Next Article in Journal
Should We Always Perform Preoperative Chest Computed Tomography in Patients with cT1a Renal Cell Carcinoma?
Next Article in Special Issue
Implication of Obesity and Gut Microbiome Dysbiosis in the Etiology of Colorectal Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
Adequate Management of Postoperative Complications after Esophagectomy: A Cornerstone for a Positive Outcome
Previous Article in Special Issue
Microenvironmental Reactive Oxygen Species in Colorectal Cancer: Involved Processes and Therapeutic Opportunities
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 14
Issue 22
10.3390/cancers14225557
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comorbidities and Risk Factors of Patients Diagnosed with CRC after Positive Fecal Test in Real Life

by
Naim Abu-Freha
1,2,*,
Rachel Gouldner
3,
Bracha Cohen
4,
Michal Gordon
4,
Orly Sagi
5,
Gadeer Taha
6,
Liza Ben Shoshan
1 and
Zohar Levi
7
1
The Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Soroka University Medical Center, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel
2
The Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel
3
Medical School for International Health, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 84101, Israel
4
Soroka Clinical Research Center, Soroka University Medical Center, Beer-Sheva 84101, Israel
5
Bacteriology Laboratory, Soroka University Medical Center, Beer-Sheva 84101, Israel
6
Department of Gastroenterology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa 31096, Israel
7
Department of Gastroenterology, Beilinson Medical Center, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 39100, Israel
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2022, 14(22), 5557; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14225557
Submission received: 13 October 2022 / Revised: 4 November 2022 / Accepted: 9 November 2022 / Published: 12 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Colorectal Cancer: Tumour Microenvironment, Cellular Heterogeneity and Therapeutics)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Occult blood in stool is the screening modality of choice for colorectal cancer in most countries. Only a small percentage of patients with positive results of this test will have colorectal cancer. In the present study, we wanted to determine risk factors for having colorectal cancer among patients with positive fecal testing. We found that age, anemia, family history of colorectal cancer, and previous colorectal cancer are factors for having colorectal cancer among those with positive fecal testing. The practical implication of the findings of the present study is that people who have positive fecal testing and one of the found risk factors should be prioritized for colonoscopy scheduling.

Abstract

(1) Background: Fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is the modality of choice in most countries for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We aimed to investigate the risk factors for CRC among patients with a positive FOBT in real life. (2) Methods: This was a retrospective study that included patients who tested positive for FOBT. Data regarding the comorbidities and laboratories were collected and compared between CRC and non-CRC groups. (3) Results: Positive FOBT was found among 45,500 (5.36%) subjects and CRC was found in 1502 (3.3%). CRC patients were older, age 62.7 ± 7.15 years compared with 59.33 ± 7.3 years (p < 0.001), and had significantly higher rates of hypertension (48.4% vs. 44.7%, p = 0.002), iron-deficiency anemia (20.6% vs. 16.4, p < 0.001), family history of CRC (7.3% vs. 5.1%, p < 0.001), and previous CRC (6.5% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001). Lower levels of hemoglobin, iron, and ferritin were found in the CRC group. Age, family history of CRC, and previous CRC were found to be significant risk factors for diagnosis of CRC after positive FOBT with OR of 1.057, 1.4, and 15.9, respectively. (4) Conclusions: Iron-deficiency anemia, family history of CRC, previous colorectal cancer, and low hemoglobin, iron, and ferritin levels should direct physicians to give high priority to colonoscopy scheduling.

1. Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common cancer, ranked as the third-most-common cancer worldwide, but as the second cancer in terms of mortality [1]. Wide geographical variation is observed in CRC incidences, with the highest rates being found in European regions, Australia/New Zealand, and Northern America, with Hungary and Norway ranking first in men and women [1]. The GLOBOCAN data estimated more than 1.9 million new colorectal cancer (including anus) cases and 935,000 deaths were estimated to occur in 2020, representing about 1 in 10 cancer cases and deaths [1]. CRC, with its high incidence rate, the long preclinical phase, recognizable and tractable precursor, and the correlation between the tumor stage and mortality rate, fulfills the criteria of Wilson and Jungner as the ideal disease for screening [2]. Several different modalities are used worldwide for CRC screening, mostly among the population aged between 50 and 75 years. An annual or biennial fecal immune chemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy every 10 years is the recommended modality in most countries. Additional methods include flexible sigmoidoscopy, multitarget stool DNA test, virtual colonoscopy (computer tomography colonography), or colon capsule, which could be suggested [3,4]. However, significant differences and disparities in implementation strategies are found in the different countries [4]. Participation in screening is still an important challenge in many countries. The Netherlands showed the highest participation rate (68.2%) and some areas of Canada showed the lowest (16%). Participation rates were highest among women and in programs that used the FIT test. Men exhibited the greatest number of positive results [4].
A fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is the stool-based screening modality of choice for colorectal cancer (CRC) in most countries. The goal of CRC screening is the early detection of colon neoplasia in terms of advanced adenoma or carcinoma. As a result of CRC screening, early detection, removal of adenomas, and a reduction in mortality can reached [5,6]. Both the removal of precancerous adenomatous polyps at the time of colonoscopy and early detection of curable CRC have been shown to reduce CRC mortality [7]. On one hand, CRC is the most feared abnormal finding that can be found in the colonoscopy performed after positive FOBT but, on the other hand, only a small proportion of patients with positive FOBT are diagnosed with CRC. In a previous study performed in Israel, 3.38% of people with positive FOBT had a diagnosis of CRC [8]. In another study, a CRC diagnosis among 2.98% of the 81,518 positive FOBTs was found [9]. Not all those with positive FOBTs undergo colonoscopy, as about 10–33% of positive FOBT patients elect not to [10,11,12,13,14,15,16]. It is important to try to differentiate high-risk patients for CRC after having a positive FOBT test. Additionally, sources are limited and most patients with a positive FOBT will have normal or non-significant findings. To save resources, it is important to single out high-risk patients for CRC or polyps and put our focus on these patients for future interventions and to bring them in for colonoscopy, particularly in the post-COVID-19 era with all the impact related to the pandemic on screening programs and cancers diagnosis. Prioritization of patients with positive FOBT in general and particularly among those who have a high risk for CRC could have an enormous impact on the disease stage at the time of diagnosis and, as a result, the need for additional therapies and mortality. In Israel, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is available for populations aged 50–74 years. Patients who have a positive FIT are recommended to perform a colonoscopy. In 2019, data in Israel showed that 65.4% of the target population performed FOBT in the previous years or colonoscopy during the 10 years before [17]. In general, most people undergo the FOBT test; however, a small number of patients could choose colonoscopy as the modality for CRC screening rather than FOBT. Patients with a previous diagnosis of CRC are recommended to undergo colonoscopic surveillance and not perform FOBT according to the known guidelines. Until now, there have been no data published regarding risk factors for CRC among positive FOBT patients in real life. In the present study, we aimed to investigate the risk factors in terms of comorbidities and laboratories of patients with positive FOBT diagnosed with CRC compared to those with positive FOBT but negative for CRC.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Population

In the present study, we enrolled subjects who performed fecal testing as a part of the CRC screening program between the ages 50 and 74 years and have positive FOBT tests during the study period, between the dates 1 January 2010 and 30 December 2020. An outreach-based annual fecal occult blood test screening program operated by Israel’s Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) was conducted. Since June 2016 FIT stool testing has been used for CRC screening while guaiac-based testing was used before. The study population was divided into two groups: the CRC group—subjects with positive FOBT and diagnosed with CRC—and the Non-CRC group—those with positive FOBT, but not diagnosed with CRC. CRC was considered to be related to the same FOBT test until two years after a positive test; patients diagnosed with CRC more than two years after the FOBT were excluded. CRC diagnosis was measured until two years following the performance of FOBT. In cases of positive FOBT without CRC, a follow-up was continued during the study period, while patients diagnosed with CRC were not followed after the CRC diagnosis.

2.2. Data Collection

The data were collected from the organized CRC screening program for both study groups. Demographic (age, gender) clinical and laboratory data were retrospectively collected, using data and results closest to performing the FOBT test. The number of entire performed tests, positive tests, and CRC diagnoses was collected. In addition, laboratory data including complete blood count (CBC), biochemistry, and Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) were also collected. The laboratory values were collected nearest to the fecal occult blood testing. Comorbidities (chronic ischemic heart disease, congestive heart disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive lung disease, and etc.) of the enrolled patients were reviewed and compared between the two groups. No data were available regarding adenoma or advanced adenoma found in the colonoscopy.

