OBJECTIVES: To investigate the characteristics of participants screened for bowel cancer using a faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin (FIT). SETTING: Scottish Bowel Screening Programme. METHODS: 65909 men and women in two NHS Boards, aged 50 to 74, were invited to participate in an evaluation of FIT as a first-line test. Uptake was calculated by sex, age in quintiles, and deprivation in quintiles, and compared with a group who had completed a guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) and for whom details of sex, age and deprivation were well documented. RESULTS: FIT kits from 38672 participants were tested. The overall uptake of 58.7% was significantly higher than the 53.9% for gFOBT (p < 0.0001). Uptakes in the two NHS Boards were 57.6% and 54.4% for men and 63.2% and 59.1% for women, higher than the 49.5% and 58.1% completing gFOBT. Uptake was higher for FIT than gFOBT in all age and deprivation quintiles for both men and women in both NHS Boards. The difference in uptake fell with age for men but rose for women; the increase in uptake was greater for men than women. Uptake fell as deprivation decreased for both sexes, and was similar in both NHS Boards. CONCLUSIONS: Use of FIT increases uptake over gFOBT, and the greatest increases are seen in men, younger participants, and more deprived individuals, groups for which an increase in uptake is likely to be beneficial. The results support a move to FIT as a first-line screening test for those countries still using gFOBT.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the characteristics of participants screened for bowel cancer using a faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin (FIT). SETTING: Scottish Bowel Screening Programme. METHODS: 65909 men and women in two NHS Boards, aged 50 to 74, were invited to participate in an evaluation of FIT as a first-line test. Uptake was calculated by sex, age in quintiles, and deprivation in quintiles, and compared with a group who had completed a guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) and for whom details of sex, age and deprivation were well documented. RESULTS: FIT kits from 38672 participants were tested. The overall uptake of 58.7% was significantly higher than the 53.9% for gFOBT (p < 0.0001). Uptakes in the two NHS Boards were 57.6% and 54.4% for men and 63.2% and 59.1% for women, higher than the 49.5% and 58.1% completing gFOBT. Uptake was higher for FIT than gFOBT in all age and deprivation quintiles for both men and women in both NHS Boards. The difference in uptake fell with age for men but rose for women; the increase in uptake was greater for men than women. Uptake fell as deprivation decreased for both sexes, and was similar in both NHS Boards. CONCLUSIONS: Use of FIT increases uptake over gFOBT, and the greatest increases are seen in men, younger participants, and more deprived individuals, groups for which an increase in uptake is likely to be beneficial. The results support a move to FIT as a first-line screening test for those countries still using gFOBT.
Authors: Jane Wardle; Christian von Wagner; Ines Kralj-Hans; Stephen P Halloran; Samuel G Smith; Lesley M McGregor; Gemma Vart; Rosemary Howe; Julia Snowball; Graham Handley; Richard F Logan; Sandra Rainbow; Steve Smith; Mary C Thomas; Nicholas Counsell; Steve Morris; Stephen W Duffy; Allan Hackshaw; Sue Moss; Wendy Atkin; Rosalind Raine Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Alan White; Lucy Ironmonger; Robert J C Steele; Nick Ormiston-Smith; Carina Crawford; Amanda Seims Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Louisa Flander; Evelien Dekker; Berit Andersen; Mette Bach Larsen; Robert J Steele; Nea Malila; Tytti Sarkeala; Manon van der Vlugt; Clasine de Klerk; Bart Knottnerus; Lucinda Bertels; Anke Woudstra; Manon C W Spaander; Mirjam Fransen; Sirpa Heinavaara; Mary Dillon; Driss Ait Ouakrim; Mark Jenkins Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2022 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: David M Mosen; Elizabeth G Liles; Adrianne C Feldstein; Nancy Perrin; Anna G Rosales; Erin Keast; David H Smith Journal: Eur J Cancer Prev Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Graeme P Young; Erin L Symonds; James E Allison; Stephen R Cole; Callum G Fraser; Stephen P Halloran; Ernst J Kuipers; Helen E Seaman Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Mette Bach Larsen; Ellen M Mikkelsen; Morten Rasmussen; Lennart Friis-Hansen; Anders U Ovesen; Hans Bjarke Rahr; Berit Andersen Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 4.790