BMJ open gastroenterology · 2025
Limited utility of faecal immunochemical testing in a colorectal cancer screening programme for adults with cystic fibrosis: insights from a prospective UK study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Azam Aqeem, Sapru Karuna, Jones Andrew M, Vasant Dipesh H, Kelly Anne-Marie, Horsman Graham, Bright-Thomas Rowland J, Iqbal Javaid, Barry Peter J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: People with cystic fibrosis (pwCF) are at significantly increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), prompting international recommendations for earlier screening with colonoscopy. The utility of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) as a screening adjunct in pwCF remains unclear. This study evaluates FIT's diagnostic performance and uptake within a CRC screening programme in a UK CF centre.
METHODS: PwCF aged ≥40 years were invited in person to participate in a screening protocol including FIT and colonoscopy. FIT results were interpreted using three thresholds: ≥10 µg Hb/g (primary), ≥80 µg Hb/g and ≥120 µg Hb/g. Colonoscopy findings and polyp histology were recorded.
RESULTS: Of 113 eligible patients, 66 (58.4%) returned FIT, 49 (43.4%) had FIT and colonoscopy, and 27 (23.9%) underwent colonoscopy only. Colonic polyps were detected in 27.6% (21/76), which were predominantly adenomatous, and no CRCs were detected. For polyp detection, FIT demonstrated poor sensitivity (14%) and modest specificity (86%) at the 10 µg Hb/g threshold. Quantitative FIT values did not correlate with polyp presence (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.48). Bowel preparation was generally adequate (mean Boston Bowel Preparation Scale 6.8), with a low repeat colonoscopy rate (14.5%).
CONCLUSION: In this study, no cancer was detected in 76 consecutive eligible individuals who underwent colonoscopy. In 49 patients who had both FIT and colonoscopy, FIT did not aid colonic polyp detection, showing low sensitivity and no correlation between faecal haemoglobin and adenoma detection. Given the high adenoma prevalence, the limitations of FIT and the poor FIT return rate, colonoscopy should remain the preferred modality for CRC screening in pwCF.
METHODS: PwCF aged ≥40 years were invited in person to participate in a screening protocol including FIT and colonoscopy. FIT results were interpreted using three thresholds: ≥10 µg Hb/g (primary), ≥80 µg Hb/g and ≥120 µg Hb/g. Colonoscopy findings and polyp histology were recorded.
RESULTS: Of 113 eligible patients, 66 (58.4%) returned FIT, 49 (43.4%) had FIT and colonoscopy, and 27 (23.9%) underwent colonoscopy only. Colonic polyps were detected in 27.6% (21/76), which were predominantly adenomatous, and no CRCs were detected. For polyp detection, FIT demonstrated poor sensitivity (14%) and modest specificity (86%) at the 10 µg Hb/g threshold. Quantitative FIT values did not correlate with polyp presence (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.48). Bowel preparation was generally adequate (mean Boston Bowel Preparation Scale 6.8), with a low repeat colonoscopy rate (14.5%).
CONCLUSION: In this study, no cancer was detected in 76 consecutive eligible individuals who underwent colonoscopy. In 49 patients who had both FIT and colonoscopy, FIT did not aid colonic polyp detection, showing low sensitivity and no correlation between faecal haemoglobin and adenoma detection. Given the high adenoma prevalence, the limitations of FIT and the poor FIT return rate, colonoscopy should remain the preferred modality for CRC screening in pwCF.