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.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. It is estimated that in 2020, 147,950 individuals will be diagnosed with invasive CRC and 53,200 will die from it.¹ While the overall incidence has been declining for decades, it is rising in young adults.^2–4 Screening using direct visualization procedures (colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy) and stool-based tests has been demonstrated to improve detection of precancerous and early cancerous lesions, thereby reducing CRC mortality.⁵ However, screening rates in the United States are suboptimal, with only 68.8% of adults aged 50 to 75 years screened according to guidelines in 2018.⁶Stool-based testing is a well-established and validated screening measure for CRC in asymptomatic individuals at average risk. Its widespread use in this population has been shown to cost-effectively screen for CRC among adults 50 years of age and older.^5,7 Presently, the 2 most commonly used stool-based assays in the US health care system are guaiac-based tests (guaiac fecal occult blood test [gFOBT], Hemoccult) and fecal immunochemical tests (FITs, immunochemical fecal occult blood test [iFOBT]). FITs, which rely on the detection of globin in stool, have increasingly replaced guaiac-based tests in many health care systems. The frequency of FIT use is growing, in part, due to its lack of restrictions relative to traditional guaiac-based methods. FITs require a single stool sample and are not affected by foods with peroxidase activity; also, the predictive value of their results is not skewed by medications that can cause clinically insignificant GI bleeding (GIB), such as aspirin.⁸ Moreover, there is a growing body of evidence that FIT has improved sensitivity and specificity over guaiac-based tests in the detection of CRC and advanced adenomas.^9-12

Despite the exclusive validation of FOBTs for use in CRC screening, studies have demonstrated that they are commonly used for a multitude of additional indications in emergency department (ED) and inpatient settings, most aimed at detecting or confirming GI blood loss. This may lead to inappropriate patient management, including the receipt of unnecessary follow-up procedures, which can incur significant costs to the patient and the health system.^13-19 These costs may be particularly burdensome in safety net health systems (ie, those that offer access to care regardless of the patient’s ability to pay), which serve a large proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals in the United States.^20,21 To our knowledge, no published study to date has specifically investigated the role of FIT in acute patient management.

This study characterizes the use of FIT in acute patient care within a large, urban, safety net health care system. Through a retrospective review of administrative data and patient charts, we evaluated FIT use prevalence, indications, and patient outcomes in the ED and inpatient settings.