Reference change values (RCV) provide objective tools for assessment of the significance of differences in serial results from an individual. The concept is simple and the calculation easy, since all laboratories know their analytical imprecision (CV

There is a wide choice of fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) for colorectal cancer screening. Goal: To highlight the issues applicable when choosing a FOBT, in particular which FOBT is best suited to the range of screening scenarios. Four scenarios characterize the constraints and expectations of screening programs: (1) limited colonoscopy resource with a need to constrain test positivity rate; (2) a priority for maximum colorectal neoplasia detection with little need to constrain colonoscopy workload; (3) an “adequate” endoscopy resource that allows balancing the benefits of detection with the burden of service provision; and (4) a need to maximize participation in screening. Guaiac-based FOBTs (gFOBTs) have significant deficiencies, and fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for hemoglobin have emerged as better tests. gFOBTs are not sensitive to small bleeds, specificity can be affected by diet or drugs, participant acceptance can be low, laboratory quality control opportunities are limited, and they have a fixed hemoglobin concentration cutoff determining positivity. FITs are analytically more specific, capable of quantitation and hence provide flexibility to adjust cutoff concentration for positivity and the balance between sensitivity and specificity. FITs are clinically more sensitive for cancers and advanced adenomas, and because they are easier to use, acceptance rates are high. Conclusions: FOBT must be chosen carefully to meet the needs of the applicable screening scenario. Quantitative FIT can be adjusted to suit Scenarios 1, 2 and 3, and for each, they are the test of choice. FITs are superior to gFOBT for Scenario 4 and gFOBT is only suitable for Scenario 1.

This study has attempted to assess the effectiveness of quantitative faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) for triage of people presenting with lower abdominal symptoms, where a referral to secondary care for investigation of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) is being considered, particularly when the 2-week criteria are not met. We conducted a systematic review following published guidelines for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Twenty-one resources were searched up until March 2016. Summary estimates were calculated using a bivariate model or a random-effects logistic regression model. Nine studies are included in this review. One additional study, included in our systematic review, was provided as ‘academic in confidence’ and cannot be described herein. When FIT was based on a single faecal sample and a cut-off of 10 μg Hb/g faeces, sensitivity estimates indicated that a negative result using either the OC-Sensor or HM-JACKarc may be adequate to rule out nearly all CRC; the summary estimate of sensitivity for the OC-Sensor was 92.1% (95% confidence interval, CI 86.9–95.3%), based on four studies (n = 4091 participants, 176 with CRC), and the only study of HM-JACKarc to assess the 10 μg Hb/g faeces cut-off (n = 507 participants, 11 with CRC) reported a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 71.5–100%). The corresponding specificity estimates were 85.8% (95% CI 78.3–91.0%) and 76.6% (95% CI 72.6–80.3%), respectively. When the diagnostic criterion was changed to include lower grades of neoplasia, i.e. the target condition included higher risk adenoma (HRA) as well as CRC, the rule-out performance of both FIT assays was reduced. There is evidence to suggest that triage using FIT at a cut-off around 10 μg Hb/g faeces has the potential to correctly rule out CRC and avoid colonoscopy in 75–80% of symptomatic patients. PROSPERO 42016037723

Objective To determine whether a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb) can be safely implemented in primary care as a rule-out test for significant bowel disease (SBD) (colorectal cancer (CRC), higher risk adenoma (HRA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)) when used as an adjunct to the clinical assessment of new bowel symptoms. Design Single-centre prospective cohort study of all patients who attended primary care and submitted a FIT in the first calendar year of the service beginning December 2015. f-Hb was estimated using HM-JACKarc (Kyowa Medex) with a clinical cut-off of ≥10 µg Hb/g faeces. Incident cases of CRC were verified via anonymised record linkage to the Scottish Cancer Registry. Results 5422 patients submitted 5660 FIT specimens, of which 5372 were analysed (positivity: 21.9%). 2848 patients were referred immediately to secondary care and three with f-Hb <10 µg/g presented acutely within days with obstructing CRC. 1447 completed colonoscopy in whom overall prevalence of SBD was 20.5% (95 CRC (6.6%), 133 HRA (9.2%) and 68 IBD (4.7%)); 6.6% in patients with f-Hb <10 µg/g vs 32.3% in patients with f-Hb ≥10 µg/g. One CRC was detected at CT colonoscopy. 2521 patients were not immediately referred (95.3% had f-Hb <10 µg/g) of which four (0.2%) later developed CRC. Record linkage identified no additional CRC cases within a follow-up period of 23–35 months. Conclusion In primary care, measurement of f-Hb, in conjunction with clinical assessment, can safely and objectively determine a patient’s risk of SBD.

Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) are becoming widely used in colorectal cancer screening. Estimation of faecal haemoglobin concentration in a large group prompted an observational study on gender and age.A single estimate of faecal haemoglobin concentration was made using quantitative automated immunoturbidimetry. Potential reference intervals were calculated for men and women and for age quintiles according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Approved Guideline. The percentages of positive results were calculated at a number of concentrations. The percentages of individuals who fell into different risk groups were assessed.The 97.5 percentiles, potential upper reference limits, were 519 ng haemoglobin/mL (90% CI: 468–575) for men and 283 ng haemoglobin/mL (90% CI: 257–316) for women. Concentrations increased with age in both genders. Decision limits have advantages over reference intervals. At any cut-off concentration, more men are declared positive than women and more older people are declared positive than younger people. Future risk of neoplasia is higher in men than in women and in older people.Faecal haemoglobin concentrations vary with gender and age. More tailored strategies are needed in screening programmes. Faecal haemoglobin concentration could be included in individual risk assessment scores. These data should assist in screening programme design.