Literature DB >> 22387523

Random comparison of repeated faecal immunochemical testing at different intervals for population-based colorectal cancer screening.

Aafke H C van Roon1, S Luuk Goede, Marjolein van Ballegooijen, Anneke J van Vuuren, Caspar W N Looman, Katharina Biermann, Jacqueline C I Y Reijerink, Hans 't Mannetje, Alexandra C M van der Togt, J Dik F Habbema, Monique E van Leerdam, Ernst J Kuipers.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer screening by means of faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) requires successive screening rounds for an optimal preventive effect. However, data on the influence of the length of the screening interval on participation and diagnostic yield are lacking. Repeated FIT screening was therefore performed in a population-based trial comparing various repeat intervals.
DESIGN: 7501 Dutch individuals aged 50-74 years were randomly selected and invited for two 1-sample FIT screening rounds (haemoglobin (Hb) concentration ≥ 50 ng/ml, corresponding to 10 μg Hb/g faeces) with intervals of 1 (group I), 2 (group II) or 3 years (group III).
RESULTS: In group I, participation was 64.7% in the first screening round and 63.2% in the second. The corresponding percentages for groups II and III were 61.0% vs 62.5% and 62.0% vs 64.0%. Triennial screening resulted in a higher participation rate in the second screening round compared with annual screening (p=0.04). The overall positivity rate in the second screening round was significantly lower compared with the first round (6.0% vs 8.4%; OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82) and did not depend on interval length (p=0.23). Similarly, the overall detection rate of advanced neoplasia was significantly lower in the second round compared with the first screening round (1.9% vs 3.3%; OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76) and also did not depend on interval length (p=0.62). The positive predictive value of the FIT did not significantly change over time (41% vs 33%; p=0.07).
CONCLUSION: The total number of advanced neoplasia found at repeat FIT screening is not influenced by the interval length within a range of 1-3 years. Furthermore, there is a stable and acceptably high participation in the second screening round. This implies that screening intervals can be tailored to local resources.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22387523     DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301583

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gut        ISSN: 0017-5749            Impact factor:   23.059


  34 in total

Review 1.  FIT testing: an overview.

Authors:  Lukejohn W Day; Taft Bhuket; James Allison
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2013-11

2.  Using the Cancer Risk Management Model to evaluate colorectal cancer screening options for Canada.

Authors:  A J Coldman; N Phillips; J Brisson; W Flanagan; M Wolfson; C Nadeau; N Fitzgerald; A B Miller
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.677

3.  Optimal colorectal cancer screening in states' low-income, uninsured populations—the case of South Carolina.

Authors:  Alex van der Steen; Amy B Knudsen; Frank van Hees; Gailya P Walter; Franklin G Berger; Virginie G Daguise; Karen M Kuntz; Ann G Zauber; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 4.  Faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening: the past or the future.

Authors:  Sally C Benton; Helen E Seaman; Stephen P Halloran
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2015-02

5.  Urinary Metabolomics to Identify a Unique Biomarker Panel for Detecting Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter Study.

Authors:  Lu Deng; Kathleen Ismond; Zhengjun Liu; Jeremy Constable; Haili Wang; Olusegun I Alatise; Martin R Weiser; T P Kingham; David Chang
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2019-05-31       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  FITting ADR to colonoscopy indication.

Authors:  C Hassan; A Repici; D K Rex
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 4.623

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

8.  Cost-effectiveness of patient navigation to increase adherence with screening colonoscopy among minority individuals.

Authors:  Uri Ladabaum; Ajitha Mannalithara; Lina Jandorf; Steven H Itzkowitz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 9.  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

10.  The potential of imaging techniques as a screening tool for colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Marjolein J E Greuter; Johannes Berkhof; Remond J A Fijneman; Erhan Demirel; Jie-Bin Lew; Gerrit A Meijer; Jaap Stoker; Veerle M H Coupé
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.