Interval cancers using a quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for haemoglobin when colonoscopy capacity is limited

41Citations
Citations of this article
35Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

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 ³ 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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Digby, J., Fraser, C. G., Carey, F. A., Lang, J., Stanners, G., & Steele, R. J. C. (2016). Interval cancers using a quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for haemoglobin when colonoscopy capacity is limited. Journal of Medical Screening, 23(3), 130–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969141315609634

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free