2.3. Data Sources

The data were extracted from Clalit Health Services (CHS) using Clalit’s Data sharing platform powered by MDclone (https://www.mdclone.com, accessed on 11 May 2022). The MDclone platform includes synthetic data of patients of the HMO to protect the patient’s privacy. The platform includes data of every patient including diagnosis, events such as hospitalization, emergency department visits, surgeries, and laboratory results. Any new diagnosis, hospitalizations, or medical updates considered as new events for the specific patients can be extracted in relation to the lifespan of the patient. CHS is the largest of the four health maintenance organizations in Israel, with about 4.7 million insured, accounting for 53% of the Israeli population, and considered as one of the large HMOs worldwide.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Data are presented as a mean ±SD for continuous variables and as a percentage (%) of the total for categorical variables. Univariate analyses were performed by the Mann–Whitney test (for continuous variables) and Fisher’s exact and chi-squared tests (for categorical variables). All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS version 26 (Chicago, IL, USA). p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Before introducing the variables into the model, the multicollinearity of the variables was examined, using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) statistic. Variables, which could impact or be considered as risk factors such as age, gender, diabetes mellitus, iron-deficiency anemia, smoking, family history of CRC, or previous CRC were included in the model. The variables found to be significant in the univariate analysis were introduced into the multivariate model one after the other and non-significant variables in the univariate model were not included in the multivariate analysis. The order in which the variables entered the model was determined by the size of the univariate Odds Ratio. A logistic regression model was used for the prediction of risk factors for CRC diagnosis, age, gender, diabetes mellitus, iron-deficiency anemia, smoking, family history of CRC, and previous CRC were included in the model. The study was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration, approval number 0093-21-SOR of the local Helsinki committee in Soroka University Medical Center. The study was waived from informed consent due to the retrospective nature of the study.

3. Results

3.1. Patients

During the study period, 847,550 FOBTs were performed and 45,500 (5.36%) of the tests were positive. All patients are in the age group of CRC screening, between 50 and 74 years. During the long study period, two types of FOBTs were used in Israel, guaiac and fecal immunochemical (FIT) tests. Starting in 2016, the FIT test is used, while before 2016, the guaiac was the test used for screening. In our study, there were 25,372 guaiac-based tests (55.8%) and 20,128 (44.2%) FIT-based tests. Among those with positive tests, 1502 (3.3%) patients were diagnosed with colorectal cancer after the FOBT. The basic characteristics, demographics, and comorbidities of the two study groups (CRC and non-CRC groups) are summarized in Table 1. Patients who were diagnosed with CRC were found to be significantly older, aged 62.7 ± 7.15 years, compared to 59.33 ± 7.3 years for those without a CRC diagnosis (p < 0.001). In addition, patients diagnosed with CRC were more often found to have hypertension (48.4% vs. 44.2%, p = 0.002), a family history of CRC (7.3% vs. 5.1%, p < 0.001), and iron-deficiency anemia (20.6% vs. 16.4%, p < 0.001) as comorbidities. No significant differences were found regarding other comorbidities (chronic ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive lung disease, chronic kidney disease…). Patients diagnosed in the past with CRC along with a positive FOBT had significantly higher CRC recurrence than those with a negative FOBT (9.6% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001). No significant difference regarding gender was found (the male proportion was 52.3% among the CRC group compared to 53.9% in the non-CRC group, p = 0.220). In addition, there was no significant difference regarding body mass index (BMI) but a lower rate of smoking in the CRC groups, 30% vs. 33.5%, p = 0.007.

3.2. Laboratory Values

The laboratory values nearest to the time of FOBT of both groups were collected and are presented in Table 2. Several significant differences between the CRC and non-CRC groups were found; patients diagnosed with CRC after positive FOBT were found to have lower hemoglobin levels (12.8 ± 1.94 vs. 13.64 ± 1.7, p < 0.001), albumin (4.14 ± 1.5 vs. 4.23 ± 1.3, p = 0.018), iron (62.69 ± 174 vs. 76.7 ± 34, p < 0.001), and ferritin levels (101.36 ± 174 vs. 123.43 ± 38, p < 0.001). In addition, a higher count of platelets, 275 ± 90 vs. 250 ± 74, p < 0.001) and a higher CEA level (64.83 ± 569 vs. 12.17 ± 274, p < 0.001) were also observed among the CRC group. No significant differences were found regarding most other laboratory values (WBC, AST, GGT, and etc.).

3.3. Risk Factors for CRC

Uni- and multivariable analysis models for CRC diagnosis after positive FOBT were calculated and the results of the model for CRC diagnosis are presented in Table 3. In the multivariable analysis, age 1.057, p < 0.001, family history of CRC OR 1.4, p = 0.001, and previous CRC OR 15.9, p < 0.001 were found to be significant risk factors for CRC diagnosis among patients with positive FOBT. In the univariable model, the age (OR 1.063, p < 0.001), iron-deficiency anemia (OR 1.318, p < 0.001), family history of CRC (OR 1.471, p < 0.001, and previous CRC (OR 22.433, p < 0.001) were found to be risk factors for CRC. Diabetes mellitus and gender were not found to be significant risk factors. In the multivariate analysis model, we observed an OR of 1.057 for age (p < 0.01), OR of 1.131 (p < 0.072) for iron-deficiency anemia, OR of 1.0404 for family history of CRC (p < 0.001), and OR of 15.935 (p < 0.001) for previous CRC.

