The role of quantitative faecal immunochemical test (qFIT) in patients presenting with per-rectal bleeding: A cohort study from a colorectal unit in Scotland

Background and Aims The quantitative faecal immunochemical test (qFIT) is established for triaging patients with lower gastrointestinal symptoms, but its utility in those with per-rectal bleeding (PRB) requires further validation. This study aimed to: (1) evaluate qFIT as a first-line investigation for ruling out colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with PRB; (2) assess the diagnostic yield of qFIT across different quantitative ranges; and (3) determine the positive predictive values and negative predictive values (NPVs) for CRC and clinically relevant benign bowel pathologies (BBPs). Methods A cohort analytical study was conducted (May 2022–September 2023) involving 203 patients referred via the two-week wait pathway with suspected CRC. Patients were stratified into four groups based on the presence of PRB and qFIT result (positive: ≥10 µg Hb/g). Diagnostic outcomes (CRC and BBP) were confirmed via colonoscopy, imaging, cross-sectional imaging, and histopathology where applicable. Results Of 203 patients, 76 (37.4%) presented with PRB. In the PRB group, 53 had a positive qFIT (Group 1), and 23 had a negative qFIT (Group 2). CRC was detected in 5 out of 53 (9.4%) in Group 1 and 0 out of 23 (0%) in Group 2, yielding an NPV of 100% (95% confidence interval (CI) 85.2%–100.0%) for CRC in PRB patients. Among the 127 patients without PRB, CRC was found in 13 out of 88 (14.8%) with a positive qFIT (Group 3) and 1 out of 39 (2.6%) with a negative qFIT (Group 4). In patients without PRB, qFIT positivity showed a non-significant trend towards higher odds of CRC (odds ratio (OR) 6.59, 95% CI 0.82–53.0; p = 0.07). CRC prevalence increased significantly with rising qFIT values, with patients having qFIT >400 µg/g demonstrating higher odds of CRC than those with qFIT 10–150 µg/g (OR 22.0, 95% CI 3.56–136.1; p = 0.001). The incidence of BBP remained high across all groups, including 56.5% of qFIT-negative patients with PRB. Conclusion In this cohort, qFIT demonstrated a high NPV for CRC in patients presenting with PRB. A negative qFIT in patients presenting with PRB may support risk stratification and could help reduce unnecessary colonoscopy in selected cases, but larger prospective studies are needed before firm de-escalation recommendations can be made. Patients without PRB but with high qFIT levels (>400 µg/g) should be prioritised for urgent investigation, given the high probability of CRC.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scottish Medical Journal
Published
2026-08-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00369330261477243
Primary Topic
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The role of quantitative faecal immunochemical test (qFIT) in patients presenting with per-rectal bleeding: A cohort study from a colorectal unit in Scotland

Muhammad Bilal Akbar, Priyanka Bhandari, Yousef Abduldaiem, Ross D. Dolan et al.
Scottish Medical Journal
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
article

The role of quantitative faecal immunochemical test (qFIT) in patients presenting with per-rectal bleeding: A cohort study from a colorectal unit in Scotland

Muhammad Bilal Akbar, Priyanka Bhandari, Yousef Abduldaiem, Ross D. Dolan, Abdullahi Mohammed, Wai Wai Win Mar
article en

Abstract

Background and Aims The quantitative faecal immunochemical test (qFIT) is established for triaging patients with lower gastrointestinal symptoms, but its utility in those with per-rectal bleeding (PRB) requires further validation. This study aimed to: (1) evaluate qFIT as a first-line investigation for ruling out colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with PRB; (2) assess the diagnostic yield of qFIT across different quantitative ranges; and (3) determine the positive predictive values and negative predictive values (NPVs) for CRC and clinically relevant benign bowel pathologies (BBPs). Methods A cohort analytical study was conducted (May 2022–September 2023) involving 203 patients referred via the two-week wait pathway with suspected CRC. Patients were stratified into four groups based on the presence of PRB and qFIT result (positive: ≥10 µg Hb/g). Diagnostic outcomes (CRC and BBP) were confirmed via colonoscopy, imaging, cross-sectional imaging, and histopathology where applicable. Results Of 203 patients, 76 (37.4%) presented with PRB. In the PRB group, 53 had a positive qFIT (Group 1), and 23 had a negative qFIT (Group 2). CRC was detected in 5 out of 53 (9.4%) in Group 1 and 0 out of 23 (0%) in Group 2, yielding an NPV of 100% (95% confidence interval (CI) 85.2%–100.0%) for CRC in PRB patients. Among the 127 patients without PRB, CRC was found in 13 out of 88 (14.8%) with a positive qFIT (Group 3) and 1 out of 39 (2.6%) with a negative qFIT (Group 4). In patients without PRB, qFIT positivity showed a non-significant trend towards higher odds of CRC (odds ratio (OR) 6.59, 95% CI 0.82–53.0; p = 0.07). CRC prevalence increased significantly with rising qFIT values, with patients having qFIT >400 µg/g demonstrating higher odds of CRC than those with qFIT 10–150 µg/g (OR 22.0, 95% CI 3.56–136.1; p = 0.001). The incidence of BBP remained high across all groups, including 56.5% of qFIT-negative patients with PRB. Conclusion In this cohort, qFIT demonstrated a high NPV for CRC in patients presenting with PRB. A negative qFIT in patients presenting with PRB may support risk stratification and could help reduce unnecessary colonoscopy in selected cases, but larger prospective studies are needed before firm de-escalation recommendations can be made. Patients without PRB but with high qFIT levels (>400 µg/g) should be prioritised for urgent investigation, given the high probability of CRC.

Scottish Medical Journal
San Francisco General Hospital (US), University of Dundee (GB), University of Aberdeen (GB), Ninewells Hospital (GB)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.