Wendy Atkin

Background: In the UK, patients with one or two adenomas, of which at least one is ≥ 10 mm in size, or three or four small adenomas, are deemed to be at intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and referred for surveillance colonoscopy 3 years post polypectomy. However, colonoscopy is costly, can cause discomfort and carries a small risk of complications.Objectives: To determine whether or not annual faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are effective, acceptable and cost saving compared with colonoscopy surveillance for detecting CRC and advanced adenomas (AAs).Design: Diagnostic accuracy study with health psychology assessment and economic evaluation.Setting: Participants were recruited from 30 January 2012 to 30 December 2013 within the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England.Participants: Men and women, aged 60–72 years, deemed to be at intermediate risk of CRC following adenoma removal after a positive guaiac faecal occult blood test were invited to participate. Invitees who consented and returned an analysable FIT were included.Intervention: We offered participants quantitative FITs at 1, 2 and 3 years post polypectomy. Participants testing positive with any FIT were referred for colonoscopy and not offered further FITs. Participants testing negative were offered colonoscopy at 3 years post polypectomy. Acceptibility of FIT was assessed using discussion groups, questionnaires and interviews.Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was 3-year sensitivity of an annual FIT versus colonoscopy at 3 years for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) (CRC and/or AA). Secondary outcomes included participants’ surveillance preferences, and the incremental costs and cost-effectiveness of FIT versus colonoscopy surveillance.Results: Of 8008 invitees, 5946 (74.3%) consented and returned a round 1 FIT. FIT uptake in rounds 2 and 3 was 97.2% and 96.9%, respectively. With a threshold of 40 µg of haemoglobin (Hb)/g faeces (hereafter referred to as µg/g), positivity was 5.8% in round 1, declining to 4.1% in round 3. Over three rounds, 69.2% (18/26) of participants with CRC, 34.3% (152/443) with AAs and 35.6% (165/463) with ACN tested positive at 40 µg/g. Sensitivity for CRC and AAs increased, whereas specificity decreased, with lower thresholds and multiple rounds. At 40 µg/g, sensitivity and specificity of the first FIT for CRC were 30.8% and 93.9%, respectively. The programme sensitivity and specificity of three rounds at 10 µg/g were 84.6% and 70.8%, respectively. Participants’ preferred surveillance strategy was 3-yearly colonoscopy plus annual FITs (57.9%), followed by annual FITs with colonoscopy in positive cases (31.5%). FIT with colonoscopy in positive cases was cheaper than 3-yearly colonoscopy (£2,633,382), varying from £485,236 (40 µg/g) to £956,602 (10 µg/g). Over 3 years, FIT surveillance could miss 291 AAs and eight CRCs using a threshold of 40 µg/g, or 189 AAs and four CRCs using a threshold of 10 µg/g.Conclusions: Annual low-threshold FIT with colonoscopy in positive cases achieved high sensitivity for CRC and would be cost saving compared with 3-yearly colonoscopy. However, at higher thresholds, this strategy could miss 15–30% of CRCs and 40–70% of AAs. Most participants preferred annual FITs plus 3-yearly colonoscopy. Further research is needed to define a clear role for FITs in surveillance.Future work: Evaluate the impact of ACN missed by FITs on quality-adjusted life-years.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18040196.Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Bobby Moore Fund for Cancer Research UK. MAST Group Ltd provided FIT kits.

