Diagnostic accuracy of point of care faecal immunochemical testing using a portable high-speed quantitative analyser for diagnosis in 2-week wait patients.

AIM: Laboratory-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is the gold standard for detecting the presence of blood in the stool. The aim was to perform a diagnostic accuracy study to confirm if a point of care (POC) analyser for FIT could be safely used as an adjunct in the triage and management of 2-week wait (TWW) colorectal patients. METHODS: The Point of Care Faecal Immunochemical Testing (POC FIT) prospective observational cohort study was designed for TWW patients at a regional referral centre. Between July 2019 and March 2020, patients were invited to perform and bring a FIT sample to clinic. FIT was completed within the clinic appointment using a POC quantitative analyser that has a 2-min processing time (QuikRead go®). Patients and clinicians were blinded to results within the clinic appointment. The results were compared with subsequent diagnostic outcomes. Faecal haemoglobin of <10 µg haemoglobin/g of faeces was considered a negative result. Sensitivities for colorectal cancer (CRC) and combined serious bowel disease (SBD) were calculated using this pre-determined cut-off. RESULTS: A total of 553 patients were included for analytical comparison with diagnostic outcomes. There were 14 (2.5%) patients with CRC and 52 (9.4%) with SBD. The sensitivities for CRC and SBD were 92.9% (95% CI 68.5%-98.7%) and 76.9% (95% CI 63.9%-86.3%) respectively. 379 (68.5%) patients had a negative FIT result (negative predictive value for CRC was 99.7%). CONCLUSIONS: This POC FIT device is a useful adjunct to better manage TWW patients. The high observed sensitivity for CRC offers opportunities, within a single consultation, for improved triage and rationalization of investigation for those with bowel symptoms.

Protocolo ERAS® en cirugía colorrectal / ERAS® in Colorectal Surgery

RESUMEN El protocolo de recuperación optimizada Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) en cirugía colo rrectal promueve un retorno más rápido a la función orgánica siguiendo la evidencia de las últimas investigaciones dirigidas a disminuir el estrés quirúrgico. La vía perioperatoria recomendada está per feccionada, es dinámica y se ajusta a las últimas investigaciones basadas en la evidencia para mejorar todos los aspectos de la atención quirúrgica del paciente. En este artículo describiremos los cuatro aspectos de un paciente a quien se le realizará una cirugía colorrectal: preadmisión, preoperatorio, in traoperatorio y posoperatorio El tema recurrente es disminuir el estrés fisiológico general relacionado con la cirugía; para ello, las intervenciones se superponen a lo largo del recorrido que hace el paciente. Utilizando un enfoque multidisciplinario, la adherencia al protocolo ERAS® en cirugía colorrectal cum pliendo con el 70% o más de las intervenciones de ERAS® ha demostrado una reducción del riesgo de muerte relacionada con el cáncer del 42% a los 5 años. Las intervenciones óptimas no solo se determi nan mediante la publicación de investigaciones de alta calidad, sino que la colaboración internacional periódica permite compartir experiencias e investigaciones y estandarizar los cuidados.

ABSTRACT Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) in colorectal surgery is a protocol that promotes quicker return to function. It follows the latest evidence-based research to promote stress reduction related to surgery. The recommended perioperative pathway is fine-tuned, dynamic and in line with the latest evidence-based research to enhance all aspects of the patient's surgical care. We describe the four aspects for a patient undergoing colorectal surgery - pre-admission, pre-operative, intra-operative and post-operative. The running theme is to reduce overall physiological stress related to surgery and interventions overlap throughout the patient's pathway. Using a multidisciplinary approach, adheren ce to ERAS® in colorectal surgery with ≥70 % compliance to the ERAS interventions has shown a risk reduction of 5-year cancer-related death by 42%. The optimum interventions are not only determined through the publication of high-quality research, but regular international collaboration enables expe rience and research to be shared and care standardized.

Adoption of faecal immunochemical testing for 2-week-wait colorectal patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational cohort study reporting a new service at a regional centre.

AIM: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the near-complete loss of routine endoscopy services. We describe a major reorganization of service at a regional referral centre (Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust) to manage the crisis. Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) was implemented for triage to make optimum use of limited diagnostic resources. Consultations were switched from face-to-face to telephone. Our aim was to evaluate the impact FIT had on resource allocation and patient diagnoses in the first 3 months of use. METHOD: All colorectal 2-week-wait patient referrals were posted a pack requesting FIT and notification of telephone consultation. A prepaid envelope was included for return of the samples. At consultation, FIT was incorporated with the presenting symptoms to guide the choice of investigation and triage urgency. FIT ≥10 µg/g was interpreted as positive. Outcome data were collected prospectively and compared with retrospective audit data from prepandemic levels across 3 months. RESULTS: From 26 March 2020 to 2 July 381 patients were referred who were invited to provide FIT samples and underwent telephone consultations. Three hundred and fifty eight FIT samples were returned (94%). Onward referral for colonoscopy reduced from 62% to 34% (P < 0.001). There were 14 colorectal cancers (CRC) (3.7%) diagnosed, which was not statistically different from the prepandemic level of 3.9% (P = 0.995). Twelve of the 14 patients with a CRC diagnosis had provided samples; all 12 had FIT ≥10 µg/g and were offered fast-track investigations. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of FIT optimized the allocation of limited resources to triage those who required urgent colonic investigation for detecting CRC.

Describing the first 2000 registrations to the Research Registry®: A study protocol.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the Declaration of Helsinki was updated and required the registration of all research studies involving human participants. Prior registries focussed on the registration of clinical trials and systematic reviews, and we estimate that only 10% of observational research is registered in a publically accessible registry. The Research Registry® was established to provide a venue of registration for any study, prospectively or retrospectively, involving human participants. This protocol describes the analysis for the first 2000 registrations received to the Research Registry®. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Data for each registration to the Research Registry® (www.researchregistry.com), adapted from the World Health Organisation minimum data set, has been collected since the launch of the registry in 2015. A weekly curation process ensures that inappropriate registrations, such as duplicate studies or those not involving human participants, are removed from the registry. We will present the characteristics of the first 2000 registrations and how they have changed overtime. A quality score will be calculated for each registration by two independent teams, and inter-rater reliability will be calculated. Funding sources of work registered will also be presented. This process will also be performed for the systematic review portion of the registry ('The Review Registry'), which will be considered separately. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this study as it involves no human participants. The findings will be presented at international conferences and published in a peer reviewed journal.