Assessing empirical thresholds for investigation in people referred on a symptomatic colorectal cancer pathway: a cohort study utilising faecal immunochemical and blood tests in England
Crooks, C. J.; Banerjea, A.; Jones, J.; Chapman, C.; Oliver, S.; West, J.; Humes, D. J.
Show abstract
ObjectiveTo quantify risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) at empirical FIT cut offs, across age, haemoglobin and platelet strata in current diagnostic pathways. DesignCohort study of all people who were referred on a symptomatic CRC diagnosis pathway from primary care with a FIT test in Nottingham, UK between November 2017 and 2021 with 1-year follow-up for cancer and death. Heat maps showed the cumulative 1-year CRC risk using Kaplan-Meier estimates. We estimated the number of investigations that could potentially be re-purposed if a threshold of [≥]3% 1-year risk of CRC was instigated. ResultsDuring the study period 514 (1.5%) colorectal cancers were diagnosed following 33694 index FIT tests with available blood tests. Individuals with a FIT [≥]10 g Hb/g faeces had a greater than 3% risk of CRC, except patients under the age of 40 years (CRC risk 1.45% (95% CI 0.03-2.86%)). Non-anaemic patients with a FIT <100 g Hb/g faeces had a CRC risk of less than 3%, except those between the age of 70-85 years (5.26% 95% CI 2.72-7.73%). Using a [≥]3% CRC threshold in patients < 55 years calculated using FIT, age and anaemia would allow 160-220 colonoscopies per 10000 FIT tests to be used for other pathways, at the cost of missing 1-2 CRCs. ConclusionsCRC risk varies by FIT, age and anaemia status when fHb levels are below 100 g Hb/g faeces. Tailored cut offs for investigation on a CRC pathway could reduce the number of investigations needed at a 3% CRC risk threshold. What is already known on this topicThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the joint Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain & Ireland and the British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines and the Welsh Government recommend a FIT cut off of [≥]10 g Hb/g faeces for investigation of CRC on an urgent pathway based on an expected colorectal cancer risk threshold of 3%. However, empirical evidence of this threshold in practice and the impact of age, anaemia and thrombocytosis upon it is lacking. What this study addsPeople who had a FIT test in primary care in Nottingham between 2017 and 2021 had a 1- year risk of colorectal cancer of just 1.5%. Non-anaemic patients over 70 years old do not meet the 3% threshold set by NICE for urgent investigation until they have a FIT greater than 40 g Hb/g faeces. Patients under 40 years of age only meet the 3% threshold for investigation when they have a FIT [≥]100 g Hb/g faeces and are anaemic. How this study might affect research, practice or policyWe estimate that by using a stratified approach to meet the [≥]3% risk of CRC threshold that includes FIT, age and anaemia rather than a single cut off for FIT of [≥]10 g Hb/g faeces will allow the optimum number of cancers to be diagnosed for the investigations undertaken. This study assessed existing empirical categorisations of FIT, age and anaemia. Ideally, further optimisation and validation of pathways could be achieved by deriving cut offs and strata using continuous modelling of FIT, age and blood test results. The balance of investigations required, cancers diagnosed and missed is crucial to consider when attempting to optimise diagnostic accuracy and health service provision in the real world. Consensus among all stakeholders needs to be reached on the threshold (risk of CRC) at which investigation should be triggered, taking all these factors into account.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Diagnostic performance of the faecal immunochemical test for patients with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer in primary care: a service evaluation in the South West of England 95%
- Molecular pathways in post-colonoscopy versus detected colorectal cancers: results from a nested case-control study 93%
- Inequalities in the decline and recovery of pathological cancer diagnoses during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Multi-centre derivation and validation of a colitis-associated colorectal cancer risk prediction web-tool 95%
- Quantifying and mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outcomes in colorectal cancer 92%
- Optimising Early Management of Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis in the Biologics Era: Admission Model for Intensification of Therapy in Acute Severe Colitis (ADMIT–ASC) 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Incidence, prevalence, and survival of colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom from 2000-2021: a population-based cohort study 95%
- Strong reduction of distal colorectal cancer incidence and mortality but no reduction of proximal colon cancer after screening colonoscopy: prospective cohort study 92%
- Colorectal cancer screening based on predicted risk: a pilot randomized controlled trial 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Combining faecal immunochemical testing with blood test results to identify patients with symptoms at risk of colorectal cancer: a consecutive cohort of 16,604 patients tested in primary care 98%
- Risk of cancer in regular and low meat-eaters, fish-eaters, and vegetarians: a prospective analysis of UK Biobank participants 90%
- Determinants of pre-vaccination antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2: a population-based longitudinal study (COVIDENCE UK) 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Effects of Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Development, Documentation and Validation of a Multistate Markov Model 93%
- Circulating white blood cell traits and colorectal cancer risk: A Mendelian randomization study 91%
- Cancer and the risk of COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalisation, and death: a population-based multi-state cohort study including 4,618,377 adults in Catalonia, Spain 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.