Faecal immunochemical testing for haemoglobin in detecting bowel polyps in symptomatic patients: multicentre prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of faecal haemoglobin using faecal immunochemistry testing is recommended in patients presenting with symptoms suspicious for colorectal cancer, to aid in triage and prioritization of definitive investigations. While its role in colorectal cancer has been extensively investigated, the ability of faecal immunochemistry testing to detect adenomas in symptomatic patients is unclear. METHODS: A multicentre prospective observational study was conducted between April 2017 and March 2019, recruiting adults from 24 hospitals across England and 59 general practices in London who had been urgently referred with suspected colorectal cancer symptoms. Each patient provided a stool sample for faecal immunochemistry testing, in parallel with definitive investigation. A final diagnosis for each patient was recorded, including the presence, size, histology, and risk type of colonic polyps. The outcome of interest was the sensitivity of faecal immunochemistry testing in detecting the presence of adenomas. RESULTS: Of 3496 patients included in the analysis, 553 (15.8 per cent) had polyps diagnosed. Sensitivity of faecal immunochemistry testing for polyp detection was low across all ranges; with a cut-off for faecal haemoglobin of 4 µg/g or lower, sensitivity was 34.9 per cent and 46.8 per cent for all polyp types and high-risk polyps respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in detection probability was relatively low for both intermediate-risk (0.63) and high-risk polyps (0.63). CONCLUSION: While faecal immunochemistry testing may be useful in prioritizing investigations to diagnose colorectal cancer, if used as a sole test, the majority of polyps would be missed and the opportunity to prevent progression to colorectal cancer may be lost.

Faecal immunochemical test for patients with 'high-risk' bowel symptoms: a large prospective cohort study and updated literature review.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) can rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) among patients presenting with 'high-risk' symptoms requiring definitive investigation. METHODS: Three thousand five hundred and ninety-six symptomatic patients referred to the standard urgent CRC pathway were recruited in a multi-centre observational study. They completed FIT in addition to standard investigations. CRC miss rate (percentage of CRC cases with low quantitative faecal haemoglobin [f-Hb] measurement) and specificity (percentage of patients without cancer with low f-Hb) were calculated. We also provided an updated literature review. RESULTS: Ninety patients had CRC. At f-Hb < 10 µg/g, the miss rate was 16.7% (specificity 80.1%). At f-Hb < 4 µg/g, the miss rate was 12.2% (specificity 73%), which became 3.3% if low FIT plus the absence of anaemia and abdominal pain were considered (specificity 51%). Within meta-analyses of 9 UK studies, the pooled miss rate was 7.2% (specificity 74%) for f-Hb < 4 µg/g. DISCUSSION: FIT alone as a triage tool would miss an estimated 1 in 8 cases in our study (1 in 14 from meta-analysis), while many people without CRC could avoid investigations. FIT can focus secondary care diagnostic capacity on patients most at risk of CRC, but more work on safety netting is required before incorporating FIT triage into the urgent diagnostic pathway.

General practitioners' awareness of the recommendations for faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for suspected lower gastrointestinal cancers: a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: In July 2017, UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published a diagnostic guidance (DG30) recommending the use of faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for symptomatic patients who do not meet the urgent referral pathway for suspected colorectal cancer (CRC). We assessed general practitioners' (GP) awareness of DG30 in primary care 6 months after its publication. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional online survey of GPs hosted by an English panel of Primary health care professionals. PARTICIPANTS: In December 2017, 1024 GPs registered on an online panel (M3) based in England took part in an online survey. OUTCOMES AND VARIABLES: We investigated a number of factors including previous experience of using FIT and guaiac faecal occult blood tests (FOBTs), the number of urgent referrals for CRC that GPs have made in the last year and their sociodemographic and professional characteristics that could be associated with their self-reported awareness of the FIT diagnostic guidance. RESULTS: Of the 1024 GPs who completed the survey, 432 (42.2%) were aware of the current recommendation but only 102 (10%) had used it to guide their referrals. Awareness was lowest in North West England compared with London (30.5% vs 44.9%; adjusted OR: 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.92). Awareness of the FIT guidance was positively associated with test usage after the NICE update (adjusted OR: 13.00, 95% CI 6.87 to 24.61) and having specialist training (adjusted OR: 1.48, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.08). The number of urgent referrals, the previous use of FOBt, GPs' age and gender, work experience and practice size (both in terms of the number of GPs or patients at the practice) were not associated with awareness. CONCLUSIONS: Less than half of GPs in this survey recognised the current guidance on the use of FIT. Self-reported awareness was not systematically related to demographic of professional characteristics.

Aircraft noise and cardiovascular disease near Heathrow airport in London: small area study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of aircraft noise with risk of stroke, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease in the general population. DESIGN: Small area study. SETTING: 12 London boroughs and nine districts west of London exposed to aircraft noise related to Heathrow airport in London. POPULATION: About 3.6 million residents living near Heathrow airport. Risks for hospital admissions were assessed in 12 110 census output areas (average population about 300 inhabitants) and risks for mortality in 2378 super output areas (about 1500 inhabitants). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk of hospital admissions for, and mortality from, stroke, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease, 2001-05. RESULTS: Hospital admissions showed statistically significant linear trends (P<0.001 to P<0.05) of increasing risk with higher levels of both daytime (average A weighted equivalent noise 7 am to 11 pm, L(Aeq),16 h) and night time (11 pm to 7 am, Lnight) aircraft noise. When areas experiencing the highest levels of daytime aircraft noise were compared with those experiencing the lowest levels (>63 dB v ≤ 51 dB), the relative risk of hospital admissions for stroke was 1.24 (95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.43), for coronary heart disease was 1.21 (1.12 to 1.31), and for cardiovascular disease was 1.14 (1.08 to 1.20) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, and a smoking proxy (lung cancer mortality) using a Poisson regression model including a random effect term to account for residual heterogeneity. Corresponding relative risks for mortality were of similar magnitude, although with wider confidence limits. Admissions for coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease were particularly affected by adjustment for South Asian ethnicity, which needs to be considered in interpretation. All results were robust to adjustment for particulate matter (PM10) air pollution, and road traffic noise, possible for London boroughs (population about 2.6 million). We could not distinguish between the effects of daytime or night time noise as these measures were highly correlated. CONCLUSION: High levels of aircraft noise were associated with increased risks of stroke, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease for both hospital admissions and mortality in areas near Heathrow airport in London. As well as the possibility of causal associations, alternative explanations such as residual confounding and potential for ecological bias should be considered.

The transmission of vibration through gloves: effects of push force, vibration magnitude and inter-subject variability.

The extent to which a glove modifies the risks from hand-transmitted vibration is quantified in ISO 10819:1996 by a measure of glove transmissibility determined with one vibration magnitude, one contact force with a handle and only three subjects. This study was designed to investigate systematically the vibration transmissibility of four 'anti-vibration' gloves over the frequency range 16-1600 Hz with 12 subjects, at six magnitudes of vibration (0.25-8.0 ms(-2) r.m.s.) and with six push forces (5 N to 80 N). The four gloves showed different transmissibility characteristics that were not greatly affected by vibration magnitude but highly dependent on push force. In all conditions, the variability in transmissibility between subjects was as great as the variability between gloves. It is concluded that a standardised test of glove dynamic performance should include a wide range of hands and a range of forces representative of those occurring in work with vibratory tools. STATEMENT OF RELEVANCE: The transmission of vibration through anti-vibration gloves is highly dependent on the push force between the hand and a handle and also highly dependent on the hand that is inside the glove. The influence of neither factor is well reflected in ISO 10819:1996, the current standard for anti-vibration gloves.