Faecal haemoglobin concentration is related to detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia in the next screening round.

Objective To examine associations between faecal haemoglobin concentrations below the cut-off used in colorectal cancer screening and outcomes in the next screening round. Methods In the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme, faecal haemoglobin concentrations and diagnostic outcomes were investigated for participants with a negative result (faecal haemoglobin concentrations < 80.0 µg Hb/g faeces), followed by a positive result within two years. Results Of 37,780 participants with negative results, at the next screening round, 556 (1.5%) screened positive and 30,293 (80.2%) negative. Initial median faecal haemoglobin concentrations (2.1 µg Hb/g faeces, IQR: 0.0-13.2) were higher in those with subsequent positive results than those with subsequent negative results (0.0 µg Hb/g faeces, IQR: 0.0-1.4; p < 0.0001). Using faecal haemoglobin concentrations 0.0-19.9 µg Hb/g faeces as reference, logistic regression analysis showed high adjusted odds ratios for advanced neoplasia (advanced neoplasia: colorectal cancer or higher risk adenoma) detection at the next round of 14.3 (95% CI: 8.9-23.1) in those with initial faecal haemoglobin concentrations 20.0-39.9 µg Hb/g faeces, and 38.0 (95% CI: 20.2-71.2) with 60.0-79.9 µg Hb/g faeces. Conclusions A higher proportion of participants with faecal haemoglobin concentrations of ≥ 20 µg Hb/g faeces had advanced neoplasia detected at the next round than participants with lower faecal haemoglobin concentrations. Although most relevant when using high faecal haemoglobin concentrations cut-offs, studies of faecal haemoglobin concentrations and outcomes over screening rounds may provide strategies to direct available colonoscopy towards those at highest risk.

Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is currently the gold standard for detection of colorectal lesions, but may be limited in anatomically localising lesions. This audit aimed to determine the accuracy of colonoscopy lesion localisation, any subsequent changes in surgical management and any potentially influencing factors. METHODS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy prior to elective curative surgery for colorectal lesion/s were included from 8 registered U.K. sites (2012-2014). Three sets of data were recorded: patient factors (age, sex, BMI, screener vs. symptomatic, previous abdominal surgery); colonoscopy factors (caecal intubation, scope guide used, colonoscopist accreditation) and imaging modality. Lesion localisation was standardised with intra-operative location taken as the gold standard. Changes to surgical management were recorded. RESULTS: 364 cases were included; majority of lesions were colonic, solitary, malignant and in symptomatic referrals. 82% patients had their lesion/s correctly located at colonoscopy. Pre-operative CT visualised lesion/s in only 73% of cases with a reduction in screening patients (64 vs. 77%; p = 0.008). 5.2% incorrectly located cases at colonoscopy underwent altered surgical management, including conversion to open. Univariate analysis found colonoscopy accreditation, scope guide use, incomplete colonoscopy and previous abdominal surgery significantly influenced lesion localisation. On multi-variate analysis, caecal intubation and scope guide use remained significant (HR 0.35, 0.20-0.60 95% CI and 0.47; 0.25-0.88, respectively). CONCLUSION: Lesion localisation at colonoscopy is incorrect in 18% of cases leading to potentially significant surgical management alterations. As part of accreditation, colonoscopists need lesion localisation training and awareness of when inaccuracies can occur.

Faecal haemoglobin concentration is related to severity of colorectal neoplasia.

AIMS: Guaiac faecal occult blood tests are being replaced by faecal immunochemical tests (FIT). We investigated whether faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb) was related to stage in progression of colorectal neoplasia, studying cancer and adenoma characteristics in an evaluation of quantitative FIT as a first-line screening test. METHODS: We invited 66 225 individuals aged 50-74 years to provide one sample of faeces. f-Hb was measured on samples from 38 720 responders. Colonoscopy findings and pathology data were collected on the 943 with f-Hb ≥ 400 ng Hb/ml (80 µg Hb/g faeces). RESULTS: Of the 814 participants with outcome data (median age: 63 years, range 50-75, 56.4% male), 39 had cancer, 190 high-risk adenoma (HRA, defined as ≥ 3 or any ≥ 10 mm) and 119 low-risk adenoma (LRA). 74.4% of those with cancer had f-Hb>1000 ng Hb/ml compared with 58.4% with HRA, and 44.1% with no pathology. Median f-Hb concentration was higher in those with cancer than those with no (p<0.002) or non-neoplastic (p<0.002) pathology, and those with LRA (p=0.0001). Polyp cancers had lower concentrations than more advanced stage cancers (p<0.04). Higher f-Hb was also found in those with HRA than with LRA (p<0.006), large (>10 mm) compared with small adenoma (p<0.0001), and also an adenoma displaying high-grade dysplasia compared with low-grade dysplasia (p<0.009). CONCLUSIONS: f-Hb is related to severity of colorectal neoplastic disease. This has ramifications for the selection of the appropriate cut-off concentration adopted for bowel screening programmes.

Clinical outcomes using a faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin as a first-line test in a national programme constrained by colonoscopy capacity.

INTRODUCTION: Because of their many advantages, faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) are superseding traditional guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests in bowel screening programmes. METHODS: A quantitative FIT was adopted for use in two evaluation National Health Service (NHS) Boards in Scotland using a cut-off faecal haemoglobin concentration chosen to give a positivity rate equivalent to that achieved in the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme. Uptake and clinical outcomes were compared with results obtained contemporaneously in two other similar NHS Boards and before and after the evaluation in the two evaluation NHS Boards. RESULTS: During the evaluation, uptake was 58.5%. This was higher than in the same NHS Boards both before and after the evaluation, higher than in the other two NHS Boards and higher than the 53.7% achieved overall in Scotland. The overall positivity rate was higher in men than in women and increased with age in both genders. Positive predictive values for cancer (4.8%), high-risk adenoma (23.3%), all adenoma (38.2%) and all neoplasia (43.0%) in the two test NHS Boards were similar in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, this evaluation of the FIT supports the introduction of FIT as a first-line test, even when colonoscopy capacity is limited.

Cancer of the proximal colon after a "normal" colonoscopy.

In common with other diagnostic tests, colonoscopy has a false negative rate which is infrequently assessed. The available literature suggests that lesion miss rate is higher for proximal colonic tumors. A total of 367 patients were diagnosed with cancer of the colon and rectum over a period of 2 years. Ninety-two of these patients had tumors proximal to the splenic flexure. Their 5-year pre-diagnosis colonoscopic exposure was analyzed. The primary end-point of this study was to confirm the false negative colonoscopy rate in patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer of the proximal colon. The secondary endpoint was to assess the effects of diagnostic delay on tumor stage and presentation. In the group of patients with proximal colon cancer (n = 92) we identified 10 patients (11%) who, as a result of incomplete (2 cases) or falsely negative (8 cases) colonoscopies, suffered a median diagnostic delay of 17 months (range 3-60). At diagnosis, 4 of these patients had Dukes' D caecal cancer, 4 had Dukes' C caecal cancer and 2 had Dukes' B transverse colon cancer; 3 presented with perforated tumours and 1 with intestinal obstruction. In this small subgroup of patients therefore 40% presented with emergency complications compared to 8% in the rest of the group with proximal cancers (p < 0.01). Missed cancers are more likely to present with complications. This study highlights the importance of recognition of an incomplete examination and the adverse impact of missed diagnosis on subsequent presentation.