Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter June 1, 2022

A comparison of the faecal haemoglobin concentrations and diagnostic accuracy in patients suspected with colorectal cancer and serious bowel disease as reported on four different faecal immunochemical test systems

Sally C. Benton ORCID logo, Carolyn Piggott ORCID logo, Zahida Zahoor ORCID logo, Shane O’Driscoll ORCID logo, Callum G. Fraser ORCID logo, Nigel D’Souza, Michelle Chen, Theo Georgiou Delisle and Muti Abulafi

Abstract

Objectives

Faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT) are used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes and to triage patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of CRC for further bowel investigations. There are a number of quantitative FIT analytical systems available. Currently, there is no harmonisation or standardisation of FIT methods. The aim of the study was to assess the comparability of numerical faecal haemoglobin concentrations (f-Hb) obtained with four quantitative FIT systems and the diagnostic accuracy at different f-Hb thresholds.

Methods

A subgroup of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) FIT study, a multicentre, prospective diagnostic accuracy study were sent four FIT specimen collection devices from four different FIT systems or two FIT devices for one FIT system. Faecal samples were examined and analysis of results carried out to assess difference between methods at thresholds of limit of detection (LoD), 10 µg haemoglobin/g faeces (µg/g) and 100 μg/g.

Results

233 patients returned specimen collection devices for examination on four different systems; 189 patients returned two FIT kits for one system. At a threshold of 100 μg/g the sensitivity is the same for all methods. At lower thresholds of LoD and 10 μg/g differences were observed between systems in terms of patients who would be referred and diagnostic accuracies.

Conclusions

The lack of standardisation or harmonisation of FIT means that differences are observed in f-Hb generated on different systems. Further work is required to understand the clinical impact of these differences and to minimise them.


Corresponding author: Sally C. Benton, Clinical Biochemistry, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Berkshire and Surrey Pathology Services, Guildford, Surrey, UK; and NHS Bowel Cancer Screening South of England Hub, Berkshire and Surrey Pathology Services, 20 Priestley Road, Surrey Research Park, GU2 7YS, Guildford, Surrey, UK, Phone: +44 1483 409850, E-mail:
The NICE FIT Steering Group: Oliver Warren (Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust); Saidyousuf Ahmadi, Carlene Parchment, Arun Shanmuganandan (Croydon University Hospital); Nicholas West (Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals); Toni Mitchell, Stephen Sah and Nick Jackson (Hammersmith Medical Research); Alistair Myers (Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust); Paul Ziprin (Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust); Ian Bloom (Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust); Stan Kaye (Royal Marsden Partners); Andy Ramwell (St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust); John T Jenkins (St Mark’s Hospital); Kevin Monahan (West Middlesex University Hospital).

Acknowledgments

The study supported by Croydon University Hospital and RM Partners in the design and conduct of the trial. Patients were recruited nationally through the NIHR Clinical Research Network, Principal Investigators and R&D teams at each site. Alpha Labs Ltd supported the study prior to funding with FIT kits and production of patient information. We thank Professor Stephen Duffy for his guidance with some of the statistical methodology.

  1. Research funding: This study is a sub-study of the NICE FIT study which was funded by an NHS England award to RM Partners, the West London Cancer Alliance hosted by The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network Portfolio. Alpha Labs Ltd, MAST Diagnostics, Sysmex and Abbott/ Alfresa supported the study by providing FIT kits and reagents without charge. The study funders had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

  2. Author contributions: SCB drafted the manuscript. ZZ and CP carried out statistical analysis. CP, SOD and ZZ carried out laboratory analysis of samples. CGF provided guidance on statistical analysis. All authors provided significant input to the study, reviewed and revised drafts of the manuscript, and approved the submitted version. All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  3. Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.

  4. Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this study.

  5. Ethical approval: Research involving human subjects complied with all relevant national regulations, institutional policies and is in accordance with the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration (as revised in 2013). The study was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee, London- South East. Full title: NICE Guidelines and The Faecal Immunochemical Test Study. REC No: 16/LO/2,174. IRAS project ID 218404.

  6. Principal investigators: Mark Austin (Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust); Gemma Faulkner (Bolton NHS Foundation Trust); John Stebbing (Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust); Jonathan Epstein (Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust).

  7. Patient consent statement: No identifiable patient data is present in the manuscript, Permission to reproduce material from other sources, No material was reproduced from other sources.

