Use of ColonFlag score for prioritisation of endoscopy in colorectal cancer

• Published in: BMJ open gastroenterology Vol. 8; no. 1; p. e000639
• Main Authors: Ayling, Ruth M, Wong, A, Cotter, Finbarr
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BMJ Publishing Group LTD 03.06.2021; BMJ Publishing Group
• Subjects: Age; Anemia; Artificial Intelligence; Blood tests; Colonoscopy; Colorectal Cancer; Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnosis; COVID-19; Early Detection of Cancer; Endoscopy; Hemoglobin; Humans; Laboratories; Medical screening; Patients; Quality control; Retrospective Studies; United Kingdom > UK; England; endoscopy; colonoscopy; colorectal cancer
• ISSN: 2054-4774; 2054-4774
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2021-000639

ObjectiveColorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer in UK. Symptomatic patients are referred via an urgent pathway and although most are investigated with colonoscopy <4% are diagnosed with cancer. There is therefore a need for a suitable triage tool to prioritise investigations. This study retrospectively examined performance of various triage tools in patients awaiting investigation on the urgent lower gastrointestinal cancer pathwayDesignAll patients over 40 years of age on the urgent pathway awaiting investigation for suspected CRC on 1 May were included. After 6 months, outcomes were evaluated and the performance of the faecal immunochemical test (FIT), faecal haemoglobin concentration, age and sex test (FAST) and the artificial intelligence algorithm ColonFlag were examined.Results532 completed investigations and received a diagnosis; 15 had CRC. 388 had a valid FIT result, of whom 11 had CRC; FAST Score ≥4.5 had sensitivity of 72.7%, specificity of 80.6% and would have failed to detect three tumours. Faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) at cut-off of 10 µg/g and ColonFlag had equal sensitivity of 81.82%, ColonFlag had greater specificity 73.47%, compared with 64.99%. Both tests would have failed to detect two tumours but not in the same patients; when used in combination, sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 49.4%. When ColonFlag was applied to the cohort of 532, an additional four tumours would have been detected in patients without a valid FIT.ConclusionThis study showed ColonFlag to have equal sensitivity and greater specificity than f-Hb at a cut-off of 10 µg/g as a triage tool for CRC