Interval colorectal cancers after negative faecal immunochemical test in the New Zealand Bowel Screening Pilot.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the diagnostic performance of faecal immunochemical test (FIT), identify risk factors for FIT-interval colorectal cancers (FIT-IC) and describe long-term outcomes of participants with colorectal cancers (CRC) in the New Zealand Bowel Screening Pilot (BSP). DESIGN: From 2012 to 2017, the BSP offered eligible individuals, aged 50-74 years, biennial screening using a quantitative FIT with positivity threshold of 15 µg haemoglobin (Hb)/g faeces. Retrospective review of prospectively maintained data extracted from the BSP Register and New Zealand Cancer Registry identified any CRC reported in participants who returned a definitive FIT result. Further details were obtained from hospital records. FIT-ICs were primary CRC diagnosed within 24 months of a negative FIT. Factors associated with FIT-ICs were identified using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 387 215 individuals invited, 57.4% participated with 6.1% returning positive FIT results. Final analysis included 520 CRC, of which 111 (21.3%) met FIT-IC definition. Overall FIT sensitivity for CRC was 78.7% (95% CI=74.9% to 82.1%), specificity was 94.1% (95% CI=94.0% to 94.2%). In 78 (70.3%) participants with FIT-IC, faecal Hb was reported as undetectable. There were no significant associations between FIT-IC and age, sex, ethnicity and deprivation. FIT-ICs were significantly associated with proximal tumour location, late stage at diagnosis, high-grade tumour differentiation and subsequent round screens. Median follow-up time was 74 (2-124) months. FIT-IC had significantly poorer overall survival. CONCLUSION: FIT sensitivity in BSP compared favourably to published data. FIT-ICs were more likely to be proximal tumours with poor long-term outcomes. Further lowering of FIT threshold would have minimal impact on FIT-IC.

Improved detection of adenomas and sessile serrated polyps is maintained with continuous audit of colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The audit process may help improve performance indicators for colonoscopy quality but it is unclear whether this is sustained over several years. METHODS: 44138 procedures for 28 endoscopists from 2004 to 2019 were analysed for polyp detection rate and withdrawal time. From 2012, 14 endoscopists were analysed with additional data on polyp histology and number of polyps removed. RESULTS: Polyp detection increased from 40.7% in 2004 to 62.2% in 2019; removal of polyps>1 cm remained constant (11%). Adenoma detection rate was 25.8% in 2012 and 28.3% in 2019. Sessile serrated polyp (SSP) detection rate increased from 4.5% to 14.7%; most of the increase was in the first 2 years of the histology part of the audit. There was a significant correlation of adenoma detection rate with mean number of adenomas (r=0.72, p=0.004) and a significant correlation of SSP detection with mean number of SSPs (r=0.85, p=0.0001). CONCLUSION: The audit process appears to encourage a higher rate of polyp detection. This was due to increased detection of smaller polyps and increased detection of SSPs.

Faecal immunochemical tests for occult blood testing should not be used outside of bowel screening: an audit of a large general practice.

INTRODUCTION The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) detects small quantities of human haemoglobin in faeces. This test has increasingly become the screening tool of choice in bowel cancer screening programmes worldwide, including New Zealand's upcoming national screening programme. AIM This study audited the appropriate use of faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) in general practice as current recommendations discourage the use of FIT outside the National Bowel Screening Programme. METHODS Data on all FIT requested by a multiclinic general practice serving 16000 patients from May 2017 to May 2018 were extracted from clinical records. Patient characteristics, results of tests, clinical rationale for the test, number of referrals and results and the completeness of clinical evaluation were recorded. RESULTS In all, 184 patients received an FIT, with 13 (7.1%) positive and 145 (78.8%) negative tests, and 26 (14.1%) tests declined by the laboratory. Nine patients (69.2%) with a positive FIT, 12 patients (8.1%) with a negative FIT and one patient (3.8%) with a declined test were referred to gastroenterology services. Seven colorectal cancers were detected, all in patients with a positive FIT who were aged between 67 and 91 years. FIT was requested most for changes in bowel habit (53%) and blood in stool (15%); 10% of tests were ordered for reassurance and 9% did not record an indication for the test. Two general practitioners (of 17 in the practice) accounted for over half of all tests requested. CONCLUSIONS Because FIT is only a screening tool for colorectal cancer, direct referral is recommended for symptomatic patients. Although cancers were detected only in patients with positive FITs, these patients would have qualified for direct referral for definitive investigation, and a referral was made concurrently. Awaiting test results may also delay necessary referrals and a negative FIT may produce false reassurance.

Endoscopic assessment and management of sporadic duodenal adenomas: The results of single centre multidisciplinary management.

AIM: To review the role of multidisciplinary management in treating sporadic duodenal adenomas (SDA). METHODS: SDA managed at North Shore Hospital between 2009-2014 were entered into a prospective database. Pathology, endoscopic and surgical management as well as follow up were reviewed. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients (14 male: Median age 68 years) presented with SDA [18 were classified as non ampullary location (NA), 10 as ampullary location (A)]. All SDA were diagnosed on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and were imaged with a contrast enhanced CT scan of the chest, abdomen and pelvis. Of the NA adenomas 14 were located in the second part, 2 in the first part and 2 in the third part of the duodenum. Two patients declined treatment, 3 patients underwent surgical resection (2 transduodenal resections and 1 pancreaticoduodenectomy), and 23 patients were treated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). The only complication with endoscopic resection was mild pancreatitis post procedure. Patients were followed with gastroduodenoscopy for a median of 22 mo (range: 2-69 mo). There were 8 recurrences treated with EMR with one patient proceeding to pancreaticodeuodenectomy because of high grade dysplasia in the resected specimen and 2 NA recurrences were managed with surgical resection (distal gastrectomy for a lesion in the first part of the duodenum and a transduodenal resection of a lesion in the third part of the duodenum). CONCLUSION: SDA can be treated endoscopically with minimal morbidity and piecemeal resection results in eradication in nearly three quarters of patients. Recurrent SDA can be treated with endoscopic reresection with surgical resection indicated when the lesions are large (> 4 cm in diameter) or demonstrate severe dysplasia or invasive cancer.