Clinical value of alarm features for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common neoplasm in Western countries. Prioritizing access to colonoscopy appears of critical relevance. Alarm features are considered to increase the likelihood of CRC. Our aim was to assess the diagnostic performance of alarm features for CRC diagnosis.

Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of alarm features (rectal bleeding, anemia, change in bowel habit, and weight loss) for CRC, published up to September 2021. Colonoscopy was required as the reference diagnostic test. Diagnostic accuracy measures were pooled by a bivariate mixed-effects regression model. The number needed to scope (NNS; i. e. the number of patients who need to undergo colonoscopy to diagnose one CRC) according to each alarm feature was calculated.

Results 31 studies with 45 100 patients (mean age 31–88 years; men 36 %–63 %) were included. The prevalence of CRC ranged from 0.2 % to 22 %. Sensitivity was suboptimal, ranging from 12.4 % for weight loss to 49 % for rectal bleeding, whereas specificity ranged from 69.8 % for rectal bleeding to 91.9 % for weight loss. Taken individually, rectal bleeding and anemia would be the only practical alarm features mandating colonoscopy (NNS 5.3 and 6.7, respectively).

Conclusions When considered independently, alarm features have variable accuracy for CRC, given the high heterogeneity of study populations reflected by wide variability in CRC prevalence. Rectal bleeding and anemia are the most practical to select patients for colonoscopy. Integration of alarm features in a comprehensive evaluation of patients should be considered.

^* Joint last authors.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 01. März 2022

Angenommen nach Revision: 14. Oktober 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
14. Oktober 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
11. Januar 2023

• References

• 1 Sonnenberg A, Amorosi SL, Lacey MJ. et al. Patterns of endoscopy in the United States: analysis of data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the National Endoscopic Database. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 489-496
• 2 Harewood GC, Lieberman DA. Colonoscopy practice patterns since introduction of medicare coverage for average-risk screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 2: 72-77
• 3 Repici A, Maselli R, Colombo M. et al. Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak: what the department of endoscopy should know. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 192-197
• 4 Medow MA, Lucey CR. A qualitative approach to Bayes’ theorem. Evid Based Med 2011; 16: 163-167
• 5 Kaminski M, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 378-397
• 6 Frazzoni L, Marca ML, Radaelli F. et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the appropriateness of colonoscopy increases the probability of relevant findings and cancer while reducing unnecessary exams. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2021; 53: 22-32
• 7 Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL. et al. 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
• 8 Keddie N, Hargreaves A. Symptoms of carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Lancet 1968; 2: 749-750
• 9 Ford AC, Veldhuyzen van Zanten SJO, Rodgers CC. et al. Diagnostic utility of alarm features for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut 2008; 57: 1545-1553
• 10 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 264-269, W64
• 11 Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB. et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; 3: 25
• 12 Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS. et al. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 982-990
• 13 Shim SR, Kim S-J, Lee J. Diagnostic test accuracy: application and practice using R software. Epidemiol Health 2019; 41: e2019007
• 14 Larner AJ. Number needed to diagnose, predict, or misdiagnose: useful metrics for non-canonical signs of cognitive status?. Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra 2018; 8: 321-327
• 15 Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 2010; 36: 1-48
• 16 Doebler P, Holling H. Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy with mada. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/mada/vignettes/mada.pdf Accessed: 8 November 2022
• 17 Bafandeh Y, Khoshbaten M, Sadat ATE. et al. Clinical predictors of colorectal polyps and carcinoma in a low prevalence region: Results of a colonoscopy based study. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14: 1534
• 18 ElBatea H, Enaba M, ElKassas G. et al. Indications and outcome of colonoscopy in the Middle of Nile Delta of Egypt. Dig Dis Sci 2011; 56: 2120-2123
• 19 Lu R, Kassim T, Dave D. et al. Diagnostic yield of colonoscopy in young adults with lower gastrointestinal symptoms in a multicenter Midwest cohort. Dig Dis 2020; 38: 484-489
• 20 Westbury CF. Bayes’ rule for clinicians: an introduction. Front Psychol 2010; 1: 192
• 21 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Suspected cancer: recognition and referral. NICE guidance [NG12]. 2015
• 22 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Quantitative faecal immunochemical tests to guide referral for colorectal cancer in primary care. Diagnostics guidance [DG30]. 2017
• 23 Hull MA, Rees CJ, Sharp L. et al. A risk-stratified approach to colorectal cancer prevention and diagnosis. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 17: 773-780
• 24 Frazzoni L, Laterza L, Mussetto A. et al. How to identify patients who are less likely to have metachronous neoplasms after a colon cancer: a predictive model. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 220-226
• 25 Frazzoni L, Radaelli F, Spada C. et al. The diagnostic yield of colonoscopy in hospitalized patients. An observational multicenter prospective study. Dig Liver Dis 2021; 53: 224-230
• 26 Herrero J-M, Vega P, Salve M. et al. Symptom or faecal immunochemical test based referral criteria for colorectal cancer detection in symptomatic patients: a diagnostic tests study. BMC Gastroenterology 2018; 18: 155
• 27 Peytremann-Bridevaux I, Arditi C, Froehlich F. et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Iron-deficiency anemia and hematochezia. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 227-233
• 28 Demb J, Liu L, Murphy CC. et al. Young-onset colorectal cancer risk among individuals with iron-deficiency anaemia and haematochezia. Gut 2021; 70: 1529-1537
• 29 Bisschops R, Rutter MD, Areia M. et al. Overcoming the barriers to dissemination and implementation of quality measures for gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) position statement. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 196-202
• 30 Kohn MA, Carpenter CR, Newman TB. Understanding the direction of bias in studies of diagnostic test accuracy. Acad Emerg Med 2013; 20: 1194-1206