Faecal haemoglobin concentration in adenoma, before and after polypectomy, approaches the ideal tumour marker.

BACKGROUND: Polypectomy may be performed at colonoscopy and then subsequent surveillance undertaken. It is thought that faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb), estimated by quantitative faecal immunochemical tests (FIT), might be a useful tumour marker. METHODS: Consecutive patients enrolled in colonoscopy surveillance were approached at two hospitals. A specimen for FIT was provided before colonoscopy and, ideally after 3 weeks, a second FIT sample from those who had polypectomy. A single FIT system (OC-Sensor io, Eiken Chemical Co., Ltd) was used to generate f-Hb. RESULTS: 1103 Patients were invited; 643 returned a FIT device (uptake: 58.3%). Four patients had known inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and were excluded, leaving 639 (57.9%) with an age range of 25-90 years (median 64 years), 54.6% male. Of 593 patients who had a f-Hb result and completed colonoscopy, advanced neoplasia was found in 41 (6.9%); four colorectal cancer (CRC): 0.7% and 37 advanced adenoma (AA): 6.3%, and a further 127 (21.4%) had non-advanced adenoma (NAA). The median f-Hb was significantly greater in AA as compared to NAA; 6.0 versus 1.0 µg Hb/g faeces, p < 0.0001.134/164 (81.7%) of invited patients returned a second FIT device: 28 were patients with AA in whom median pre-polypectomy f-Hb was 19.2, falling to 3.5 µg Hb/g faeces post-polypectomy, p = 0.01, and 106 with NAA had median pre-polypectomy f-Hb 0.8 compared to 1.0 µg Hb/g faeces post-polypectomy, p = 0.96. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative FIT could provide a good tumour marker in post-polypectomy surveillance, reduce colonoscopy requirements and minimise potential risk to patients.

Faecal haemoglobin can define risk of colorectal neoplasia at surveillance colonoscopy in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative faecal immunochemical tests measure faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb), which increases in the presence of colorectal neoplasia. OBJECTIVE: We examined the diagnostic accuracy of faecal immunochemical test (FIT)in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) attending for surveillance colonoscopy as per national guidelines. METHODS: A total of 1103 consecutive patients were prospectively invited to complete a FIT before their scheduled colonoscopy in two university hospitals in 2014- 2016. F-Hb was analysed on an OC-Sensor io automated analyser (Eiken Chemical Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) with a limit of detection of 2 µg Hb/g faeces. The diagnostic accuracy of f-Hb for CRC and higher-risk adenoma was examined. RESULTS: A total of 643 patients returned a faecal test. After excluding 4 patients with known inflammatory bowel disease, 639 (57.9%) remained in the study: age range: 25-90 years (median: 64 years, interquartile range (IQR): 55-71): 54.6% male. Of 593 patients who also completed colonoscopy, 41 (6.9%) had advanced neoplasia (4 CRC, 37 higher-risk adenoma). Of the 238 patients (40.1%) who had detectable f-Hb, 31 (13.0%) had advanced neoplasia (2 CRC, 29 higher-risk adenoma) compared with 10 (2.8%) in those with undetectable f-Hb (2 CRC, 8 higher-risk adenoma). Detectable f-Hb gave negative predictive values of 99.4% for CRC and 97.2% for CRC plus higher-risk adenoma. CONCLUSION: In patients at increased risk of CRC under colonoscopy surveillance, a test measuring faecal haemoglobin can provide an objective estimate of the risk of advanced neoplasia, and could enable tailored scheduling of colonoscopy.

Management of patients on chemotherapeutic treatment for advanced cancer with acute conditions in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy is increasingly used in people with advanced cancer to palliate symptoms and improve survival. New Zealand provides medical oncology services in a Hub and Spoke model, with an increasing emphasis on delivering treatment at out-patient spoke services, where after hours and urgent care is provided by the Emergency Department (ED). This study sought to describe the factors that influenced the care and clinical decision-making of this group of patients in the ED. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were held with five ED nurses from three hospitals at the spoke. Raw data was thematically analysed via an exploratory descriptive approach. RESULTS: Care of the oncology patient in ED is determined by the presentation itself, and differs little to the care delivered to other patient groups. That the patient is on chemotherapy may have little influence on the interventions provided. Challenges arise through patient complexity, lack of oncology specialist availability and low volumes preclude the maintenance of specialist skills and knowledge. Clinical decisions are influenced by local Hospice teams rather than Oncology team providing cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: A more collaborative relationship between Oncology and ED nurses may support the provision of emergency care within the context of active cancer treatment.

When the unexpected happens.

Last week I was working an evening shift when one of my clients had a serious unexpected incident. The client's family was present at the time and asked many questions and took notes. I felt I was being watched and judged. I was unsure about what information I should or could provide the family, but remembered someone once saying that it is better to say nothing in this type of situation. However, I felt it was important that I keep the family informed and offer empathy and care. Because I was unsure of what to do in this situation, I contacted an RNABC nursing practice consultant and reviewed our hospital policies and procedures. I know I did the right thing by keeping the family informed.