4. Discussion

In this study, we evaluated the rate of CRC among patients with positive FOBT within an organized population-based CRC screening program and factors associated with increased risk for CRC. Overall, we report that about 3.3% of all patients with positive FOBT were diagnosed eventually with CRC. The main findings of our study are that subjects with a previous history of CRC, family history of CRC, iron-deficiency anemia, or lab values of anemia (low hemoglobin, iron, and ferritin) were at significantly increased risk for harboring cancer. This finding is novel and has not been reported before in the context of real-life data until now and with a such large number of patients. Interestingly, subjects with either previous CRC or a family history of CRC or anemia should have been referred for colonoscopy and not FOBT. A significant proportion of the total subjects with positive FOBT have one of these indications, making up about 35% of all subjects with positive FOBT in our study. However, our data showed that in real life, practically, not all people who have a clear indication for colonoscopy will undergo it; instead, they perform stool testing. There are several reasons behind not completing a colonoscopy; however, only scant data has been published, focused on adherence to post-CRC surveillance colonoscopy. Metastasis and refusal of the patients for post-CRC surveillance were found to be reasons for nonadherence to colonoscopy among this specific group [18]. In fact, adherence to colonoscopy was intensely researched among patients who had positive FOBT and there are several reasons for barriers to endoscopic follow-up, including the four main groups: information technology (IT) [19,20], healthcare organizations [21,22], physician behavior [23,24,25,26], and patient emotional and cognitive factors [27,28,29,30]. In addition, barriers could affect adherence to colonoscopy and the barriers could be related to the patients, providers, and system barriers [31].
It is important to mention that iron-deficiency anemia is found at a higher rate among those diagnosed with CRC. In the present study, we found a higher rate of iron-deficiency anemia, appearing as “iron-deficiency anemia” in the list of diagnoses. Additionally, the levels of hemoglobin, iron, and ferritin were significantly lower among CRC patients. Of note, the diagnosis of iron-deficiency anemia was found to be a significant risk factor for CRC diagnosis in the univariate model analysis, while only a trend of statistical significance in the multivariate model analysis. Out of this, any patient with a positive FOBT combined with iron-deficiency anemia should be seriously encouraged to undergo a colonoscopy. Previous studies reported a higher rate of CRC among patients with a combination of a positive FOBT and iron-deficiency anemia. CRC was detected in 2.7% of patients with positive FOBT and iron-deficiency anemia compared to 0.4% for patients with a positive FOBT without iron-deficiency anemia [32,33].
An interesting finding is that patients with previous colon cancer have the highest risk for CRC diagnosis after a positive FOBT. Actually, patients with previous colon cancer should not perform FOBT but should perform a follow-up colonoscopy due to their high risk for recurrence disease and additional adenoma of carcinoma. Patients with previous CRC should be scheduled for post-CRC surveillance colonoscopy, according to the known guidelines. However, in real life, as we found in our study, a small selection of the performed FOBTs were conducted among patients with a previous diagnosis of CRC and, as found in our results, these people were found to be at the highest risk for CRC recurrence. Performing FOBT among part of the patients after CRC in our cohort could be related to patients’ preferences or to the fact that the FOBT test is sent automatically annually for patients in the target age group. Additional studies are needed in other countries to understand if it is common in other regions and local studies are needed in order to attain a deep understanding of this point. Despite this finding, we still suggest colonoscopy as a follow-up modality of choice in patients treated for CRC and continued surveillance, but the cases of patients not completing colonoscopy and having positive FOBT should be scheduled as priority for colonoscopy due to their high risk.
