Which innovations can improve timeliness of investigations and address the backlog in endoscopy for patients with potential symptoms of upper and lower Gastrointestinal (GI) cancers?
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
What is a Rapid Review?
Our rapid reviews use a variation of the systematic review approach, abbreviating or omitting some components to generate the evidence to inform stakeholders promptly whilst maintaining attention to bias. They follow the methodological recommendations and minimum standards for conducting and reporting rapid reviews, including a structured protocol, systematic search, screening, data extraction, critical appraisal, and evidence synthesis to answer a specific question and identify key research gaps. They take 1-2 months, depending on the breadth and complexity of the research topic/ question(s), extent of the evidence base, and type of analysis required for synthesis.
Background / Aim of Rapid Review
Many patients were not able to access routine diagnostic care through 2020/21 because of extraordinary pressures on the NHS due to COVID-19 and the UK national lockdowns. For some patients this can have serious short and long-term consequences to their health and life expectancy. The NHS has limited resources and is looking for new ways to meet many demands and patient needs.
This Rapid Review Report aims to answer the question “Which innovations can be used to accelerate the patients’ journey through the endoscopic cancer diagnosis pathway?” The report highlights evidence of innovations and new ways to improve the timeliness of access to endoscopy and to address the backlog of unmet need for patients who have waited a long time for such tests and investigations by selecting those at highest for prioritisation. It does not evaluate in terms of effectiveness on clinical outcomes.
Key Findings
Extent of the evidence base
Nine papers were included in the rapid review in total.
Two reviews were identified. One review examined the novel colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) procedure and the second review summarised the effects of COVID-19 on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, the potential long-term? outcomes, and ways to adapt CRC screening during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Seven primary studies assessed innovations for the diagnosis of Gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Five of these studies examined faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for prioritising patients for further testing.
Two studies reported pathways/innovations to triage patients e.g. from primary care. These methods of triage used interventions such as Cytosponge for oesophageal symptoms.
Recency of the evidence base
Of the primary studies, one was published in 2020 and six were published in 2021. Of the reviews, one was published in 2020 and one in 2021.
Evidence of effectiveness
The five studies investigating FIT found that it could help prioritise patients for further testing and improve targeting of high-risk patients.
One review proposed CCE may offer a useful solution for investigating colorectal patients to reduce the need for some endoscopies following the pandemic.
One review found a shift from current CRC screening and surveillance practices towards an individualized approach based on risk factors, could result in the allocation of resources to people with higher risks and prevent inappropriate use of healthcare resources for those with lower risks.
Best quality evidence
All studies were quality appraised using the relevant JBI checklist. Five studies were of low to moderate quality.
Policy Implications
Increased use of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) could reduce the endoscopy backlog and save NHS resources if those with low FIT scores can be excluded from further testing.
Policy in Wales supports prioritisation of potential gastrointestinal cancer patients for endoscopy using FIT test scores (NHS Wales 2021) although local implementation currently varies, so it is not yet fully utilised. The FIT test gives results which could be utilised by healthcare professionals to prioritise those who are most in need of urgent diagnosis. The viability of this method to prioritise those in greatest need of being referred for diagnosis through endoscopy is proven (though safety-netting is still required), and the FIT test is part of the diagnostic pathway already in Wales. It will be important to ensure all areas of Wales have equal access to the use of FIT testing for this purpose, and that clinical guidelines are harmonised and adhered to throughout Wales.
Innovations to reduce backlog and speed up time to diagnosis should be explored including:
Triage in primary care settings such as GP surgeries using innovations such as the cytosponge for oesophageal symptoms (e.g. reflux).
Direct referral from primary care settings to specialist investigation, without the need for prior additional referrals in secondary care.
Strength of Evidence
The evidence presented in this review is recent, however with small samples (di Pietro et al., 2020), short-term follow up periods (Sagar et al., 2020) and assumptions required for modelling studies (Loveday et al., 2021). This reduces the generalisability and confidence of conclusions. The confidence in the strength of evidence about FIT testing is rated as ‘low-moderate confidence’. Cytosponge evidence is rated ‘low confidence’.
Review team and stakeholder involvement
This Rapid Review is being conducted as part of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre Work Programme. The above question was developed in consultation with Cancer Research UK’s identified research gaps and with Professor Tom Crosby OBE. Professor Crosby is a Consultant Oncologist, National Cancer Clinical Director for Wales and Clinical Lead for Transforming Cancer Services and acted as the expert stakeholder for this review.
The search questions were identified as a priority during the Cancer/COVID-19 Research Summit hosted by Cancer Research UK (CRUK), Public Health England (PHE) and the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI). The stakeholder group supporting the review work here is Cancer Research Wales.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.05.04.22274653: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Field Sample Permit: The following information was extracted for all studies when reported: 5.7 Quality appraisal: Quality appraisal was carried out by a single reviewer, using; the JBI analytical cross-sectional study checklist; the JBI systematic reviews and research syntheses checklist; the JBI case reports checklist; and the JBI cohort studies checklist. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources 5.3 Resources List: The search strategy for Medline is presented below [also noting the platform used, e.g., OVID] (which has been approved by the stakeholders) or … SciScore for 10.1101/2022.05.04.22274653: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Field Sample Permit: The following information was extracted for all studies when reported: 5.7 Quality appraisal: Quality appraisal was carried out by a single reviewer, using; the JBI analytical cross-sectional study checklist; the JBI systematic reviews and research syntheses checklist; the JBI case reports checklist; and the JBI cohort studies checklist. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources 5.3 Resources List: The search strategy for Medline is presented below [also noting the platform used, e.g., OVID] (which has been approved by the stakeholders) or key words for COVID-resources. Medlinesuggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:3.3 Limitations of the available evidence and quality statements: The review only found eight studies and two reviews that were relevant to the review questions. The review did not identify any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of innovations. However, these study designs often taken years to achieve results, and this was a rapid review to find current available evidence. The included evidence is recently published, with small samples (di Pietro et al., 2020), short-term follow up periods (Sagar et al., 2020) and assumptions required for modelling (Loveday et al., 2021). This may reduce the generalisability and confidence of conclusions. Quality statements: The confidence in the strength of evidence about FIT testing was rated as ‘low-moderate confidence’. Some included studies performed well against the quality criteria set by the corresponding JBI Checklist (n=5). However, there were cases where the included study methods employed were not as rigorous (n=2) or well described as the checklist required (n=3). The key limitations of included studies and reviews are summarised in this review. However, due to the rapid nature of this review no formal risk of bias was conducted. 3.4 Strengths and limitations of this Rapid Review: This rapid review was designed to answer a specific question as part of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre Work Programme. This question was developed in consultation with a stakeholder, Professor Tom Crosb...
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
