Faecal haemoglobin can define risk of colorectal neoplasia at surveillance colonoscopy in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: 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.
SUBMITTER: Digby J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7268942 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether screening kidney transplant recipients aged over 50 years for colorectal cancer with a faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin might be justified, by determining the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia and evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of faecal haemoglobin testing compared with colonoscopy in a population of kidney transplant recipients at otherwise average risk.DesignCross sectional prevalence and diagnostic accuracy study with index test of faecal haemoglobin and reference standard of colonoscopy.SettingOutpatient clinics in metropolitan and regional hospitals in South Australia.Participants229 kidney transplant recipients aged 50 years and over, who were at least 6 months (mean 9.0 (SD 8.4) years) post-transplant and otherwise at average risk of colorectal cancer, completed the study between June 2008 and October 2011.InterventionsFaecal immunochemical testing (Enterix Insure) for human haemoglobin, followed by colonoscopy with histological evaluation of retrieved samples.Main outcome measuresPrevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia, defined as an adenoma at least 10 mm in diameter, villous features, high grade dysplasia, or colorectal cancer; sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of faecal haemoglobin testing for advanced neoplasia compared with colonoscopy.ResultsAdvanced colorectal neoplasia was found in 29 (13%, 95% confidence interval 9% to 18%) participants, including 2% (n=4) with high grade dysplasia and 2% (n=5) with colorectal cancer. Faecal testing for haemoglobin was positive in 12% (n=28); sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for advanced neoplasia were 31.0% (15.3% to 50.8%), 90.5% (85.6% to 94.2%), 32.1% (15.9% to 52.4%), and 90.1% (85.1% to 93.8%). Colonoscopy was well tolerated, with no significant adverse outcomes. To identify one case of advanced neoplasia, 8 (6 to 12) colonoscopies were needed.ConclusionsKidney transplant recipients aged over 50 years have a high prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia. Faecal haemoglobin screening for colorectal neoplasia has similar performance characteristics in transplant recipients to those reported in general population studies, with poor sensitivity but reasonable specificity. Surveillance colonoscopy might be a more appropriate approach in this population.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12608000154303.
| S-EPMC3404596 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesInterval colorectal cancer (CRC) after colonoscopy may affect effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening programmes. We aimed to investigate whether and how faecal haemoglobin concentration (FHbC) of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) affected the risk prediction of interval cancer (IC) caused by inadequate colonoscopy quality in a FIT-based population screening programme.DesignFrom 2004 to 2009, 29?969 subjects underwent complete colonoscopy after positive FIT in the Taiwanese Nationwide CRC Screening Program. The IC rate was traced until the end of 2012. The incidence of IC was calculated in relation to patient characteristics, endoscopy-related factors (such adenoma detection rate (ADR)) and FHbC. Poisson regression analysis was performed to assess the potential risk factors for colonoscopy IC.ResultsOne hundred and sixty-two ICs developed after an index colonoscopy and the estimated incidence was 1.14 per 1000 person-years of observation for the entire cohort. Increased risk of IC was most remarkable in the uptake of colonoscopy in settings with ADR lower than 15% (adjusted relative risk (aRR)=3.09, 95% CI 1.55 to 6.18) and then higher FHbC (?g?Hb/g faeces) (100-149: aRR=2.55, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.29, ?150: aRR=2.74, 95% CI 1.84 to 4.09) with adjustment for older age and colorectal neoplasm detected at baseline colonoscopy. Similar findings were observed for subjects with negative index colonoscopy.ConclusionsColonoscopy ICs arising from FIT-based population screening programmes were mainly influenced by inadequate colonoscopy quality and independently predicted by FHbC that is associated with a priori chance of advanced neoplasm. This finding is helpful for future modification of screening logistics based on FHbC.