The importance of analyzing possible risk factors is to identify high-risk subjects and to encourage them to undergo a colonoscopy. Singling out those with higher risk is of particular importance due to the low adherence to colonoscopy after a positive FOBT with the known diversity between the populations. The colonoscopy completion rate after positive FOBT varies between 30 and 80% [31,34]. Identifying those classified as high risk, scoring them according to their age, comorbidities, and laboratory findings, and intervening specifically among this group of patients with the recommendation that they should conduct a colonoscopy and giving them high priority for procedure scheduling is of great importance.
In general, in the era of aging populations, increasing awareness regarding screening for cancer is a priority and colonoscopy is an important part, beginning at the level of healthcare organizations and providers using information technology. The risk for CRC for every patient with positive FOBT should be calculated. The calculation model should include the age, comorbidities, including diagnosis of iron-deficiency anemia, family history of CRC, and previous CRC, and laboratory values, including hemoglobin, iron, ferritin, and CEA. Patients at high risk should be prioritized for colonoscopy. The CRC risk evaluation can be made by general practitioners using a simple evaluation of the medical file, including the diagnosis list of the patients and evaluating the laboratory values and case of a conclusion that the patients are at high risk for CRC. The next step should be explaining the findings to the patients and their high-risk status in order to increase adherence to colonoscopy and to avoid postponing the colonoscopy. This is crucial as postponement of colonoscopy is associated with more advanced disease and higher mortality due to CRC among patients who performed their colonoscopies more than 12 months after the initial positive fecal occult blood test, as reported before [8].
In summary, in this large study conducted within the Clalit, one of the largest HMOs worldwide, we report that a significant proportion of the subjects with positive FOBT eventually having CRC had iron-deficiency anemia, family history of CRC, or previous CRC. Although these patients should have been referred for colonoscopy primarily, once they have a positive FOBT, they should be prioritized for colonoscopy. Taken in the context of the post-COVID-19 era, with a huge impact on the screening program and a decrease in the endoscopy procedures performed in 2020, the disruption of screening programs in most countries resulted in a decrease in CRC incidence in 2020 compared to 2019 [35]. Moreover, the projected effect of short-term disruption to colorectal cancer screening will have a marked impact on colorectal cancer incidence and deaths between 2020 and 2050, attributable to missed screening [35,36]. Thus, it is crucial to ensure participation rates return to previously observed rates and we suggest a special consideration for patients with risk factors for CRC, as we found in the present study. To reach this goal, active action and interventions should be carried out by healthcare providers and healthcare policymakers.
The strengths of our study are the national-based design, with a large number of enrolled subjects, and access to the computerized medical file, including diagnosis and laboratories. To the best of our knowledge, there is no previous study that investigated this important issue with such a large number of patients and in a real-life setting.
Despite these strengths, there are several limitations to mention. Firstly, the retrospective design, secondly, the long study period included using both the guaiac-based and FIT-based testing in the study, thirdly, no data were available regarding symptoms before colonoscopy or polyp/adenoma detection or localization of the neoplasm, and, lastly, in the platform, there are no accurate data regarding smoking because they are coded within the electronic medical records as different conditions. Smoking could be listed as: current smoker, a current smoker and wants to stop, or past smoker, so it is a weakness of the platform to obtain accurate data for this metric; lastly, not all patients may have complete laboratory data.

