Abstract
BACKGROUND Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) using the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is widely advocated. Few studies have compared the rate of detecting colonoscopic pathologies in single compared to double FIT-positive follow-up colonoscopy-compliant individuals in a two-sample national FIT screening program. OBJECTIVE To compare CRC incidence in double FIT-positive versus single FIT-positive individuals using a retrospective cohort of patients from a tertiary hospital in Singapore. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. SETTING Data was extracted from one regional acute hospital in Singapore. PARTICIPANTS 1,539 FIT-positive individuals from the national FIT screening program who were referred to the hospital from 1st January 2017 to 31st September 2019 for follow-up consultation and diagnostic colonoscopy. MEASUREMENTS The exposure of interest was a positive result on both FIT kits. The main outcome was a follow-up diagnostic colonoscopy finding of CRC. The secondary outcome was a diagnostic colonoscopy finding of a colorectal polyp. RESULTS Incidence density of CRC was 1.53 (95% CI = 0.61, 3.15) and 17.88 (95% CI = 11.67, 26.19) per 100,000 person-months, in the single and double FIT-positive group, respectively. This resulted in an incidence rate ratio of 11.71 (95% CI = 5.25, 29.08). Colorectal polyp detection was significantly higher (p < 0.01) in the double (107 of 157 participants; 68.2%) compared to the single (310 of 585 participants; 53.0%) FIT-positive group. LIMITATIONS The key limitation of this study was the relatively small cohort derived from a single regional hospital, as this had the effect of limiting the number of incident cases, resulting in comparatively imprecise CIs. CONCLUSIONS Double FIT-positive individuals are significantly more likely to have a colonoscopy finding of incident CRC or premalignant polyp than single FIT-positive individuals. Clinicians and policymakers should consider updating their CRC screening protocols accordingly.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the Singapore Population Health Improvement Centre (SPHERiC) [NMRC/CG/C026/2017_NUHS]. The funders had no role in the study design, execution, analyses, interpretation of the data, or decision to submit results. We confirm that all authors had full access to all of the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity and accuracy of the data analysis.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, KKT, upon reasonable request.