Background: For patients referred to hospital with suspected colorectal cancer (CRC), it is current standard clinical practice to conduct an examination of the whole colon and rectum. However, studies have shown that an examination of the distal colorectum using flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) can be a safe and clinically effective investigation for some patients. These findings require validation in a multicentre study.Objectives: To investigate the links between patient symptoms at presentation and CRC risk by subsite, and to provide evidence of whether or not FS is an effective alternative to whole-colon investigation (WCI) in patients whose symptoms do not suggest proximal or obstructive disease.Design: A multicentre retrospective study using data collected prospectively from two randomised controlled trials. Additional data were collected from trial diagnostic procedure reports and hospital records. CRC diagnoses within 3 years of referral were sourced from hospital records and national cancer registries via the Health and Social Care Information Centre.Setting: Participants were recruited to the two randomised controlled trials from 21 NHS hospitals in England between 2004 and 2007.Participants: Men and women aged ≥ 55 years referred to secondary care for the investigation of symptoms suggestive of CRC.Main outcome measure: Diagnostic yield of CRC at distal (to the splenic flexure) and proximal subsites by symptoms/clinical signs at presentation.Results: The data set for analysis comprised 7380 patients, of whom 59% were women (median age 69 years, interquartile range 62–76 years). Change in bowel habit (CIBH) was the most frequently presenting symptom (73%), followed by rectal bleeding (38%) and abdominal pain (29%); 26% of patients had anaemia. CRC was diagnosed in 551 patients (7.5%): 424 (77%) patients with distal CRC, 122 (22%) patients with cancer proximal to the descending colon and five patients with both proximal and distal CRC. Proximal cancer was diagnosed in 96 out of 2021 (4.8%) patients with anaemia and/or an abdominal mass. The yield of proximal cancer in patients without anaemia or an abdominal mass who presented with rectal bleeding with or without a CIBH or with a CIBH to looser and/or more frequent stools as a single symptom was low (0.5%). These low-risk groups for proximal cancer accounted for 41% (3032/7380) of the cohort; only three proximal cancers were diagnosed in 814 low-risk patients examined by FS (diagnostic yield 0.4%).Limitations: A limitation to this study is that changes to practice since the trial ended, such as new referral guidelines and improvements in endoscopy quality, potentially weaken the generalisability of our findings.Conclusions: Symptom profiles can be used to determine whether or not WCI is necessary. Most proximal cancers were diagnosed in patients who presented with anaemia and/or an abdominal mass. In patients without anaemia or an abdominal mass, proximal cancer diagnoses were rare in those with rectal bleeding with or without a CIBH or with a CIBH to looser and/or more frequent stools as a single symptom. FS alone should be a safe and clinically effective investigation in these patients. A cost-effectiveness analysis of symptom-based tailoring of diagnostic investigations for CRC is recommended.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95152621.Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening is low in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Participation in screening is strongly associated with socioeconomic status. The aim of this study was to determine whether a supplementary leaflet providing the ‘gist’ of guaiac-based Faecal Occult Blood test (gFOBt) screening for colorectal cancer could reduce the socioeconomic status (SES) gradient in uptake in the English NHS BCSP. The trial was integrated within routine BCSP operations in November 2012. Using a cluster randomised controlled design all adults aged 59–74 years who were being routinely invited to complete the gFOBt were randomised based on day of invitation. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was used to create SES quintiles. The control group received the standard information booklet (‘SI’). The intervention group received the SI booklet and the Gist leaflet (‘SI + Gist’) which had been designed to help people with lower literacy engage with the invitation. Blinding of hubs was not possible and invited subjects were not made aware of a comparator condition. The primary outcome was the gradient in uptake across IMD quintiles. In November 2012, 163,525 individuals were allocated to either the ‘SI’ intervention (n = 79,104) or the ‘SI + Gist’ group (n = 84,421). Overall uptake was similar between the intervention and control groups (SI: 57.3% and SI + Gist: 57.6%; OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.92–1.13, p = 0.77). Uptake was 42.0% (SI) vs. 43.0% (SI + Gist) in the most deprived quintile and 65.6% vs. 65.8% in the least deprived quintile (interaction p = 0.48). The SES gradient in uptake was similar between the study groups within age, gender, hub and screening round sub-groups. Providing supplementary simplified information in addition to the standard information booklet did not reduce the SES gradient in uptake in the NHS BCSP. The effectiveness of the Gist leaflet when used alone should be explored in future research. ISRCTN74121020 , registered: 17/20/2012.