5. Conclusions

Patients with positive FOBT and iron-deficiency anemia, previous colorectal cancer, family history of CRC, low hemoglobin, iron, and ferritin are at higher risk to be diagnosed with CRC. Finding one of these factors should direct physicians to give high priority to colonoscopy scheduling. These patients should be prioritized other average-risk patients. In addition, high-risk patients with a strong indication for colonoscopy should be referred for colonoscopy and not for fecal occult blood stool testing.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.A.-F. and Z.L.; methodology, N.A.-F., R.G. and Z.L.; software, B.C., M.G. and O.S. validation, N.A.-F., G.T. and Z.L.; formal analysis, L.B.S. and O.S.; investigation, N.A.-F. and G.T.; resources, B.C., M.G. and R.G.; data curation, B.C., M.G., O.S. and L.B.S.; writing—original draft preparation, N.A.-F.; writing—review and editing, R.G., B.C., M.G., O.S., G.T., L.B.S. and Z.L.; visualization, G.T. and N.A.-F.; supervision, Z.L.; project administration, N.A.-F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Soroka University Medical Center (protocol code 0093-21-SOR).

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived due to the retrospective design of the study.

Data Availability Statement

No additional data are available.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Wilson, J.M.G.; Jungner, G. Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1968; Available online: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/4/07-050112BP.pdf (accessed on 6 October 2022).
  3. Shaukat, A.; Kahi, C.J.; Burke, C.A.; Rabeneck, L.; Sauer, B.G.; Rex, D.K. ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2021, 116, 458–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Navarro, M.; Nicolas, A.; Ferrandez, A.; Lanas, A. Colorectal cancer population screening programs worldwide in 2016: An update. World J. Gastroenterol. 2017, 23, 3632–3642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mendivil, J.; Appierto, M.; Aceituno, S.; Comas, M.; Rué, M. Economic evaluations of screening strategies for the early detection of colorectal cancer in the average-risk population: A systematic literature review. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0227251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hewitson, P.; Glasziou, P.; Watson, E.; Towler, B.; Irwig, L. Cochrane Systematic Review of Colorectal Cancer Screening Using the Fecal Occult Blood Test (Hemoccult): An Update. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2008, 103, 1541–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Kahi, C.J.; Imperiale, T.F.; Juliar, B.E.; Rex, D.K. Effect of screening coloonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2009, 7, 770–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Flugelman, A.A.; Stein, N.; Segol, O.; Lavi, I.; Keinan-Boker, L. Delayed Colonoscopy Following a Positive Fecal Test Result and Cancer Mortality. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2019, 3, pkz024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Corley, D.A.; Jensen, C.D.; Quinn, V.P.; Doubeni, C.A.; Zauber, A.G.; Lee, J.K.; Schottinger, J.E.; Marks, A.R.; Zhao, W.K.; Ghai, N.R.; et al. Association Between Time to Colonoscopy After a Positive Fecal Test Result and Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Cancer Stage at Diagnosis. JAMA 2017, 317, 1631–1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hardcastle, J.D.; O Chamberlain, J.; Robinson, M.H.; Moss, S.M.; Amar, S.S.; Balfour, T.W.; James, P.D.; Mangham, C.M. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet 1996, 348, 1472–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mandel, J.S.; Church, T.R.; Bond, J.H.; Ederer, F.; Geisser, M.S.; Mongin, S.J.; Snover, D.C.; Schuman, L.M. The Effect of Fecal Occult-Blood Screening on the Incidence of Colorectal Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2000, 343, 1603–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kronborg, O.; Fenger, C.; Olsen, J.; Jørgensen, O.D.; Søndergaard, O. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet 1996, 348, 1467–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lindholm, E.; Brevinge, H.; Haglind, E. Survival benefit in a randomized clinical trial of faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer. Br. J. Surg. 2008, 95, 1029–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Weller, D.; Coleman, D.; Robertson, R.; Butler, P.; Melia, J.; Campbell, C.; Parker, R.; Patnick, J.; Moss, S. The UK colorectal cancer screening pilot: Results of the second round of screening in England. Br. J. Cancer 2007, 97, 1601–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Leuraud, K.; Jezewski-Serra, D.; Viguier, J.; Salines, E. Colorectal cancer screening by guaiac faecal occult blood test in France: Evaluation of the programme two years after launching. Cancer Epidemiol. 2013, 37, 959–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Correia, A.; Rabeneck, L.; Baxter, N.N.; Paszat, L.F.; Sutradhar, R.; Yun, L.; Tinmouth, J. Lack of follow-up colonoscopy after positive FOBT in an organized colorectal cancer screening program is associated with modifiable health care practices. Prev. Med. 2015, 76, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. The Israel National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare. Available online: https://en.israelhealthindicators.org/MeasuresEnglish/60/12 (accessed on 3 November 2022).
