Literature DB >> 18483338

A 9-year follow-up study of participants and nonparticipants in sigmoidoscopy screening: importance of self-selection.

Johannes Blom1, Li Yin, Annika Lidén, Anders Dolk, Bengt Jeppsson, Lars Påhlman, Lars Holmberg, Olof Nyrén.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Self-selection may compromise cost-effectiveness of screening programs. We hypothesized that nonparticipants have generally higher morbidity and mortality than participants.
METHODS: A Swedish population-based random sample of 1,986 subjects ages 59 to 61 years was invited to sigmoidoscopy screening and followed up for 9 years by means of multiple record linkages to health and population registers. Gender-adjusted cancer incidence rate ratio (IRR) and overall and disease group-specific and mortality rate ratio (MRR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated for nonparticipants relative to participants. Cancer and mortality rates were also estimated relative to the age-matched, gender-matched, and calendar period-matched Swedish population using standardized incidence ratios and standardized mortality ratios.
RESULTS: Thirty-nine percent participated. The incidence of colorectal cancer (IRR, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.8-5.9), other gastrointestinal cancer (IRR, 2.7; 95% CI, 0.6-12.8), lung cancer (IRR, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.8-5.9), and smoking-related cancer overall (IRR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.7-2.5) tended to be increased among nonparticipants relative to participants. Standardized incidence ratios for most of the studied cancers tended to be >1.0 among nonparticipants and <1.0 among participants. Mortality from all causes (MRR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7-3.4), neoplastic diseases (MRR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.5), gastrointestinal cancer (MRR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.1-20.7), and circulatory diseases (MRR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.2) was significantly higher among nonparticipants than among participants. Standardized mortality ratio for the studied outcomes tended to be increased among nonparticipants and was generally decreased among participants.
CONCLUSION: Individuals who might benefit most from screening are overrepresented among nonparticipants. This self-selection may attenuate the cost-effectiveness of screening programs on a population level.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18483338     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2764

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  8 in total

1.  Population based cancer screening programmes as a teachable moment for primary prevention interventions. A review of the literature.

Authors:  Carlo Senore; Livia Giordano; Cristina Bellisario; Francesca Di Stefano; Nereo Segnan
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2012-05-08       Impact factor: 6.244

2.  Volunteer effect and compromised randomization in the Mayo Project of screening for lung cancer.

Authors:  Lorenzo Dominioni; Albino Poli; William Mantovani; Nicola Rotolo; Andrea Imperatori
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-10-23       Impact factor: 8.082

Review 3.  Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.

Authors:  Hermann Brenner; Christian Stock; Michael Hoffmeister
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2014-04-09

Review 4.  Impact of sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: an evidence-based review of published prospective and retrospective studies.

Authors:  Otto S Lin; Richard A Kozarek; Jae Myung Cha
Journal:  Intest Res       Date:  2014-10-27

5.  Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test for Reducing Colorectal Cancer Risk: A Population-Based Case-Control Study.

Authors:  Su Young Kim; Hyun-Soo Kim; Yun Tae Kim; Jung Kuk Lee; Hong Jun Park; Hee Man Kim; Dae Ryoung Kang
Journal:  Clin Transl Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 4.396

6.  Interval cancers in a population-based screening program for colorectal cancer with gender-specific cut-off levels for fecal immunochemical test.

Authors:  Hanna Ribbing Wilén; Deborah Saraste; Johannes Blom
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 1.687

Review 7.  Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy-based screening on incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  B Joseph Elmunzer; Rodney A Hayward; Philip S Schoenfeld; Sameer D Saini; Amar Deshpande; Akbar K Waljee
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2012-12-04       Impact factor: 11.069

8.  The IARC Perspective on Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Béatrice Lauby-Secretan; Nadia Vilahur; Franca Bianchini; Neela Guha; Kurt Straif
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 176.079

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.