  8. Permission to reproduce material from other sources: No material was reproduced from other sources.

  9. Clinical trial registration: ISRCTN49676259.

References

1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Suspected cancer: recognition and referral. In: NICE Guideline (NG12). London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2017.Search in Google Scholar

2. Pin Vieito, N, Puga, M, Fernandez-de-Castro, D, Cubiella, J. Faecal immunochemical test outside colorectal cancer screening? World J Gastroenterol 2021;27:6415–29.10.3748/wjg.v27.i38.6415Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

3. Daly, JM, Xu, Y, Levy, BT. Which fecal immunochemical test should I choose? J Prim Care Community Health 2017;8:264–77.10.1177/2150131917705206Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

4. Benton, SC, Symonds, E, Djedovic, N, Jones, S, Deprez, L, Kocna, P, et al.. Faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin: analytical challenges and potential solutions. Clin Chim Acta 2021;517:60–5.10.1016/j.cca.2021.01.024Search in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Chapman, CJ, Banerjea, A, Humes, DJ, Allen, J, Oliver, S, Ford, A, et al.. Choice of faecal immunochemical test matters: comparison of OC-Sensor and HM-JACKarc in the assessment of patients at high risk of colorectal cancer. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;59:721–8.10.1515/cclm-2020-1170Search in Google Scholar PubMed

6. Clark, G, Strachan, JA, Carey, FA, Godfrey, T, Irvine, A, McPherson, A, et al.. Transition to quantitative faecal immunochemical testing from guaiac faecal occult blood testing in a fully rolled-out population-based national bowel screening programme. Gut 2021;70:106–13.10.1136/gutjnl-2019-320297Search in Google Scholar PubMed

7. Moss, S, Mathews, C, Day, TJ, Smith, S, Seaman, HE, Snowball, J. Increased uptake and improved outcomes of bowel cancer screening with a faecal immunochemical test: results from a pilot study within the national screening programme in England. Gut 2017;66:1631–44.10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310691Search in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Scottish Government. Guidance for the use of FIT in the prioritization of patients with colorectal symptoms now and in the recovery period after COVID; 2020. Available from: https://www.nhsggc.org.uk/media/261915/clinical-guidance-quantitative-faecal-immunochemical-testing-004.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

9. Piggott, C, Carroll, MRR, John, C, O’Driscoll, S, Benton, SC. Analytical evaluation of four faecal immunochemistry tests for haemoglobin. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;59:173–8.10.1515/cclm-2020-0251Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. D’Souza, N, Delisle, TG, Chen, M, Benton, SC, Abulafi, M, Warren, O, et al.. Faecal immunochemical testing in symptomatic patients to prioritize investigation: diagnostic accuracy from NICE FIT Study. Br J Surg 2021;23:804–10.10.1093/bjs/znaa132Search in Google Scholar PubMed

11. Bossuyt, PM, Reitsma, JB, Bruns, DE, Gatsonis, CA, Glasziou, PP, Irwig, L, et al.. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ 2015;351:h5527.10.1136/bmj.h5527Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

12. Fraser, CG, Benton, SC. Detection capability of quantitative faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT) and reporting of low faecal haemoglobin concentrations. Clin Chem Lab Med 2019;57:611–6.10.1515/cclm-2018-0464Search in Google Scholar PubMed

13. D’Souza, N, Georgiou Delisle, T, Chen, M, Benton, S, Abulafi, M. Faecal immunochemical test is superior to symptoms in predicting pathology in patients with suspected colorectal cancer symptoms referred on a 2WW pathway: a diagnostic accuracy study. Gut 2020;70:1130–8.10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321956Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

14. Gisev, N, Bell, JS, Chen, TF. Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: key concepts, approaches, and applications. Res Soc Adm Phar 2013;9:330–8.10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.04.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed

15. DeLong, ER, DeLong, DM, Clarke-Pearson, DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837–45.10.2307/2531595Search in Google Scholar

16. Digby, J, Cleary, S, Gray, L, Datt, P, Goudie, DR, Steele, RJC, et al.. Faecal haemoglobin can define risk of colorectal neoplasia at surveillance colonoscopy in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. U Eur Gastroenterol J 2020;8:559–66.10.1177/2050640620913674Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

17. Pin-Vieito, N, Tejido-Sandoval, C, de Vicente-Bielza, N, Sánchez-Gómez, C, Cubiella, J. Faecal immunochemical tests safely enhance rational use of resources during the assessment of suspected symptomatic colorectal cancer in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut 2022;71:950–60.10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324856Search in Google Scholar PubMed

18. Benton, SC, Symonds, E, Djedovic, N, Jones, S, Deprez, L, Kocna, P, et al.. Faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin: analytical challenges and potential solutions. Clin Chim Acta 2021;517:60–5.10.1016/j.cca.2021.01.024Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2021-11-29
Accepted: 2022-05-17
Published Online: 2022-06-01
Published in Print: 2022-07-26

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Scroll Up Arrow