Literature DB >> 17824362

Screening for colorectal cancer in Italy: 2005 survey.

Manuel Zorzi1, Alessandra Barca, Fabio Falcini, Grazia Grazzini, Renato Pizzuti, Alessandra Ravaioli, Priscilla Sassoli de Bianchi, Carlo Senore, Angelo Sigillito, Marcello Vettorazzi, Carmen Visioli.   

Abstract

We present the main results from the second survey of the Italian screening programmes for colorectal cancer carried out by the National Centre for Screening Monitoring on behalf of the Ministry of Health. During 2005, 52 programmes, adopting faecal occult blood testing (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy (FS), or a combination of both, were active in Italy. Overall, 827,473 subjects were invited to FOBT and 376,240 were screened; the adjusted attendance rate (47.1%) equals the best performances reported in the literature. Positivity rate of FOBT programmes was 5.8% at first and 4.1% at repeat screening: it increased with age and was higher among males than females in all age groups. The average attendance rate to colonoscopy (TC) was 82% (range: 56%-100%). Completion rate of TC was 91%, with higher rates among males. At first screening, the detection rate (DR) per 1000 screened subjects was 3.7 and 16.8 for invasive cancer and advanced adenomas (AA) (adenomas with a diameter > or =1 cm, with villous/tubulo-villous type or with high-grade dysplasia) respectively; the corresponding figures at repeat screening were 1.1 for cancer and 4.9 for AA. The DR of cancer and adenomas increased with age and it was higher among males, 55% of screen-detected cancers were at TNM stage I. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 7.4% for cancer and 32.9% for AA at first screening, and 4.5% for cancer and 20.5% for AA at repeat screening. Given this high PPV of positive FOBT, to obtain a high attendance at TC is crucial. The six FS programmes invited almost half of their target population (about 40,000 subjects) and 5,821 subjects were screened, with an attendance rate of 29.1%. Overall 89.0% of FS were classified as complete. TC referral rates ranged between 7.7 and 13.8%, due to different referral criteria. Among subjects referred to colonoscopy the prevalence of proximal AA and cancer ranged from 5.4 to 11.1%. The overall DR (subjects with at least one advanced lesion) ranged from 3.5 to 7.0%. In conclusion, during 2005 the organised programmes for colorectal cancer screening in Italy increased considerably, covering about one third of the eligible population at a national level. Many programmes were activated in the second part of the year, thus their results have to be evaluated with caution. However, the reported experiences showed good results in terms of attendance and DR, although some critical aspects need to be carefully addressed when planning and implementing screening activity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17824362

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Epidemiol Prev        ISSN: 1120-9763            Impact factor:   1.901


  12 in total

1.  The impact of stratifying by family history in colorectal cancer screening programs.

Authors:  Simon Lucas Goede; Linda Rabeneck; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Ann G Zauber; Lawrence F Paszat; Jeffrey S Hoch; Jean H E Yong; Frank van Hees; Jill Tinmouth; Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2015-02-20       Impact factor: 7.396

2.  Cost-effectiveness of High-performance Biomarker Tests vs Fecal Immunochemical Test for Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; S Lucas Goede; Linda J W Bosch; Veerle Melotte; Beatriz Carvalho; Manon van Engeland; Gerrit A Meijer; Harry J de Koning; Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2017-07-18       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 3.  Serum tests for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  James Creeden; Frank Junker; Sabine Vogel-Ziebolz; Douglas Rex
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 4.074

4.  Colorectal cancer screening behavior and willingness: an outpatient survey in China.

Authors:  Shang-Xin Deng; Jie Gao; Wei An; Jie Yin; Quan-Cai Cai; Hua Yang; Zhao-Shen Li
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-07-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Gastroenterology and the provision of care to Panjabi patients in the UK.

Authors:  John Francis Mayberry; Affifa Farrukh
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-04-13

6.  Feasibility study of minimal prepared hydroflush screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Menachem Moshkowitz; Ahmad Fokra; Yoseph Itzhak; Nadir Arber; Erwin Santo
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 4.623

7.  Cost-effectiveness of one versus two sample faecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  S Lucas Goede; Aafke H C van Roon; Jacqueline C I Y Reijerink; Anneke J van Vuuren; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; J Dik F Habbema; Ernst J Kuipers; Monique E van Leerdam; Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2012-04-05       Impact factor: 23.059

8.  Factors influencing colorectal cancer screening participation.

Authors:  Antonio Z Gimeno García
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2011-12-01       Impact factor: 2.260

9.  Can colorectal cancer mass-screening organization be evidence-based? Lessons from failures: the experimental and pilot phases of the Lazio program.

Authors:  Antonio Federici; Alessandra Barca; Diego Baiocchi; Francesco Quadrino; Sabrina Valle; Piero Borgia; Gabriella Guasticchi; Paolo Giorgi Rossi
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2008-09-19       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  Knowledge, attitudes, and preventive practices about colorectal cancer among adults in an area of Southern Italy.

Authors:  Alessandra Sessa; Rossella Abbate; Gabriella Di Giuseppe; Paolo Marinelli; Italo F Angelillo
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2008-06-11       Impact factor: 4.430

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.