  18. Mohy-ud-din, N.; Umar, S.; Syed, A.; Monga, D. Adherence to Post Colorectal Cancer Surveillance Colonoscopy Guidelines at a Tertiary Care Center. J. Coloproctol. 2019, 39, 303–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lin, J.J.; Dunn, A.; Moore, C. Follow-up of Outpatient Test Results: A Survey of House-Staff Practices and Perceptions. Am. J. Med Qual. 2006, 21, 178–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Singh, H.; Wilson, L.; A Petersen, L.; Sawhney, M.K.; Reis, B.; Espadas, D.; Sittig, D.F. Improving follow-up of abnormal cancer screens using electronic health records: Trust but verify test result communication. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2009, 9, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Bastani, R.; Yabroff, K.R.; Myers, R.E.; Glenn, B. Interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal findings kn Cancer screening. Cancer 2004, 101, 1188–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chen, Z.J.; Kamrner, D.; Bond, J.H.; Ho, S.B. Evaluating follow-up of positive fecal occult blood test results: Lesson learned. J. Healthc. Qual. 2007, 29, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fisher, D.A.; Jeffreys, A.; Coffman, C.J.; Fasanella, K. Barriers to Full Colon Evaluation for a Positive Fecal Occult Blood Test. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2006, 15, 1232–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Shields, H.M.; Weiner, M.S.; Henry, D.R.; Lloyd, A.S.; Ransil, B.J.; Lamphier, D.A.; Gallagher, D.W.; Antonioli, D.A.; Rosner, B.A. Factors that influence the decision to do an adequate evaluation of a patient with a positive stool for occult blood. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2001, 96, 196–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Miglioretti, D.L.; Rutter, C.M.; Bradford, S.C.; Zauber, A.G.; Kessler, L.G.; Feuer, E.J.; Grossman, D.C.; Rutter, M. Improvement in the diagnostic evaluation of a positive fecal occult blood test in an integrated health care organization. Med. Care 2014, 46, s91–s96. Available online: https://ucdavis.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/improvement-in-the-diagnostic-evaluation-of-a-positive-fecal-occu (accessed on 6 October 2022). [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Baig, N. Physician-reported reasons for limited follow-up of patients with a positive fecal occult blood test screening result. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2003, 98, 2078–2081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Laing, S.S.; Bogart, A.; Chubak, J.; Fuller, S.; Green, B.B. Psychological Distress after a Positive Fecal Occult Blood Test Result among Members of an Integrated Healthcare Delivery System. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2014, 23, 154–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Wang, J.H.; Liang, W.; Chen, M.; Cullen, J.; Feng, S.; Yi, B.; Schwartz, M.D.; Mandelblatt, J.S. The influence of culture and Cancer worry on Colon Cancer screening amomg older Chinese-American woman. NIH Public Access 2012, 16, 404–411. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3528348/ (accessed on 6 October 2022).
  29. Ramji, F.; Cotterchio, M.; Manno, M.; Rabeneck, L.; Gallinger, S. Association between subject factors and colorectal cancer screening participation in Ontario, Canada. Cancer Detect. Prev. 2005, 29, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Duncan, A.; Turnbull, D.; Wilson, C.; Osborne, J.M.; Cole, S.R.; Flight, I.; Young, G.P. Behavioural and demographic predictors of adherence to three consecutive faecal occult blood test screening opportunities: A population study. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Azulay, R.; Valinsky, L.; Hershkowitz, F.; Elran, E.; Lederman, N.; Kariv, R.; Braunstein, B.; Heymann, A. Barriers to completing colonoscopy after a positive fecal occult blood test. Isr. J. Health Policy Res. 2021, 10, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhang, B.; Fattah, A.A.; Nakama, H. Colorectal cancer in iron deficiency anemia with a positive result on immunochemical fecal occult blood. Int. J. Color. Dis. 2000, 15, 271–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kim, N.H.; Lee, M.Y.; Park, J.H.; Park, D.I.; Sohn, C.I.; Choi, K.; Jung, Y.S. A Combination of Fecal Immunochemical Test Results and Iron Deficiency Anemia for Detection of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia in Asymptomatic Men. Yonsei Med. J. 2017, 58, 910–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Gingold-Belfer, R.; Leibovitzh, H.; Boltin, D.; Issa, N.; Perets, T.T.; Dickman, R.; Niv, Y. The compliance rate for the second diagnostic evaluation after a positive fecal occult blood test: A systematic review and meta-analysis. United Eur. Gastroenterol. J. 2019, 7, 424–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Abu-Freha, N.; Hizkiya, R.; Abu-Abed, M.; Michael, T.; Jacob, B.M.; Rouvinov, K.; Schwartz, D.; Reshef, A.; Netz, U.; Pinsk, I.; et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal and gastric cancer diagnosis, disease stage and mortality. Front. Med. 2022, 9, 954878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. De Jonge, L.; Worthington, J.; van Wifferen, F.; Iragorri, N.; Peterse, E.F.P.; Lew, J.