| S-EPMC5284478 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Eliciting patient preferences within the context of shared decision making has been advocated for colorectal cancer screening. Risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) might facilitate more effective shared decision making when selecting an appropriate screening option. Our objective was to develop and validate a clinical index for estimating the probability of ACN at screening colonoscopy.We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 3,543 asymptomatic, mostly average-risk patients 50-79 years of age undergoing screening colonoscopy at two urban safety net hospitals. Predictors of ACN were identified using multiple logistic regression. Model performance was internally validated using bootstrapping methods.The final index consisted of five independent predictors of risk (age, smoking, alcohol intake, height, and a combined sex/race/ethnicity variable). Smoking was the strongest predictor (net reclassification improvement (NRI), 8.4%) and height the weakest (NRI, 1.5%). Using a simplified weighted scoring system based on 0.5 increments of the adjusted odds ratio, the risk of ACN ranged from 3.2% (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.6-3.9) for the low-risk group (score ?2) to 8.6% (95% CI, 7.4-9.7) for the intermediate/high-risk group (score 3-11). The model had moderate to good overall discrimination (C-statistic, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.66-0.72) and good calibration (P=0.73-0.93).A simple 5-item risk index based on readily available clinical data accurately stratifies average-risk patients into low- and intermediate/high-risk categories for ACN at screening colonoscopy. Uptake into clinical practice could facilitate more effective shared decision-making for CRC screening, particularly in situations where patient and provider test preferences differ.
| S-EPMC4705553 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsThe risk of recurrence of colorectal adenoma among obese individuals without metabolic abnormalities or in those with metabolically healthy obesity is largely unexplored. Therefore, we longitudinally investigated the risk of adenoma occurrence in individuals undergoing surveillance colonoscopy according to metabolic status and obesity.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included 16,872 Korean adults who underwent their first screening colonoscopy between 2003 and 2012 and who then underwent follow-up colonoscopy until 2017. Participants were categorized into a metabolically healthy nonobese group (reference group), a metabolically healthy obese group, a metabolically abnormal nonobese group, and a metabolically abnormal obese group. Hazard ratios (HRs) for adenoma recurrence compared to the reference group were calculated in each group.ResultsDuring a median follow-up duration of 47.3 months (interquartile range, 35.6 to 58.9 months), 3,673 (21.8%) and 292 (1.73%) participants developed adenoma and advanced adenoma, respectively. When age, sex, smoking, alcohol consumption, family history of colorectal cancer, and baseline adenoma risk were adjusted, the risk of adenoma recurrence was increased in metabolically healthy obese individuals (HR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12 to 1.57) and metabolically abnormal obese individuals (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.30) but not in metabolically abnormal nonobese individuals (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.13).ConclusionsIn this study, metabolically healthy obese individuals and metabolically abnormal obese individuals exhibited increased risks of occurrence of colorectal adenoma diagnosed by surveillance colonoscopy. This finding implies that obesity itself, even without metabolic abnormalities, is associated with an increased risk of adenoma recurrence.
| S-EPMC8129661 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients who have had colorectal adenomas removed are at increased risk of developing colorectal cancer in the future. We sought to determine whether surveillance colonoscopy at 5 years in low-risk postpolypectomy patients is necessary and effective.UK multicentre retrospective study. Patients diagnosed with 'low-risk' colorectal adenomas between April 2004 and April 2007 were identified and results of all subsequent lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopies were noted. Where no colonoscopy had been done at or after 5 years from the index investigation, patient details were cross-checked against hospital colorectal multidisciplinary team databases to ensure no colorectal cancer had been detected in the meantime.641 patients were included. 131 patients (20.4%) had a 'per protocol' surveillance colonoscopy at 5 years. Of these, no patients were found to have colorectal cancer, 10 patients (7.6%) had advanced adenomas, 26 patients (19.8%) had non-advanced adenomas and 95 patients (72.5%) had no further adenomas. 510 patients (79.6%) did not have a surveillance colonoscopy at 5 years. Of these, 110 patients (17.2%) developed lower GI symptoms within 5 years of their index endoscopy and underwent a further lower GI endoscopy to investigate these symptoms. 3 colorectal cancers in 3 patients were found during these endoscopies and two further colorectal cancers were found at symptomatic colonoscopies at or after 5 years from index.Patients with low-risk adenomas should be risk profiled. Those with risk factors, such as two adenomas, male sex and advanced adenomas at index procedure should be offered 5-year surveillance colonoscopy.
