Colorectal cancer prevalence in faecal immunochemical test non-returners: potential for health inequality in symptomatic referral pathways.


Journal

BJS open
ISSN: 2474-9842
Titre abrégé: BJS Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101722685

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 Sep 2024
Historique:
received: 11 03 2024
revised: 11 06 2024
accepted: 17 08 2024
medline: 15 10 2024
pubmed: 15 10 2024
entrez: 15 10 2024
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

This study aimed to describe the faecal immunochemical test non-return rate of those referred with high-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer from primary care, and the clinical outcomes of the 'non-returners'. From January 2019 to July 2021, patients referred to secondary care with symptoms suspicious of colorectal cancer and a referral priority of urgent or urgent suspicion of cancer were sent a faecal immunochemical test. All patients were investigated regardless of faecal immunochemical test return or result. Demographics and clinical outcomes such as colorectal cancer prevalence were compared between those who returned a faecal immunochemical test and non-returners. Of 7345 patients included in the study, 874 (11.9%) did not return a faecal immunochemical test. Non-returner characteristics included male sex (P = 0.040), younger age (median age 57 versus 65 years, P < 0.001), per rectal bleeding (P < 0.001) and lower socioeconomic status (median Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, 6 versus 7, P < 0.001) compared with those who returned a faecal immunochemical test. Of 6294 patients undergoing colorectal investigation, there was a greater prevalence of colorectal cancer (5.4% versus 3.6% P = 0.032) and significant bowel pathology than in the non-returners (15.3% versus 9.8%, P < 0.001). With a median follow-up of 25 months, the colorectal cancer prevalence for the entire 7345 cohort was equal between those who returned and did not return a faecal immunochemical test (3.2% versus 3.8%, P = 0.108). Of note, the non-returners diagnosed with colorectal cancer were younger (median age 64 versus 73 years, P < 0.001) and from a lower socioeconomic area (median Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 4 versus 7, P = 0.015) than faecal immunochemical test returners. Patients referred to secondary care, with symptoms suspicious of colorectal cancer, that did not return a faecal immunochemical test had a similar colorectal cancer prevalence to those that returned the test.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
This study aimed to describe the faecal immunochemical test non-return rate of those referred with high-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer from primary care, and the clinical outcomes of the 'non-returners'.
METHODS METHODS
From January 2019 to July 2021, patients referred to secondary care with symptoms suspicious of colorectal cancer and a referral priority of urgent or urgent suspicion of cancer were sent a faecal immunochemical test. All patients were investigated regardless of faecal immunochemical test return or result. Demographics and clinical outcomes such as colorectal cancer prevalence were compared between those who returned a faecal immunochemical test and non-returners.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of 7345 patients included in the study, 874 (11.9%) did not return a faecal immunochemical test. Non-returner characteristics included male sex (P = 0.040), younger age (median age 57 versus 65 years, P < 0.001), per rectal bleeding (P < 0.001) and lower socioeconomic status (median Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, 6 versus 7, P < 0.001) compared with those who returned a faecal immunochemical test. Of 6294 patients undergoing colorectal investigation, there was a greater prevalence of colorectal cancer (5.4% versus 3.6% P = 0.032) and significant bowel pathology than in the non-returners (15.3% versus 9.8%, P < 0.001). With a median follow-up of 25 months, the colorectal cancer prevalence for the entire 7345 cohort was equal between those who returned and did not return a faecal immunochemical test (3.2% versus 3.8%, P = 0.108). Of note, the non-returners diagnosed with colorectal cancer were younger (median age 64 versus 73 years, P < 0.001) and from a lower socioeconomic area (median Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 4 versus 7, P = 0.015) than faecal immunochemical test returners.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Patients referred to secondary care, with symptoms suspicious of colorectal cancer, that did not return a faecal immunochemical test had a similar colorectal cancer prevalence to those that returned the test.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39404039
pii: 7822235
doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrae119
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Subventions

Organisme : Chief Scientist Office, Scotland
ID : SCAF/16/01
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C26031/A11378
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Scottish Government
Organisme : CRUK Career Development Fellowship
ID : C31250/A22804

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Foundation Ltd.

Auteurs

Adam D Gerrard (AD)

Cancer Research UK Scotland Centre, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Department of Colorectal Surgery, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.

Jonty Coxon (J)

Department of Colorectal Surgery, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.

Yasuko Maeda (Y)

Cancer Research UK Scotland Centre, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Department of Surgery, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.

Evropi Theodoratou (E)

Cancer Research UK Scotland Centre, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Centre for Global Health, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Malcolm G Dunlop (MG)

Cancer Research UK Scotland Centre, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
UK Colon Cancer Genetics Group, Medical Research Council Human Genetics Unit, Medical Research Council Institute of Genetics & Cancer, Western General Hospital, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Farhat V N Din (FVN)

Cancer Research UK Scotland Centre, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Department of Colorectal Surgery, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH