Colorectal cancer in patients with single versus double positive faecal immunochemical test results: A retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been shown to improve oncological outcomes by earlier detection and treatment of premalignant adenomatous polyps or CRC itself (1). CRC screening modalities include the faecal immunochemical test (FIT), colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomographic colonography and stool DNA testing. However, FIT remains the most cost-effective (1). In the event that any FIT turns positive, a follow-up colonoscopy is recommended to complete the colonic evaluation (1, 2).

Singapore has adopted two-sample FIT in its national CRC screening program as this has been shown to increase sensitivity by potentially detecting neoplasms that may have been missed in one-sample FIT (3, 4). The national CRC screening program advises age-eligible Singapore residents to complete a free two-sample FIT kit screening every year (3). Should either sample be positive, the individual would be contacted by a dedicated hospital coordinator to arrange for consultation and colonoscopy with a colorectal surgeon or gastroenterologist (5).

Individuals with two positive FIT samples (“double FIT-positive”) – which would have been sampled over two days – should intuitively be more likely to have colonic pathologies compared to individuals with only one positive FIT sample (“single FIT-positive”). However, few studies have examined these outcomes (4, 6). Thus, this study aimed to compare CRC incidence in double FIT-positive versus single FIT-positive individuals using a retrospective cohort of patients from a tertiary hospital in Singapore.

METHODS

RESULTS

The median age of the sample was 65 years (IQR = 58 – 71 years). Overall compliance to follow-up colonoscopy was 50.4%. The distribution of sample demographics, colonoscopy compliance, and outcomes of interest between single and double FIT-positive patients can be found in Table 1.

Median follow-up time between date of referral to the hospital and date of colonoscopy was calculated for colonoscopy-compliant patients between the single (n = 592; median = 49 days, IQR = 29 – 75 days) and double FIT-positive (n = 183; median = 43 days, IQR = 26 – 73 days) groups; U = 50,065.0, p = 0.12.

Incidence density of CRC was 1.53 per 100,000 person-months (95% CI = 0.61, 3.15) in the single- and 17.88 per 100,000 person-months (95% CI = 11.67, 26.19) in the double FIT positive group. This resulted in an incidence rate ratio of 11.71 (95% CI = 5.25, 29.08) (refer to Table 2).

DISCUSSION

In colonoscopy-compliant patients, the double FIT-positive group was approximately 12 times more likely to have CRC and a significantly higher incidence of colorectal polyps than the single FIT-positive group. These findings have significant implications to several stakeholders.

There is the need to expedite colonoscopy for those who are double FIT-positive to ensure prompt detection of CRC and premalignant polyps. With increasing advocacy on CRC screening and being current to screening recommendations, a higher number of patients who are at least single FIT-positive is expected if screening uptake increases. This could put strains on healthcare systems with finite facilities for colonoscopy, resulting in a need to prioritise which patients should more urgently undergo the procedure.

At the national level, countries that are still advocating CRC screening using only one-sample FIT should reconsider their approach. Double FIT-positive is likely to have increased specificity, resulting in fewer false positive findings during follow-up (4, 6). Recent findings have also highlighted the significantly higher positive predictive value of double FIT-positive compared to single FIT-positive in detecting CRC (4). Although compliance rates of individuals performing two-sample FIT over two separate days are likely to be slightly lower than one-sample FIT, this can be managed through public education and targeted interventions (6). Countries concerned about costs to the health system should consider performing a cost-effectiveness analysis, which will likely favour a two-sample FIT program (6).

More work is also required to reinforce the importance of prompt follow-up after a positive FIT result. As observed in our study and the literature, colonoscopy compliance rate after a positive FIT is approximately 50% (7). Using simple arithmetic, another 33 CRC cases could have been diagnosed and managed promptly should there have been perfect compliance.

Prior literature has suggested a combination of patient and provider factors influencing follow-up compliance (7). As these have been known to vary between populations, public health professionals and policymakers must understand population-specific barriers and facilitators in order to develop tailored, cost-effective interventions.

The key strengths of this study were (I) the representativeness of the sample to the average risk study population recommended to our hospital via the national screening programme, with a loss to follow up under 10%, and (II) the ability to verify outcomes of interest via the hospital’s clinical database. The key limitation of this study was the relatively small cohort derived from a single regional hospital, as this had the effect of limiting the number of incident cases, resulting in comparatively imprecise CIs. Our findings should nonetheless be representative of national demographics as FIT-positive hospital referrals are performed geographically, and population sociodemographic characteristics should be similarly distributed across Singapore (8). Although there is certainly the need to validate our findings in larger two-sample FIT cohorts, the significant difference in the rates of CRC detected should prompt clinicians and policymakers to consider examining this issue with greater urgency.