The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme offers biennial guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening to 60–74-year-olds. Participants with positive results are referred for follow-up, but many do not have significant findings. If they remain age eligible, these individuals are reinvited for gFOBT screening. We evaluated the performance of repeat screening in this group. We analysed data on programme participants reinvited to gFOBT screening after either previous negative gFOBT (n = 327,542), or positive gFOBT followed by a diagnostic investigation negative for colorectal cancer (CRC) or adenomas requiring surveillance (n = 42,280). Outcomes calculated were uptake, test positivity, yield of CRC, and positive predictive value (PPV) of gFOBT for CRC. For participants with a previous negative gFOBT, uptake in the subsequent screening round was 87.5%, positivity was 1.3%, yield of CRC was 0.112% of those adequately screened, and the PPV of gFOBT for CRC was 9.1%. After a positive gFOBT and a negative diagnostic investigation, uptake in the repeat screening round was 82.6%, positivity was 11.3%, CRC yield was 0.172% of participants adequately screened, and the PPV of gFOBT for CRC was 1.7%. With high positivity and low PPV for CRC, the suitability of routine repeat gFOBT screening in two years among individuals with a previous positive test and a negative diagnostic examination needs to be carefully considered.

Background: The UK guideline recommends 3-yearly surveillance for patients with intermediate-risk (IR) adenomas. No study has examined whether or not this group has heterogeneity in surveillance needs.Objectives: To examine the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence; assess heterogeneity in risk; and identify the optimum frequency of surveillance, the psychological impact of surveillance, and the cost-effectiveness of alternative follow-up strategies.Design: Retrospective multicentre cohort study.Setting: Routine endoscopy and pathology data from 17 UK hospitals (n = 11,944), and a screening data set comprising three pooled cohorts (n = 2352), followed up using cancer registries.Subjects: Patients with IR adenoma(s) (three or four small adenomas or one or two large adenomas).Primary outcomes: Advanced adenoma (AA) and CRC detected at follow-up visits, and CRC incidence after baseline and first follow-up.Methods: The effects of surveillance on long-term CRC incidence and of interval length on findings at follow-up were examined using proportional hazards and logistic regression, adjusting for patient, procedural and polyp characteristics. Lower-intermediate-risk (LIR) subgroups and higher-intermediate-risk (HIR) subgroups were defined, based on predictors of CRC risk. A model-based cost–utility analysis compared 13 surveillance strategies. Between-group analyses of variance were used to test for differences in bowel cancer worry between screening outcome groups (n = 35,700). A limitation of using routine hospital data is the potential for missed examinations and underestimation of the effect of interval and surveillance.Results: In the hospital data set, 168 CRCs occurred during 81,442 person-years (pys) of follow-up [206 per 100,000 pys, 95% confidence interval (CI) 177 to 240 pys]. One surveillance significantly lowered CRC incidence, both overall [hazard ratio (HR) 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77] and in the HIR subgroup (n = 9265; HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76). In the LIR subgroup (n = 2679) the benefit of surveillance was less clear (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.43). Additional surveillance lowered CRC risk in the HIR subgroup by a further 15% (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.62). The odds of detecting AA and CRC at first follow-up (FUV1) increased by 18% [odds ratio (OR) 1.18, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.24] and 32% (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.46) per year increase in interval, respectively, and the odds of advanced neoplasia at second follow-up increased by 22% (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.36), after adjustment. Detection rates of AA and CRC remained below 10% and 1%, respectively, with intervals to 3 years. In the screening data set, 32 CRCs occurred during 25,745 pys of follow-up (124 per 100,000 pys, 95% CI 88 to 176 pys). One follow-up conferred a significant 73% reduction in CRC incidence (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.71). Owing to the small number of end points in this data set, no other outcome was significant. Although post-screening bowel cancer worry was higher in people who were offered surveillance, worry was due to polyp detection rather than surveillance. The economic evaluation, using data from the hospital data set, suggested that 3-yearly colonoscopic surveillance without an age cut-off would produce the greatest health gain.Conclusions: A single surveillance benefited all IR patients by lowering their CRC risk. We identified a higher-risk subgroup that benefited from further surveillance, and a lower-risk subgroup that may require only one follow-up. A surveillance interval of 3 years seems suitable for most IR patients. These findings should be validated in other studies to confirm whether or not one surveillance visit provides adequate protection for the lower-risk subgroup of intermediate-risk patients.Study registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15213649.Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.