Luis Bujanda1, Cristina Sarasqueta, Antoni Castells, María Pellisé, Joaquín Cubiella, Inés Gil, Angel Cosme, Eunate Arana-Arri, Izaskun Mar, Isabel Idigoras, Isabel Portillo. 1. aDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital Donostia, Instituto Biodonostia, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red en Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd), Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU) bHospital Universitario Donostia, Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), San Sebastián cDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital Clínic, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red en Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd), IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona dServicio de Aparato Digestivo, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense, Ourense eHospital Universitario de Cruces, Baracaldo fPrograma de Cribado de Cáncer Colorrectal, Servicio Vasco de Salud, País Vasco, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The faecal immunochemical test is one of the tests recommended by scientific societies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk populations. Our aim was to evaluate the characteristics of CRC detected in a second round of screening after negative results in a first round. METHODS: We studied patients in whom CRC was detected in a screening programme. This programme included asymptomatic individuals between 50 and 69 years old and offered tests every 2 years. A total of 363,792 individuals were invited to participate in the first round of faecal immunochemical test screening and 100,135 individuals in the second round after a first negative result. The screening strategy consisted of faecal testing of a single sample using an automated semiquantitative kit, with a cut-off of 20 μg haemoglobin (Hb)/g faeces. RESULTS: The rate of positive results was 6.9% (16,467/238,647) in the first round and 4.8% (3359/69,193) in the second round (P < 0.0005). Overall, 860 (0.36%) cases of CRC were detected in the first round and 100 (0.14%) in the second round (P < 0.005). The location of the cancer was proximal in 12.5 and 24% of cases detected in the first and second rounds, respectively (P = 0.008). Hb concentrations were higher in the first round (211 vs. 109 μg Hb/g faeces in the second round; P = 0.002). Multivariate analysis confirmed that, in the second round, CRC diagnosed was more often proximal (hazard ratio vs. first round, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-4.4; P = 0.003) and the concentration of Hb/g faeces was lower (hazard ratio vs. first round, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.5; P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The CRC detection rate is lower in the second round of screening. Further, in the second round, CRC detected is more often in a proximal location and Hb concentrations are lower.
OBJECTIVE: The faecal immunochemical test is one of the tests recommended by scientific societies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk populations. Our aim was to evaluate the characteristics of CRC detected in a second round of screening after negative results in a first round. METHODS: We studied patients in whom CRC was detected in a screening programme. This programme included asymptomatic individuals between 50 and 69 years old and offered tests every 2 years. A total of 363,792 individuals were invited to participate in the first round of faecal immunochemical test screening and 100,135 individuals in the second round after a first negative result. The screening strategy consisted of faecal testing of a single sample using an automated semiquantitative kit, with a cut-off of 20 μg haemoglobin (Hb)/g faeces. RESULTS: The rate of positive results was 6.9% (16,467/238,647) in the first round and 4.8% (3359/69,193) in the second round (P < 0.0005). Overall, 860 (0.36%) cases of CRC were detected in the first round and 100 (0.14%) in the second round (P < 0.005). The location of the cancer was proximal in 12.5 and 24% of cases detected in the first and second rounds, respectively (P = 0.008). Hb concentrations were higher in the first round (211 vs. 109 μg Hb/g faeces in the second round; P = 0.002). Multivariate analysis confirmed that, in the second round, CRC diagnosed was more often proximal (hazard ratio vs. first round, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-4.4; P = 0.003) and the concentration of Hb/g faeces was lower (hazard ratio vs. first round, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.5; P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The CRC detection rate is lower in the second round of screening. Further, in the second round, CRC detected is more often in a proximal location and Hb concentrations are lower.
Authors: Caitlin C Murphy; Ahana Sen; Bianca Watson; Samir Gupta; Helen Mayo; Amit G Singal Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 4.254