| S-EPMC5369564 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPatients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who have postinflammatory polyps (PIPs) may have an increased risk of developing colorectal neoplasia. Current guidelines recommend an intensified surveillance strategy in these patients, although the evidence for this recommendation is conflicting. The aim of our study was to assess whether IBD patients with PIPs are at increased risk of colorectal neoplasia.MethodsWe established a retrospective cohort in a tertiary IBD center with IBD patients undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance in the current era. We compared cumulative incidences of colorectal neoplasia since IBD diagnosis between patients with and without PIPs and corrected for confounders. Second, we compared the risk of receiving a colectomy.ResultsIn our cohort with >22 years of median follow-up, 154 of 519 patients had PIPs. PIPs were associated with extensive disease (odds ratio [OR], 2.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.61-4.42; P < 0.001) and with more severe inflammation at colonoscopy (OR, 3.54; 95% CI, 2.28-5.50; P < 0.001). After correction for confounders, the presence of PIPs was not associated with development of colorectal neoplasia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; 95% CI, 0.85-1.93; P = 0.24) or with development of advanced neoplasia (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.52-3.68; P = 0.52). There was a higher risk of colectomy in patients with PIPs (HR, 3.41; 95% CI, 1.55-7.54; P = 0.002).ConclusionIn this cohort, PIPs were associated with disease extent, inflammation, and higher rates of colectomy. However, the presence of PIPs was not associated with the development of neoplasia. These findings suggest that patients with PIPs may not need an intensified surveillance strategy.
| S-EPMC7441099 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND & AIMS:Endoscopists do not routinely follow guidelines to survey individuals with low-risk adenomas (LRAs; 1-2 small tubular adenomas, < 1 cm) every 5-10 years for colorectal cancer; many recommend shorter surveillance intervals for these individuals. We aimed to identify the reasons that endoscopists recommend shorter surveillance intervals for some individuals with LRAs and determine whether timing affects outcomes at follow-up examinations. METHODS:We collected data from 1560 individuals (45-75 years old) who participated in a prospective chemoprevention trial (of vitamin D and calcium) from 2004 through 2008. Participants in the trial had at least 1 adenoma, detected at their index colonoscopy, and were recommended to receive follow-up colonoscopy examinations at 3 or 5 years after adenoma identification, as recommended by the endoscopist. For this analysis we collected data from only participants with LRAs. These data included characteristics of participants and endoscopists and findings from index and follow-up colonoscopies. Primary endpoints were frequency of recommending shorter (3-year) vs longer (5-year) surveillance intervals, factors associated with these recommendations, and effect on outcome, determined at the follow-up colonoscopy. RESULTS:A 3-year surveillance interval was recommended for 594 of the subjects (38.1%). Factors most significantly associated with recommendation of 3-year vs a 5-year surveillance interval included African American race (relative risk [RR] to white, 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.75), Asian/Pacific Islander ethnicity (RR to white, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.22-2.43), detection of 2 adenomas at the index examination (RR vs 1 adenoma, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.27-1.71), more than 3 serrated polyps at the index examination (RR=2.16, 95% CI, 1.59-2.93), or index examination with fair or poor quality bowel preparation (RR vs excellent quality, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.66-2.83). Other factors that had a significant association with recommendation for a 3-year surveillance interval included family history of colorectal cancer and detection of 1-2 serrated polyps at the index examination. In comparisons of outcomes, we found no significant differences between the 3-year vs 5-year recommendation groups in proportions of subjects found to have 1 or more adenomas (38.8% vs 41.7% respectively; P = .27), advanced adenomas (7.7% vs 8.2%; P = .73) or clinically significant serrated polyps (10.0% vs 10.3%; P = .82) at the follow-up colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS:Possibly influenced by patients' family history, race, quality of bowel preparation, or number or size of polyps, endoscopists frequently recommend 3-year surveillance intervals instead of guideline-recommended intervals of 5 years or longer for individuals with LRAs. However, at the follow-up colonoscopy, similar proportions of participants have 1 or more adenomas, advanced adenomas, or serrated polyps. These findings support the current guideline recommendations of performing follow-up examinations of individuals with LRAs at least 5 years after the index colonoscopy.
