Literature DB >> 22560885

Population-based screening for colorectal cancer using an immunochemical faecal occult blood test: a comparison of two invitation strategies.

Sofie Van Roosbroeck1, Sarah Hoeck, Guido Van Hal.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To date, there is no screening programme for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Flanders, Belgium. However, The European Code Against Cancer (2003) recommends a population-based approach for CRC screening. This study aimed to obtain information about potential participation rates for a population-based screening programme for CRC in Flanders, and to compare two invitation strategies.
METHODS: In 2009, a trial programme for CRC screening was set up in three Flemish areas for all average-risk people aged 50-74 years, using an immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) with a cut-off value set at 75 ng/ml of haemoglobin. The faecal sampling set was sent at random by post (mail group) or provided by the general practitioner (GP group).
RESULTS: In total, 19,542 people were invited to participate. Of these, 8229 provided a faecal sample, resulting in an overall participation rate of 42.1%. Participation by mail and through the GP was 52.3% (95% CI, 51.3-53.2) and 27.7% (95% CI, 26.7-28.6), respectively. The difference of 24.6% was statistically significant (95% CI, 23.3-25.9, p<0.001). Before the reminder letter was sent and the other invitation strategy was offered, the overall participation rate was 26.5% (n=5176); 36.4% (95% CI, 35.5-37.4) for the mail group and 16.6% (95% CI, 15.8-17.3) for the GP group. The odds of participating in CRC screening was almost three times higher for people invited by mail as opposed to people invited through a GP (OR=2.96, 95% CI, 2.78-3.14, p<0.001). Women were more likely to participate in CRC screening than men (OR=1.22, 95% CI, 1.15-1.30, p<0.001). In addition, we found that inhabitants from residential (OR=1.98, 95% CI, 1.85-2.11) and rural (OR=2.90, 95% CI, 2.66-3.16) areas were more likely to participate than those in urban areas. Of the 8229 people who submitted a faecal sample, 435 (5.3%) had a positive iFOBT, and of those, CRC was diagnosed in 18 (5.7%) individuals. Compliance for follow-up colonoscopy was 72.9%, and did not differ between the mail (72.4%, 95% CI, 67.5-77.3) and GP groups (74.3, 95% CI, 66.2-82.5).
CONCLUSION: Inviting people for CRC screening by means of a direct-mail invitation, and including a faecal sampling set (iFOBT), results in much higher participation rates than inviting people through the GP.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22560885     DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2012.04.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol        ISSN: 1877-7821            Impact factor:   2.984


  18 in total

1.  Uptake and positive predictive value of fecal occult blood tests: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jessica Chubak; Andy Bogart; Sharon Fuller; Sharon S Laing; Beverly B Green
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2013-09-09       Impact factor: 4.018

Review 2.  CT colonography: role in FOBT-based screening programs for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Lapo Sali; Grazia Grazzini; Mario Mascalchi
Journal:  Clin J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-04-26

3.  Editorial: Social Inequality in Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Guido Van Hal; Hajo Zeeb; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-04-28

4.  Results of National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Croatia (2007-2011).

Authors:  Miroslava Katičić; Nataša Antoljak; Milan Kujundžić; Valerija Stamenić; Dunja Skoko Poljak; Danica Kramarić; Davor Stimac; Marija Strnad Pešikan; Mirko Samija; Zdravko Ebling
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Effectiveness of reminder strategies on cancer screening adherence: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Martin Cs Wong; Jessica Yl Ching; Junjie Huang; John Ct Wong; Thomas Yt Lam; Victor Cw Chan; Simpson Kc Ng; Zero Hui; Arthur Kc Luk; Justin Cy Wu; Francis Kl Chan
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2018-08-13       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 6.  Interventions to Improve Follow-up of Positive Results on Fecal Blood Tests: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Kevin Selby; Christine Baumgartner; Theodore R Levin; Chyke A Doubeni; Ann G Zauber; Joanne Schottinger; Christopher D Jensen; Jeffrey K Lee; Douglas A Corley
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2017-10-10       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Comparative benefit and cost-effectiveness of mailed-out faecal immunochemical tests vs collection at the general practitioner.

Authors:  Elisabeth F P Peterse; Caroline B Osoro; Marc Bardou; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2021-03-08       Impact factor: 8.171

8.  Improving uptake of screening for colorectal cancer: a study on invitation strategies and different test kit use.

Authors:  Daiga Santare; Ilona Kojalo; Teppo Huttunen; Sergejs Rikacovs; Peteris Rucevskis; Viesturs Boka; Marcis Leja
Journal:  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 2.566

Review 9.  Population-based colorectal cancer screening: comparison of two fecal occult blood test.

Authors:  Miren B Zubero; Eunate Arana-Arri; José I Pijoan; Isabel Portillo; Isabel Idigoras; Antonio López-Urrutia; Ana Samper; Begoña Uranga; Carmen Rodríguez; Luis Bujanda
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 5.810

Review 10.  Effectiveness and safety of monoclonal antibodies for metastatic colorectal cancer treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Bruno Rosa; Jose Paulo de Jesus; Eduardo L de Mello; Daniel Cesar; Mauro M Correia
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2015-10-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.