Jessica Chubak1, Andy Bogart, Sharon Fuller, Sharon S Laing, Beverly B Green. 1. Group Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Ave, Ste 1600, Seattle, WA 98101, USA; Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Box 357236, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. Electronic address: Chubak.j@ghc.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the uptake of three mailed high-sensitivity fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs). METHODS: We conducted a parallel 3-arm randomized controlled trial in an integrated healthcare delivery system in Washington State. From January 2010 through February 2011, automated data were used to identify potentially eligible patients aged 50-74 due for colorectal cancer screening. Participants were mailed one of three FOBT kits (1-sample OC-Auto® fecal immunochemical test [FIT], 2-sample InSure® FIT, or 3-sample guaiac Hemoccult SENSA®), instructions, and a postage-paid return envelope. We performed a modified intent-to-treat analysis with return of any FOBT within 6 months of randomization as the primary outcome. RESULTS: Of the 9922 people invited, 2873 returned surveys, 2263 were randomized, and 2234 were analyzed. FOBTs were returned by 1431 participants. At 6 months post-randomization, the proportions screened by any FOBT were 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.72) for the OC-Auto arm, 0.64 (95% CI: 0.61-0.68) for the InSure arm, and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.58-0.65) for the Hemoccult SENSA arm (P<0.001 for any difference). Pairwise comparisons showed significant differences between the OC-Auto group and each of the other groups after correction for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: Uptake of mailed FOBT kits varies by kit type.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the uptake of three mailed high-sensitivity fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs). METHODS: We conducted a parallel 3-arm randomized controlled trial in an integrated healthcare delivery system in Washington State. From January 2010 through February 2011, automated data were used to identify potentially eligible patients aged 50-74 due for colorectal cancer screening. Participants were mailed one of three FOBT kits (1-sample OC-Auto® fecal immunochemical test [FIT], 2-sample InSure® FIT, or 3-sample guaiac Hemoccult SENSA®), instructions, and a postage-paid return envelope. We performed a modified intent-to-treat analysis with return of any FOBT within 6 months of randomization as the primary outcome. RESULTS: Of the 9922 people invited, 2873 returned surveys, 2263 were randomized, and 2234 were analyzed. FOBTs were returned by 1431 participants. At 6 months post-randomization, the proportions screened by any FOBT were 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.72) for the OC-Auto arm, 0.64 (95% CI: 0.61-0.68) for the InSure arm, and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.58-0.65) for the Hemoccult SENSA arm (P<0.001 for any difference). Pairwise comparisons showed significant differences between the OC-Auto group and each of the other groups after correction for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: Uptake of mailed FOBT kits varies by kit type.
Authors: Vincent Dancourt; Catherine Lejeune; Côme Lepage; Marie Claude Gailliard; Bernard Meny; Jean Faivre Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2008-08-27 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Leo G van Rossum; Anne F van Rijn; Robert J Laheij; Martijn G van Oijen; Paul Fockens; Han H van Krieken; Andre L Verbeek; Jan B Jansen; Evelien Dekker Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-03-25 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Adam A Powell; Diana J Burgess; Sally W Vernon; Joan M Griffin; Joseph P Grill; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Melissa R Partin Journal: Prev Med Date: 2009-09-08 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Robert A Smith; Durado Brooks; Kimberly S Andrews; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; Theodore R Levin; Perry Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2008-03-05 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: L Hol; J A Wilschut; M van Ballegooijen; A J van Vuuren; H van der Valk; J C I Y Reijerink; A C M van der Togt; E J Kuipers; J D F Habbema; M E van Leerdam Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-04-07 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: G Grazzini; C B Visioli; M Zorzi; S Ciatto; F Banovich; A G Bonanomi; A Bortoli; G Castiglione; L Cazzola; M Confortini; P Mantellini; T Rubeca; M Zappa Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-01-13 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Sharon Fuller; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Michael K Dougherty; Alison T Brenner; Seth D Crockett; Shivani Gupta; Stephanie B Wheeler; Manny Coker-Schwimmer; Laura Cubillos; Teri Malo; Daniel S Reuland Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 21.873
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
Authors: Samir Gupta; Gloria D Coronado; Keith Argenbright; Alison T Brenner; Sheila F Castañeda; Jason A Dominitz; Beverly Green; Rachel B Issaka; Theodore R Levin; Daniel S Reuland; Lisa C Richardson; Douglas J Robertson; Amit G Singal; Michael Pignone Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 286.130
Authors: David A Johnson; Robert L Barclay; Klaus Mergener; Gunter Weiss; Thomas König; Jürgen Beck; Nicholas T Potter Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 3.240