Triage of patients with suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) utilises a single faecal immunochemical test (FIT) at a defined threshold. Limited evidence exists regarding whether replicate FIT improves the positive and negative predictive value in symptomatic patients. This study examines urgently referred symptomatic patients undergoing replicate FIT. Primary aim is to assess two FITs and CRC/serious bowel disease. Secondary aims are to determine correlation and utility of replicate FIT.
Patients carried out one additional FIT during COVID-19 pandemic. FIT 1 and FIT 2 (the replicate sample) were analysed in relation to symptoms, diagnoses, investigations, future colonoscopy and missed CRC. Study period was 01/03/2020-31/07/2020. Three subgroups were compared; double positive (≥10μg Hb/g faeces), double negative, and discordant FIT (one positive).
111 patients had replicate FIT (50 male, 61 female). 43 (38.7%) patients had double negative, 32 (28.8%) double positive and 36 (32.4%) had discordant FITs. Median time between FITs was 14 days (IQR=11 to 19). 83% of double positive patients underwent colonoscopy/virtual colonoscopy (61% in double negative patients). Six CRC and one high-risk polyp were in double positive patients (none in other groups). One discordant patient was not investigated and a CRC missed.
Replicate FIT as a triage strategy appears most effective where both FITs are negative. CRC risk is low when FIT results are discordant. Double negative FITs are reassuring given benign associated diagnoses, or for patients where endoscopic investigation is high-risk. Larger studies are required to evaluate discordant FITs, enabling refinement of urgent investigation pathways.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2023.
All research outputs
#24,288,182
of 29,547,159 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Clinical Biochemistry
#1,157
of 1,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#337,906
of 444,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Clinical Biochemistry
#8
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,547,159 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,453 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 444,863 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