| S-EPMC6251057 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA single sampled faecal immunochemical test (FIT) has moderate sensitivity for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas. Repeated FIT sampling could improve test sensitivity. The aim of the present study is to determine whether any of three different strategies of double FIT sampling has a better combination of sensitivity and specificity than single FIT sampling.MethodsTest performance of single FIT sampling in subjects scheduled for colonoscopy was compared to double FIT sampling intra-individually. Test positivity of double FIT sampling was evaluated in three different ways: 1) "one of two FITs+" when at least one out of two measurements exceeded the cut-off value, 2) "two of two FITs+" when both measurements exceeded the cut-off value, 3) "mean of two FITs+" when the geometric mean of two FITs exceeded the cut-off value. Receiver operator curves were calculated and sensitivity of single and the three strategies of double FIT sampling were compared at a fixed level of specificity.ResultsIn 124 of 1096 subjects, screen relevant neoplasia (SRN) were found (i.e. early stage CRC or advanced adenomas). At any cut-off, "two of two FITs+" resulted in the lowest and "one of two FITs+" in the highest sensitivity for SRN (range 35-44% and 42%-54% respectively). ROC's of double FIT sampling were similar to single FIT sampling. At specificities of 85/90/95%, sensitivity of any double FIT sampling strategy did not differ significantly from single FIT (p-values 0.07-1).ConclusionAt any cut off, "one of two FITs+" is the most sensitive double FIT sampling strategy. However, at a given specificity level, sensitivity of any double FIT sampling strategy for SRN is comparable to single FIT sampling at a different cut-off value. None of the double FIT strategies has a superior combination of sensitivity and specificity over single FIT.
| S-EPMC3201938 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effect of an incremental increase in faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) concentration on colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality and all-cause death.DesignWe conducted an observational study of cohorts over time based on two population-based CRC screening programmes.SettingTwo cities of Taiwan.Participants1233 individuals with CRC (217 prevalent cases and 1016 incident cases) and 2640 with colorectal adenoma (1246 prevalent cases and 1394 incident cases) found in the two cohorts of 59 767 and 125 976 apparently healthy individuals, aged 40 years and above, who had been invited to participate in screening since 2001 and 2003, respectively.Main outcome measuresDeath from CRC and all-cause death ascertained by following up from the entire two cohorts over time until 2009.ResultsThe effect of an incremental increase in f-Hb on the risk for CRC mortality was noted, increasing from a slightly increased risk for the category of f-Hb of 20-49 ng Hb/mL (adjusted HR (aHR)=1.09; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.75) to 11.67 (95% CI 7.71 to 17.66) for the group with f-Hb?450 ng Hb/mL as compared with the group considered baseline with f-Hb of 1-19 ng Hb/mL (p<0.001). A similar but less marked increasing trend was found for all-cause mortality, aHR increasing from 1.15 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.24) for the group with f-Hb of 20-49 ng Hb/mL to 1.67 (95% CI 1.54 to 2.07) for the group with f-Hb?450 ng Hb/mL.ConclusionsWe substantiated the impacts of an incremental increase in f-Hb on the risk for death from CRC and all-cause death, consistently showing a significant gradient relationship. Both discoveries suggest that f-Hb may not only make contribution to facilitating individually tailored screening for CRC but also can be used as a significant predictor for life expectancy.
| S-EPMC3822305 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study developed a clinical scoring system to predict the risks of PN among screening participants for colorectal cancer. We recruited 5,789 Chinese asymptomatic screening participants who received colonoscopy in Hong Kong (2008-2014). From random sampling of 2,000 participants, the independent risk factors were evaluated for PN using binary regression analysis. The odds ratios for significant risk factors were used to develop a scoring system, with scores stratified into 'average risk' (AR):0-2 and 'high risk' (HR):3-5. The other 3,789 subjects formed an independent validation cohort. Each participant received a score calculated based on their risk factors. The performance of the scoring system was evaluated. The proportion of PN in the derivation and validation cohorts was 12.6% and 12.9%, respectively. Based on age, gender, family history, body mass index and self-reported ischaemic heart disease, 85.0% and 15.0% in the validation cohort were classified as AR and HR, respectively. Their prevalence of PN was 12.0% and 18.1%, respectively. Participants in the HR group had 1.51-fold (95% CI = 1.24-1.84, p < 0.001) higher risk of PN than the AR group. The overall c-statistics of the prediction model was 0.71(0.02). The scoring system is useful in predicting the risk of PN to prioritize patients for colonoscopy.
| S-EPMC4745041 | biostudies-other