 38.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The IC proportion was similar to that seen with guaiac-based FOBT. The later stage distribution of ICs highlights the benefits of lower f-Hb cut-offs, but with 19.4% of ICs having undetectable f-Hb, some cancers would have been missed, even with drastic reduction in the f-Hb cut-off.
OBJECTIVES: Quantitative faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) for faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening pose challenges when colonoscopy is limited. For low positivity rates, high f-Hb concentration cut-offs are required, but little is known about interval cancer (IC) proportions using FIT. We assessed IC proportions using an 80 µg Hb/g cut-off. METHODS: In two NHS Boards in the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme, f-Hb was estimated for 30,893 participants aged 50-75, of whom 753 participants with f-Hb ≥ 80 µg Hb/g were referred for colonoscopy. ICs, defined as CRC within two years of a negative result, were identified from the Scottish Cancer Registry. RESULTS: There were 31 ICs and 30 screen-detected (SD) CRCs, an IC proportion of 50.8% (48.4% for men, 53.3% for women). CRC site distribution was similar between ICs and SD, but ICs were later stage (46.7% and 33.3%, Dukes' stages C and D, respectively). Of 31 ICs, 23 had f-Hb < 10 µg Hb/g, including six with undetectable f-Hb. A f-Hb cut-off of 10 µg Hb/g would have raised the positivity rate from 2.4% to 9.4%, increased colonoscopy requirement from 753 to 2147, and reduced the IC proportion to 38.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The IC proportion was similar to that seen with guaiac-based FOBT. The later stage distribution of ICs highlights the benefits of lower f-Hb cut-offs, but with 19.4% of ICs having undetectable f-Hb, some cancers would have been missed, even with drastic reduction in the f-Hb cut-off.
Authors: Esmée J Grobbee; Pieter Ha Wisse; Eline H Schreuders; Aafke van Roon; Leonie van Dam; Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Wichor Bramer; Sarah Berhane; Jonathan J Deeks; Ewout W Steyerberg; Monique E van Leerdam; Manon Cw Spaander; Ernst J Kuipers Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-06-06
Authors: Wessel van de Veerdonk; Sarah Hoeck; Marc Peeters; Guido Van Hal; Julie Francart; Isabel De Brabander Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2019-10-03 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Mark Lawler; Deborah Alsina; Richard A Adams; Annie S Anderson; Gina Brown; Nicola S Fearnhead; Stephen W Fenwick; Stephen P Halloran; Daniel Hochhauser; Mark A Hull; Viktor H Koelzer; Angus G K McNair; Kevin J Monahan; Inke Näthke; Christine Norton; Marco R Novelli; Robert J C Steele; Anne L Thomas; Lisa M Wilde; Richard H Wilson; Ian Tomlinson Journal: Gut Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 23.059