Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT): sources of result variation based on three years of routine testing of symptomatic patients in English primary care

ABSTRACT

Introduction: We aimed to determine the analytical capabilities of a commonly used faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to detect faecal haemoglobin (Hb) in symptomatic people attending primary care in the context of the English NICE DG30 guidance.

Materials and Methods: Data obtained from independent verification studies and clinical testing of the HM-JACKarc FIT method in routine primary care practice were analysed to derive performance characteristics.

Results: Detection capabilities for the FIT method were 0.5 µg/g (limit of blank), 1.3 µg/g (limit of detection) and 3.0 µg/g (limit of quantitation). Of 33 non-homogenized specimens, 31 (93.9%) analysed in triplicate were consistently categorized relative to 10 µg/g, compared to all 33 (100%) homogenized specimens. Imprecision was higher (median 27.8%, (range 20.5% to 48.6%)) in non-homogenized specimens than in homogenized specimens (10.2%, (7.0 to 13.5%)). Considerable variation was observed in sequential clinical specimens from individual patients but no positive or negative trend in specimen degradation was observed over time (p = 0.26).

Discussion: The FIT immunoassay evaluated is capable of detecting faecal Hb at concentrations well below the DG30 threshold of 10 µg/g and is suitable for application in this context. The greatest practical challenge to FIT performance is reproducible sampling, the pre-analytical step associated with most variability. Further research should focus on reducing sampling variability, particularly as post-COVID-19 guidance recommends greater FIT utilization.

KEYWORDS:

• Faecal immunochemical test
• analytical variation
• preanalytical variation
• method performance

Acknowledgements

James E. East was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Brian D Nicholson is an NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer and is supported by the NIHR Oxford Medtech and In-Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.