BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials of sufficient power testing the long-term effect of screening for colorectal neoplasia only exist for faecal occult blood testing (FOBT). There is indirect evidence that flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) may have a greater yield. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic yield of screening with FS or a combination of FS and FOBT in an average-risk population in an urban and combined urban and rural population in Norway. METHODS:20,780 men and women (1:1), aged 50-64 years, were invited for once-only screening (FS only or a combination of FS and FOBT (1:1)) by randomization from the population registry. A positive FS was defined as a finding of any neoplasia or any polyp > or = 10 mm. A positive FS or FOBT qualified for colonoscopy. RESULTS:Overall attendance was 65%. Forty-one (0.3%) cases of CRC were detected. Any adenoma was found in 2208 (17%) participants and 545 (4.2%) had high-risk adenomas. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between the FS and the FS and FOBT group regarding CRC or high-risk adenoma. Work-up load comprised 2821 colonoscopies in 2524 (20%) screenees and 10% of screenees were recommended later colonoscopy surveillance. There were no severe complications at FS, but six perforations after therapeutic colonoscopy (1:336). CONCLUSIONS: The present study bodes well for future management of a national screening programme, provided that follow-up results reflect adequate proof of a net benefit. It is highly questionable whether the addition of once-only FOBT to FS will contribute to this effect.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials of sufficient power testing the long-term effect of screening for colorectal neoplasia only exist for faecal occult blood testing (FOBT). There is indirect evidence that flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) may have a greater yield. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic yield of screening with FS or a combination of FS and FOBT in an average-risk population in an urban and combined urban and rural population in Norway. METHODS: 20,780 men and women (1:1), aged 50-64 years, were invited for once-only screening (FS only or a combination of FS and FOBT (1:1)) by randomization from the population registry. A positive FS was defined as a finding of any neoplasia or any polyp > or = 10 mm. A positive FS or FOBT qualified for colonoscopy. RESULTS: Overall attendance was 65%. Forty-one (0.3%) cases of CRC were detected. Any adenoma was found in 2208 (17%) participants and 545 (4.2%) had high-risk adenomas. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between the FS and the FS and FOBT group regarding CRC or high-risk adenoma. Work-up load comprised 2821 colonoscopies in 2524 (20%) screenees and 10% of screenees were recommended later colonoscopy surveillance. There were no severe complications at FS, but six perforations after therapeutic colonoscopy (1:336). CONCLUSIONS: The present study bodes well for future management of a national screening programme, provided that follow-up results reflect adequate proof of a net benefit. It is highly questionable whether the addition of once-only FOBT to FS will contribute to this effect.
Authors: Frank van Hees; Ann G Zauber; Harriët van Veldhuizen; Marie-Louise A Heijnen; Corine Penning; Harry J de Koning; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar Journal: Gut Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Inés Castro; Pamela Estevez; Joaquín Cubiella; Vicent Hernandez; Carmen González-Mao; Concepción Rivera; Felipe Iglesias; Lucía Cid; Santiago Soto; Luisa de-Castro; Pablo Vega; Jose Antonio Hermo; Ramiro Macenlle; Alfonso Martínez; Estela Cid; Inés Gil; Mikel Larzabal; Luis Bujanda; Antoni Castells Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Chyke Doubeni; Paul F Pinsky; V Paul Doria-Rose; Andrew K Sanderson; Robert Bresalier; Joel Weissfeld; Robert E Schoen; Pamela M Marcus; Philip C Prorok; Christine D Berg Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2011-11-22 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Øyvind Holme; Magnus Løberg; Mette Kalager; Michael Bretthauer; Miguel A Hernán; Eline Aas; Tor J Eide; Eva Skovlund; Jørn Schneede; Kjell Magne Tveit; Geir Hoff Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hanne Skovbjerg; Dorit Anthonsen; Inger M B Lothe; Kjell M Tveit; Elin H Kure; Lotte K Vogel Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2009-05-07 Impact factor: 4.430