Reports From the Field

Use of Fecal Immunochemical Testing in Acute Patient Care in a Safety Net Hospital System

Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management. 2021 March;28(2):82-89 | 10.12788/jcom.0042

References

1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. 10.1CA Cancer 10.1J Clin. 2020;70(1):7-30.

2. Howlader NN, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2014. National Cancer Institute; 2017:1-2.

3. Siegel RL, Fedewa SA, Anderson WF, et al. Colorectal cancer incidence patterns in the United States, 1974–2013. 10.1J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(8):djw322.

4. Bailey CE, Hu CY, You YN, et al. Increasing disparities in the age-related incidences of colon and rectal cancers in the United States, 1975-2010. 10.25JAMA Surg. 2015;150(1):17-22.

5. Lin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. 10.25JAMA. 2016;315(23):2576-2594.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Use of colorectal cancer screening tests. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. October 22, 2019. Accessed February 10, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/use-screening-tests-BRFSS.htm

7. Hewitson P, Glasziou PP, Irwig L, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer using the fecal occult blood test, Hemoccult. 10.25Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2007(1):CD001216.

8. Bujanda L, Lanas Á, Quintero E, et al. Effect of aspirin and antiplatelet drugs on the outcome of the fecal immunochemical test. 10.25Mayo Clin Proc. 2013;88(7):683-689.

9. Allison JE, Sakoda LC, Levin TR, et al. Screening for colorectal neoplasms with new fecal occult blood tests: update on performance characteristics. 10.25J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(19):1462-1470.

10. Dancourt V, Lejeune C, Lepage C, et al. Immunochemical faecal occult blood tests are superior to guaiac-based tests for the detection of colorectal neoplasms. 10.25Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(15):2254-2258.

11. Hol L, Wilschut JA, van Ballegooijen M, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing at different cut-off levels. 10.25Br J Cancer. 2009;100(7):1103-1110.

12. Levi Z, Birkenfeld S, Vilkin A, et al. A higher detection rate for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomatous polyp for screening with immunochemical fecal occult blood test than guaiac fecal occult blood test, despite lower compliance rate. A prospective, controlled, feasibility study. Int J Cancer. 2011;128(10):2415-2424.

13. Friedman A, Chan A, Chin LC, et al. Use and abuse of faecal occult blood tests in an acute hospital inpatient setting. Intern Med J. 2010;40(2):107-111.

14. Narula N, Ulic D, Al-Dabbagh R, et al. Fecal occult blood testing as a diagnostic test in symptomatic patients is not useful: a retrospective chart review. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;28(8):421-426.

15. Ip S, Sokoro AA, Kaita L, et al. Use of fecal occult blood testing in hospitalized patients: results of an audit. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;28(9):489-494.

16. Mosadeghi S, Ren H, Catungal J, et al. Utilization of fecal occult blood test in the acute hospital setting and its impact on clinical management and outcomes. J Postgrad Med. 2016;62(2):91-95.

17. van Rijn AF, Stroobants AK, Deutekom M, et al. Inappropriate use of the faecal occult blood test in a university hospital in the Netherlands. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;24(11):1266-1269.

18. Sharma VK, Komanduri S, Nayyar S, et al. An audit of the utility of in-patient fecal occult blood testing. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96(4):1256-1260.

19. Chiang TH, Lee YC, Tu CH, et al. Performance of the immunochemical fecal occult blood test in predicting lesions in the lower gastrointestinal tract. CMAJ. 2011;183(13):1474-1481.

20. Chokshi DA, Chang JE, Wilson RM. Health reform and the changing safety net in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(18):1790-1796.

21. Nguyen OK, Makam AN, Halm EA. National use of safety net clinics for primary care among adults with non-Medicaid insurance in the United States. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0151610.

22. United States Census Bureau. American Community Survey. Selected Economic Characteristics. 2019. Accessed February 20, 2021. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=ACSDP1Y2019.DP03%20Texas&g=0400000US48&tid=ACSDP1Y2019.DP03&hidePreview=true

23. McNutt LA, Wu C, Xue X, et al. Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157(10):940-943.

24. Rockey DC. Occult gastrointestinal bleeding. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2005;34(4):699-718.

25. Macrae FA, St John DJ. Relationship between patterns of bleeding and Hemoccult sensitivity in patients with colorectal cancers or adenomas. Gastroenterology. 1982;82(5 pt 1):891-898.

26. Johanson JF, Sonnenberg A. The prevalence of hemorrhoids and chronic constipation: an epidemiologic study. Gastroenterology. 1990;98(2):380-386.

27. Fleming JL, Ahlquist DA, McGill DB, et al. Influence of aspirin and ethanol on fecal blood levels as determined by using the HemoQuant assay. Mayo Clin Proc. 1987;62(3):159-163.

28. Gupta A, Tang Z, Agrawal D. Eliminating in-hospital fecal occult blood testing: our experience with disinvestment. Am J Med. 2018;131(7):760-763.

Indications for ordering FIT are listed in Table 2. The largest proportion of FITs were ordered for overt signs of GIB (54.2%), followed by anemia (22.0%), suspected GIB/miscellaneous reasons (12.3%), iron deficiency with or without anemia (7.6%), and non-bloody diarrhea (2.1%). In 1.8% of cases, no indication for FIT was found in the EMR. No FITs were ordered for the indication of CRC detection. Of these indication categories, overt GIB yielded the highest percentage of FIT positive results (44.0%), and non-bloody diarrhea yielded the lowest (0%).

A total of 110 patients (28.7%) underwent FIT and received invasive diagnostic follow-up. Of these 110 patients, 57 (51.8%) underwent EGD (2 of whom had further surgical intervention), 21 (19.1%) underwent colonoscopy (1 of whom had further surgical intervention), 25 (22.7%) underwent dual EGD and colonoscopy, 1 (0.9%) underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy, and 6 (5.5%) directly underwent abdominal surgical intervention. There was a significantly higher rate of diagnostic follow-up for FIT-positive vs FIT-negative patients (42.9% vs 21.3%; P < 0.001). However, of the 110 patients who underwent subsequent diagnostic follow-up, 48.2% were FIT negative. FIT-negative patients who received diagnostic follow-up were just as likely to have an abnormal finding as FIT-positive patients (90.6% vs 91.2%; P = 0.86).

Of the 382 patients in the study, 4 were diagnosed with CRC through diagnostic follow-up (1.0%). Of those 4 patients, 1 was FIT positive.

The results of the multivariable analyses to evaluate predictors of diagnostic colonoscopy are described in Table 3. Variables in the final model were FITresult, age, and FIT indication. After adjusting for other variables in the model, receipt of diagnostic follow-up was significantly associated with having a positive FIT (adjusted RR, 1.72; P < 0.001) and an overt GIB as an indication (adjusted RR, 2.00; P < 0.01).

Discussion

During the time frame of our study, 5.7% of all FITs ordered within our health system were ordered in the acute patient care setting at our hospitals. The most common indication was overt GIB, which was the indication for 54.2% of patients. Of note, none of the FITs ordered in the acute patient care setting were ordered for CRC screening. These findings support the evidence in the literature that stool-based screening tests, including FIT, are commonly used in US health care systems for diagnostic purposes and risk stratification in acute patient care to detect GIBs.^13-18