Literature DB >> 1987842

A critical analysis of the largest reported mass fecal occult blood screening program in the United States.

J B Morris1, T A Stellato, B B Guy, N H Gordon, N A Berger.   

Abstract

Fecal occult blood testing for the detection of colon cancer remains controversial. We performed a mass screening program from January 24, 1988, to February 19, 1988, with intensive media promotion, including 121 minutes of televised air time. A total of 5,000 primary practitioners were notified by mail. Hemoccult-II tests were distributed to 156,000 individuals; 55,051 (35%) were returned. Ninety-five percent of the respondents were informed of the program by television. A total of 3,375 persons (6%) tested positive for fecal occult blood; of these, 2,469 (73%) informed the center that they saw their physician to initiate a work-up. Information from physicians regarding work-ups was returned on only 1,356 (55%) patients. Diagnostic tests numbered 2,227 (1.6 tests per patient). However, 5% had no testing, 16% had a repeat Hemoccult only, and 35% had neither a barium enema nor colonoscopy performed. Thirty-six colorectal cancers and 212 polyps were identified. The predictive value (i.e., number of cancers per number of patients who tested positive) increased directly by decade. Thirty-three of 36 patients (92%) with cancer underwent either a barium enema or colonoscopy versus only 185 of 438 (42%) patients with a "negative" work-up. Cancers found were carcinoma in situ in 10 patients (29%), Dukes A in 12 (35%), Dukes B in 4 (12%), and Dukes C in 8 (24%); distant metastases were not found in any participant. Thirty-six percent of the tumors were located in either the right or transverse colon. We conclude that: (1) Screening identified early cancers. All were potentially curable and 64% were limited to the bowel wall. (2) Massive Hemoccult distribution was possible over a short interval, but patient and physician compliance was disturbingly low. (3) Total colonic evaluation is mandatory, since at least 36% of tumors were beyond the reach of the flexible sigmoidoscope. (4) Many work-ups were unnecessary (repeat Hemoccults) or inadequate, indicating a need for physician education.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1987842     DOI: 10.1016/0002-9610(91)90368-n

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg        ISSN: 0002-9610            Impact factor:   2.565


  12 in total

1.  Protective effect of faecal occult blood test screening for colorectal cancer: worse prognosis for screening refusers.

Authors:  Y Niv; M Lev-El; G Fraser; G Abuksis; A Tamir
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 2.  Antagonist: population based endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  D A L Macafee; J H Scholefield
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  Effectiveness of complete diagnostic examination in clinical practice settings.

Authors:  Masahito Jimbo; Birgit Meyer; Terry Hyslop; James Cocroft; Barbara J Turner; David S Weinberg; Ronald E Myers
Journal:  Cancer Detect Prev       Date:  2006-11-17

4.  Long-term outcomes following positive fecal occult blood test results in older adults: benefits and burdens.

Authors:  Christine E Kistler; Katharine A Kirby; Delia Lee; Michele A Casadei; Louise C Walter
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2011-05-09

5.  Faecal calprotectin and faecal occult blood tests in the diagnosis of colorectal carcinoma and adenoma.

Authors:  J Tibble; G Sigthorsson; R Foster; R Sherwood; M Fagerhol; I Bjarnason
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  Using a multifaceted approach to improve the follow-up of positive fecal occult blood test results.

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Himabindu Kadiyala; Gayathri Bhagwath; Anila Shethia; Hashem El-Serag; Annette Walder; Maria E Velez; Laura A Petersen
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Reasons patients with a positive fecal occult blood test result do not undergo complete diagnostic evaluation.

Authors:  Masahito Jimbo; Ronald E Myers; Birgit Meyer; Terry Hyslop; James Cocroft; Barbara J Turner; David S Weinberg
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2009 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.166

8.  Costs and outcomes evaluation of patient navigation after abnormal cancer screening: evidence from the Patient Navigation Research Program.

Authors:  Mark E Bensink; Scott D Ramsey; Tracy Battaglia; Kevin Fiscella; Thelma C Hurd; June M McKoy; Steven R Patierno; Peter C Raich; Eric E Seiber; Victoria Warren-Mears; Elizabeth Whitley; Electra D Paskett; S Mandelblatt
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-10-25       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Improvement in the diagnostic evaluation of a positive fecal occult blood test in an integrated health care organization.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Carolyn M Rutter; Susan Carol Bradford; Ann G Zauber; Larry G Kessler; Eric J Feuer; David C Grossman
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Improving follow-up of abnormal cancer screens using electronic health records: trust but verify test result communication.

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Lindsey Wilson; Laura A Petersen; Mona K Sawhney; Brian Reis; Donna Espadas; Dean F Sittig
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2009-12-09       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.