1 / 23

Colorectal 2 week wait pathways and “Getting FIT”

This article discusses the impact of earlier diagnosis of colorectal cancer on NHS costs and benefits, as well as the effectiveness of the current two-week wait pathway. It explores the use of the "Getting FIT" pathway and the potential benefits of incorporating FIT (fecal immunochemical test) levels and anaemia in the referral process. The article concludes with key take-home messages for healthcare professionals when making referrals.

fostere
Télécharger la présentation

Colorectal 2 week wait pathways and “Getting FIT”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Colorectal 2 week wait pathwaysand “Getting FIT”

  2. The two week Cancer Pathway 14 days 17 days 31 days Time to see in clinic Time to start treatment Time to make diagnosis

  3. Earlier diagnosis Five year Forward View Improving Outcomes: a strategy for Cancer The likely impact of earlier diagnosis of cancer on costs and benefits in the NHS

  4. Nottingham Cancers

  5. Staging Matters

  6. 2 Week Wait referrals

  7. New referral form

  8. Co-morbidity

  9. 2WW pathway • Introduced in 2000 • Based on symptoms • Not very effective locally and nationally • Continually rising referral rates with no evidence of earlier stage detection (compare with BCSP) • Evidence of reduced emergency presentation • Low rates of cancer diagnosis & almost as many diagnoses from non-2WW referrals • High rates of normal results from invasive tests • Multiple symptoms have higher specificity than single symptoms but often diagnose later stage tumours • Patients present with CIBH have cancer diagnosis excluded but get no help with their symptoms T1 rectal polyp cancer (BCSP)

  10. Direct to test (DTT) • The 2WW pathway has become a “CRC exclusion” pathway • 150 - 180 referrals/month at NUH only (not TC) • Pre-DTT: Overwhelming majority seen by Colorectal Nurse Practitioners independently with limited Consultant input • DTT introduced in August 2014 to expedite diagnosis and introduce Consultant vetting

  11. Direct To Test (DTT)

  12. Outcomes Only 39-71% 2WW referrals (wide monthly variation) actually satisfy 2WW referral criteria. “Change in bowel habit to looser stools/more frequent stools” We investigate anyway. 2015 data: • 45-50% DTT • 15-25% seen by Cons • 25-35% Nurse • 5-10% other Outcome Audit: 1st August – 30thNovember 2014 • 553 referrals • Colorectal Cancer (incl. anal) diagnoses = 37(6.7%) • DTT patients significantly • Younger • Quicker first investigation (12 v 23 days) • Quicker tissue diagnosis (16 v 26 days) • DTT patients twice as likely to have colonoscopy (87 v 42%) BUT rates of normal colonoscopy same in both groups The rate of cancer diagnosis (8.5%) in asymptomatic BCSP patients with abnormal gFOBT in same time period was higher than in our symptomatic 2WW patients.

  13. Anaemia • Audit of 1000 DTT referrals to NUH: • 20% had no Hb done at referral • 38% were anaemic at time of referral but 2/3 were referred for other reasons • Anaemic patients with sx are 4.4 times more likely to have cancer than non-anaemic patients • Anaemia with bowel symptoms is a better predictor of CRC – particularly Right sided cancer • Fe deficiency anaemia particularly so

  14. New NICE guidance (NG12) Symptom based • Which we know is poor particularly “change in bowel habit” • Looser • Lower specificity • Increased demand on stretched services • Clinic • Endoscopy • Radiology Non-symptom based • Use of FOBT • Not rectal bleeding • >50yo abdo pain or weight loss • <60yo with CIBH • <60yo iron deficiency anaemia (??) • >60yo anaemia without Fe deficiency • Broadening screening by the back door?

  15. No clarity on…. • Which FOBT? • gFOBT (subjective & categorical) or FIT (objective, more sensitive, quantitative but less specific the lower you go)? • gFOBT was withdrawn as test in symptomatic patients due to poor clinical effectiveness • Studies (mainly within BCSP) demonstrate FIT>>gFOBT • BUT what level of blood in a FIT warrants ix? No consensus…as yet • Normal levels of blood in FIT vary according to age, sex and geography • We do not know what to advise you with patients who have intermediate levels of blood in a FIT test…..at present

  16. “Getting FIT” • Prospective service evaluation • Collaborative • Primary care • Nottingham Colorectal Service • Bowel Cancer Screening Hub • Two pathways • I: Evaluating FIT levels in patients without rectal bleeding in the 2WW pathway • II: GP access to FIT in appropriate patients

  17. The future Local and national questions: • Can Negative Predictive Value of FIT be used to avoid unnecessary investigation? • Can FIT and anaemia be used to stratify referrals into high and low risk? • Can CT colon reduce need for Colonoscopy? • Is whole colon investigation necessary in absence of abdominal mass, anaemia and/or negative FIT?

  18. Take home messages • Please use the right form AND please request bloods on 2WW or “Getting FIT” referral • FBC, UE and CRP BUT NOT CEA • DTT team will check the results • Please do not ask for FIT (or any FOBT) on • Patients with rectal bleeding • Patients over 60yo: they can call BCSP for a standard gFOBT kit • “Negative”FOBT results DO NOT exclude cancer • We would prefer you refer Fe def anaemia on a 2WW pathway for now

  19. Questions?

More Related