Literature DB >> 15741571

Randomized trial of different screening strategies for colorectal cancer: patient response and detection rates.

Nereo Segnan1, Carlo Senore, Bruno Andreoni, Arrigo Arrigoni, Luigi Bisanti, Alessandro Cardelli, Guido Castiglione, Cristiano Crosta, Roberta DiPlacido, Arnaldo Ferrari, Roberto Ferraris, Franco Ferrero, Mario Fracchia, Stefano Gasperoni, Giuseppe Malfitana, Serafino Recchia, Mauro Risio, Mario Rizzetto, Giorgio Saracco, Mauro Spandre, Delio Turco, Patricia Turco, Marco Zappa.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although there is general consensus concerning the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening, there is a lack of agreement about which routine screening strategy should be adopted. We compared the participation and detection rates achievable through different strategies of colorectal cancer screening.
METHODS: From November 1999 through June 2001 we conducted a multicenter, randomized trial in Italy among a sample of 55-64 year olds in the general population who had an average risk of colorectal cancer. People with previous colorectal cancer, adenomas, inflammatory bowel disease, a recent (< or =2 years) colorectal endoscopy or fecal occult blood test (FOBT), or two first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer were excluded. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned, within the roster of their general practitioner, to 1) biennial FOBT (delivered by mail), 2) biennial FOBT (delivered by general practitioner or a screening facility), 3) patient's choice of FOBT or "once-only" sigmoidoscopy, 4) "once-only" sigmoidoscopy, or 5) sigmoidoscopy followed by biennial FOBT. An immunologic FOBT was used. Participation and detection rates of the strategies tested were compared using multivariable logistic regression models that adjusted for age, sex, and screening center. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS: Of 28 319 people sampled, 1637 were excluded and 26 682 were randomly assigned to a screening arm. After excluding undelivered letters (n = 427), the participation rates for groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were 30.1% (682/2266), 28.1% (1654/5893), 27.1% (970/3579), 28.1% (1026/3650), and 28.1% (3049/10 867), respectively. Of the 2858 subjects screened by FOBT, 122 (4.3%) had a positive test result, 10 (3.5 per 1000) had colorectal cancer, and 39 (1.4%) had an advanced adenoma. Among the 4466 subjects screened by sigmoidoscopy, 341 (7.6%) were referred for colonoscopy, 18 (4 per 1000) had colorectal cancer, and 229 (5.1%) harbored an advanced adenoma.
CONCLUSIONS: The participation rates were similar for sigmoidoscopy and FOBT. The detection rate for advanced neoplasia was three times higher following screening by sigmoidoscopy than by FOBT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15741571     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dji050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  54 in total

Review 1.  Interventions to promote colorectal cancer screening: an integrative review.

Authors:  Susan M Rawl; Usha Menon; Allison Burness; Erica S Breslau
Journal:  Nurs Outlook       Date:  2012-01-18       Impact factor: 3.250

Review 2.  Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult.

Authors:  P Hewitson; P Glasziou; L Irwig; B Towler; E Watson
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-01-24

3.  The dynamics of colorectal cancer management in 17 countries.

Authors:  Panos Kanavos; Willemien Schurer
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2010-01

4.  Acceptance of flexible sigmoidoscopy as a screening examination for colorectal cancer in an outpatient clinic.

Authors:  S Gölder; W Vogt; H Lichti; H C Rath; A Kullmann; J Schölmerich; F Kullmann
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2006-07-04       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  FIT and M2-PK: a marriage of convenience!

Authors:  Cesare Hassan; Alessandro Repici; Sameer Alawadhi; Carlo Senore
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2017-02-25       Impact factor: 3.397

6.  Flexible sigmoidoscopy for colorectal cancer screening: an evidence-based analysis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2009-09-01

Review 7.  Colorectal cancer screening--optimizing current strategies and new directions.

Authors:  Ernst J Kuipers; Thomas Rösch; Michael Bretthauer
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 8.  Recommendations on Fecal Immunochemical Testing to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia: A Consensus Statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Douglas J Robertson; Jeffrey K Lee; C Richard Boland; Jason A Dominitz; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Tonya Kaltenbach; David Lieberman; Theodore R Levin; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  Community-based preferences for stool cards versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Ann C DeBourcy; Scott Lichtenberger; Susanne Felton; Kiel T Butterfield; Dennis J Ahnen; Thomas D Denberg
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-12-21       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  L Hol; E W de Bekker-Grob; L van Dam; B Donkers; E J Kuipers; J D F Habbema; E W Steyerberg; M E van Leerdam; M L Essink-Bot
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-03-02       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.