Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37510076›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Faecal Immunochemical Testing to Detect Colorectal Cancer in Symptomatic Patients: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

Farzana Rahman, Mihir Trivedy, Christopher Rao, Funmi Akinlade, Ahmer Mansuri, Atul Aggarwal, Faidon-Marios Laskaratos, Nirooshun Rajendran, Saswata Banerjee

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07740122 (FECAL-AI), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07740122 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

FECAL-AI: Prospective Observational Validation of AI-Based Stool Image Analysis Against Quantitative Fecal Immunochemical Testing for Colorectal Neoplasia Risk Assessment

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorServicio de Salud Metropolitano Sur OrienteRan2026 to 2026Enrolled250ConditionsColorectal NeoplasmsArmsAI-Based Stool Image Analysis
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Farzana RahmanBarking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Romford RM7 0A, UK.
Mihir TrivedyBarking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Romford RM7 0A, UK.
Christopher RaoDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London SW7 2BX, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3244-3888
Funmi AkinladeBarking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Romford RM7 0A, UK.
Ahmer MansuriBarking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Romford RM7 0A, UK.
Atul AggarwalBarking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Romford RM7 0A, UK.
Faidon-Marios LaskaratosBarking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Romford RM7 0A, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8673-1837
Nirooshun RajendranBarking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Romford RM7 0A, UK.
Saswata BanerjeeBarking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Romford RM7 0A, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: NHS England recommended faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for symptomatic patients in June 2020 to rationalise limited diagnostic services during COVID-19. (2) Aim: to investigate the diagnostic performance of FIT, analysing the proportion of FIT-negative colorectal cancers (CRC) missed in symptomatic patients and how this risk could be mitigated. (3) Design and Setting: a retrospective study of biochemistry and cancer databases involving patients referred from primary healthcare with suspected CRC to a single secondary care trust in North East London. (4) Methods: a retrospective cohort diagnostic accuracy study was undertaken to determine the performance of FIT for detecting CRC at 10 µgHb/g. (5) Results: between January and December 2020, 7653 patients provided a stool sample for FIT analysis; 1679 (22%) samples were excluded due to inadequate or incorrect specimens; 48% of suspected CRC referrals completed FIT before evaluation; 86 FIT tested patients were diagnosed with histologically proven CRC. At 10 µgHb/g, FIT performance was comparable with the existing literature with a sensitivity of 0.8140 (95% CI 0.7189-0.8821), a specificity of 0.7704 (95% CI 0.7595-0.7809), a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.04923 (95% CI 0.03915-0.06174), a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.9965 (95% CI 0.9943-0.9978), and a likelihood ratio (LR) of 3.545; 16 patients with CRC had an FIT of ≤10 µgHb/g (18.6% 95% CI 11.0-28.4%). (6) Conclusions: this study raises concerns about compliance with FIT testing and the incidence of FIT-negative CRC at the NICE recommended threshold and how this risk can be mitigated without colonic imaging. Whilst FIT may have facilitated prioritisation during COVID-19, we must be cautious about using FIT alone to determine which patients are referred to secondary care or receive further investigation.

Indexed as

colorectal cancerdiagnostic accuracy studyfaecal immunochemical testingprimary healthcare

Identifiers

PMID37510076
PMCPMC10378039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.