Advertisement

Low Sensitivity of Fecal Immunochemical Tests (FIT) for Detection of Sessile Serrated Adenomas/Polyps Confirmed Over Clinical Setting, Geography, and FIT System

  • Craig Mowat
  • Jayne Digby
  • Judith A. Strachan
  • Robert J. C. Steele
  • Callum G. FraserEmail author
Correspondence
  • 4 Downloads

Dear Editor,

We were interested to read the study of Cock et al. [1] on the clinical sensitivity of fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) for the detection of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/SSP), and their conclusion that FIT have low sensitivity for their detection.

Participants in their study were aged over 18 years and underwent colonoscopy in South Australia with FIT analyses performed on the OC-Sensor Diana (Eiken Chemical Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan). Indications for colonoscopy were heterogeneous and were as follows: positive FIT 519 (27.6%), symptoms 561 (29.8%), surveillance 687 (36.5%), screening 18 (1.0%), and other 97 (5.2%). However, it is known that the performance outcomes using FIT vary in different clinical settings and different fecal hemoglobin concentrations (f-Hb) are used as thresholds [2, 3]. In addition, quantitative FIT systems use polyclonal antibodies to the globin moiety of human hemoglobin and have different analytical specificities, giving different f-Hb...

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

CGF undertakes paid consultancy with Kyowa Medex Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan, and has received financial assistance with attendance at conferences from Alpha Labs Ltd. All other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Cock C, Anwar S, Byrne SE, et al. Low sensitivity of fecal immunochemical tests and blood-based markers of DNA hypermethylation for detection of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps. Dig Dis Sci. 2019. (Epub ahead of print).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-019-05569-8.
  2. 2.
    Young GP, Symonds EL, Allison JE, et al. Advances in fecal occult blood tests: the FIT revolution. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60:609–622.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-014-3445-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Westwood M, Lang S, Armstrong N, et al. Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) can help to rule out colorectal cancer in patients presenting in primary care with lower abdominal symptoms: a systematic review conducted to inform new NICE DG30 diagnostic guidance. BMC Med. 2017;15:189.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0944-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grobbee EJ, van der Vlugt M, van Vuuren AJ, et al. A randomised comparison of two faecal immunochemical tests in population-based colorectal cancer screening. Gut. 2017;66:1975–1982.  https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2016-311819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McDonald PJ, Strachan JA, Digby J, et al. Faecal haemoglobin concentrations by gender and age: implications for population-based screening for colorectal cancer. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2011;50:935–940.  https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2011.815.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Symonds EL, Osborne JM, Cole SR, et al. Factors affecting faecal immunochemical test positive rates: demographic, pathological, behavioural and environmental variables. J Med Screen. 2015;22:187–193.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0969141315584783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Digby J, McDonald PJ, Strachan JA, et al. Deprivation and faecal haemoglobin: implications for bowel cancer screening. J Med Screen. 2014;21:95–97.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0969141314535388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fraser CG, Rubeca T, Rapi S, et al. Faecal haemoglobin concentrations vary with sex and age, but data are not transferable across geography for colorectal cancer screening. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2014;52:1211–1216.  https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2014-0115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Quantitative faecal immunochemical tests to guide referral for colorectal cancer in primary care. Diagnostics Guidance [DG30]. July 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/dg30.
  10. 10.
    Digby J, Fraser CG, Carey FA, et al. Faecal haemoglobin concentration is related to severity of colorectal neoplasia. J Clin Pathol. 2013;66:415–419.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2013-201445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bettington M, Walker N, Rosty C, et al. Clinicopathological and molecular features of sessile serrated adenomas with dysplasia or carcinoma. Gut. 2017;66:97–106.  https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li D, Woolfrey J, Jiang SF, et al. Diagnosis and predictors of sessile serrated adenoma after educational training in a large, community-based, integrated healthcare setting. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:755–765.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2017.08.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    IJspeert J, de Wit K, van der Vlugt M, et al. Prevalence, distribution and risk of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps at a center with a high adenoma detection rate and experienced pathologists. Endoscopy. 2016;48:740–746.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-105436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Snover D, Ahnen D, Burt R, Odze R. Serrated polyps of the colon and rectum and serrated polyposis. In: Bosman F, et al., eds. World Health Organisation Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System. Lyon: IARC Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rex DK, Ahnen DJ, Baron JA, et al. Serrated lesions of the colorectum: review and recommendations from an expert panel. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:1315–1329.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2012.161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GastroenterologyNinewells Hospital and Medical SchoolDundeeUK
  2. 2.Centre for Research into Cancer Prevention and Screening, Ninewells Hospital and Medical SchoolUniversity of DundeeDundeeUK
  3. 3.Department of Blood Sciences and Scottish Bowel Screening Laboratory, NHS TaysideNinewells Hospital and Medical SchoolDundeeUK

Personalised recommendations