-B.; E Greuter, M.J.; A Smith, H.; Feletto, E.; E Yong, J.H.; et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on faecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening programmes in Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands: A comparative modelling study. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021, 6, 304–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Demographics and comorbidities in the study groups.
Table 1. Demographics and comorbidities in the study groups.
CRC after Positive FOBT
n = 1502 (%)		No CRC after Positive FOBT
n = 43,998 (%)		p-Value
Guaiac based FOBT1043 (69.4)24,329 (55.3)<0.001
FIT based FOBT456 (30.6)19,669 (44.7)<0.001
Gender (male)785 (52.3)23,701 (53.9)0.220
Age (years, mean ± SD)62.7 ± 7.1559.33 ± 7.3<0.001
BMI28.6 ± 5.828.6 ± 60.998
Smoking446 (30)14,555 (33.5)0.007
Family history of CRC110 (7.3)2243 (5.1)<0.001
Previous CRC97 (6.5)135 (0.3)<0.001
Comorbidities
CIHD228 (15.2)7413 (16.8)0.089
CHF44 (2.9)1433 (3.3)0.481
COPD107 (7.1)3880 (8.8)0.022
Asthma130 (8.7)4448 (10.1)0.065
CRF106 (7.1)2648 (6)0.097
HTN733 (48.4)19,650 (44.7)0.002
DM194 (12.9)5307 (12.1)0.318
Dyslipidemia850 (56.5)24,388 (55.7)0.474
Obesity494 (32.9)15,498 (35.2)0.062
CVA32 (2.1)806 (1.8)0.397
Dementia14 (0.9)277 (0.6) 0.148
Fatty liver107 (7.1)3342 (7.6)0.497
Depression138 (9.2)4928 (11.2)0.015
Vitamin B12 Def.9 (0.6)285 (0.6)0.817
Folic acid def223 (14.8)6687 (15.2)0.709
Iron deficiency A309 (20.6)7229 (16.4)<0.001
Vitamin D def198 (13.2)5449 (12.4)0.356
Table
Table 2. Laboratory values of the study groups.
Table 2. Laboratory values of the study groups.
CRC after Positive FOBT
n = 1502 (%)		No CRC after Positive FOBT
n = 43,998 (%)		p-Value
HB (gr/dL)12.8 ± 1.9413.64 ± 1.7<0.001
WBC (103/uL)7.57 ± 2.347.48 ± 3.040.292
PLT (103/uL)275 ± 90250 ± 74<0.001
AST (U/L)23.19 ± 2223.93 ± 210.187
ALT (U/L)21.18 ± 2223.44 ± 20<0.001
GGT (U/L)46.17 ± 11141.89 ± 840.151
Creatinine (mg/dL)0.87 ± 0.530.86 ± 0.560.823
Albumin (gr/dL)4.14 ± 1.54.23 ± 1.30.018
Vitamin D48.9 ± 25.147.5 ± 240.099
Vitamin B12327.5 ± 167337.6 ± 1800.047
Folic acid 19.9 ± 5218.4 ± 450.289
HbA1c (%)6.29 ± 1.26.26 ± 1.30.409
Iron (mcg/dL)62.69 ± 3776.7 ± 34<0.001
Ferritin101.36 ± 174123.43 ± 308<0.001
Calcium9.37 ± 0.539.39 ± 0.470.121
CEA64.83 ± 56912.17 ± 274<0.001
Table
Table 3. Uni- and multivariate A logistic regression model for the association between positive FOBTs and diagnosis of colorectal cancer.
Table 3. Uni- and multivariate A logistic regression model for the association between positive FOBTs and diagnosis of colorectal cancer.
Univariable AnalysisMultivariable Analysis
OR95% CIp-ValueOR95% CIp-Value
Age at diagnosis1.0631.055–1.070<0.0011.0571.050–1.065<0.001
Gender0.9380.846–1.0390.220NANANA
Diabetes Mellitus1.0810.928–1.2610.318NANANA
Iron-deficiency Anemia1.3181.160–1.497<0.0011.1310.989–1.2930.072
Smoking0.8570.765–0.9590.0070.8650.771–0.9700.013
Family history of CRC1.4711.206–1.794<0.0011.4041.147–1.7190.001
Previous CRC22.43317.190–29.276<0.00115.93512.054–21.064<0.001
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abu-Freha, N.; Gouldner, R.; Cohen, B.; Gordon, M.; Sagi, O.; Taha, G.; Ben Shoshan, L.; Levi, Z. Comorbidities and Risk Factors of Patients Diagnosed with CRC after Positive Fecal Test in Real Life. Cancers 2022, 14, 5557. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14225557

AMA Style

Abu-Freha N, Gouldner R, Cohen B, Gordon M, Sagi O, Taha G, Ben Shoshan L, Levi Z. Comorbidities and Risk Factors of Patients Diagnosed with CRC after Positive Fecal Test in Real Life. Cancers. 2022; 14(22):5557. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14225557

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abu-Freha, Naim, Rachel Gouldner, Bracha Cohen, Michal Gordon, Orly Sagi, Gadeer Taha, Liza Ben Shoshan, and Zohar Levi. 2022. "Comorbidities and Risk Factors of Patients Diagnosed with CRC after Positive Fecal Test in Real Life" Cancers 14, no. 22: 5557. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14225557

APA Style

Abu-Freha, N., Gouldner, R., Cohen, B., Gordon, M., Sagi, O., Taha, G., Ben Shoshan, L., & Levi, Z. (2022). Comorbidities and Risk Factors of Patients Diagnosed with CRC after Positive Fecal Test in Real Life. Cancers, 14(22), 5557. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14225557

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop