Literature DB >> 27267903

Increased uptake and improved outcomes of bowel cancer screening with a faecal immunochemical test: results from a pilot study within the national screening programme in England.

Sue Moss1, Christopher Mathews1, T J Day2, Steve Smith3, Helen E Seaman4, Julia Snowball4, Stephen P Halloran4,5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England uses a guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBt). A quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for haemoglobin (Hb) has many advantages, including being specific for human blood, detecting Hb at a much lower concentration with a single faecal sample and improved uptake.
METHODS: In 2014, a large comparative pilot study was performed within BCSP to establish the acceptability and diagnostic performance of FIT. Over a 6-month period, 40 930 (1 in 28) subjects were sent a FIT (OC-SENSOR) instead of a gFOBt. A bespoke FIT package was used to mail FIT sampling devices to and from FIT subjects. All participants positive with either gFOBt or FIT (cut-off 20 µg Hb/g faeces) were referred for follow-up. Subgroup analysis included cut-off concentrations, age, sex, screening history and deprivation quintile.
RESULTS: While overall uptake increased by over 7 percentage points with FIT (66.4% vs 59.3%, OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.38), uptake by previous non-responders almost doubled (FIT 23.9% vs gFOBt 12.5%, OR 2.20, 95% CI 2.10 to 2.29). The increase in overall uptake was significantly higher in men than women and was observed across all deprivation quintiles. With the conventional 20 µg/g cut-off, FIT positivity was 7.8% and ranged from 5.7% in 59-64-year-old women to 11.1% in 70-75-year-old men. Cancer detection increased twofold and that for advanced adenomas nearly fivefold. Detection rates remained higher with FIT for advanced adenomas, even at 180 µg Hb/g.
CONCLUSIONS: Markedly improved participation rates were achieved in a mature gFOBt-based national screening programme and disparities between men and women were reduced. High positivity rates, particularly in men and previous non-respondents, challenge the available colonoscopy resource, but improvements in neoplasia detection are still achievable within this limited resource. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING; COLORECTAL NEOPLASIA; EPIDEMIOLOGY

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27267903     DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310691

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


  46 in total

1.  Screening for Bowel Cancer: Increasing Participation via Personal Invitation.

Authors:  Michael Hoffmeister; Bernd Holleczek; Nadine Zwink; Christian Stock; Christa Stegmaier; Hermann Brenner
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  Colorectal cancer screening: surely FIT for us too.

Authors:  Ethna McFerran; Frank Kee; Helen G Coleman
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-01-24

3.  UEG Week 2020 Poster Presentations.

Authors: 
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 4.623

4.  Learning endoscopic submucosal dissection in the UK: Barriers, solutions and pathways for training.

Authors:  Jamie A Barbour; Paul O'Toole; Noriko Suzuki; Sunil Dolwani
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-09-22

5.  Screening and diagnosis of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma by Bionic Glycome method and machine learning.

Authors:  Yiqing Pan; Lei Zhang; Rongrong Zhang; Jing Han; Wenjun Qin; Yong Gu; Jichen Sha; Xiaoyan Xu; Yi Feng; Zhipeng Ren; Jiawen Dai; Ben Huang; Shifang Ren; Jianxin Gu
Journal:  Am J Cancer Res       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 6.166

6.  Shape of Training Review: an impact assessment for UK gastroenterology trainees.

Authors:  Jennifer Clough; Michael FitzPatrick; Philip Harvey; Liam Morris
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-03-05

7.  The Costs and Benefits of Risk Stratification for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based On Phenotypic and Genetic Risk: A Health Economic Analysis.

Authors:  Chloe Thomas; Olena Mandrik; Catherine L Saunders; Deborah Thompson; Sophie Whyte; Simon Griffin; Juliet A Usher-Smith
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2021-05-26

8.  Priority stratification for colonoscopy based on two-sample faecal immunochemical test screening: results from a cross-sectional study at an endoscopy clinic in Japan.

Authors:  Osamu Toyoshima; Yutaka Yamaji; Toshihiro Nishizawa; Shuntaro Yoshida; Tomoharu Yamada; Ken Kurokawa; Miho Obata; Ryo Kondo; Masahito Toba; Kazuhiko Koike
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Faecal haemoglobin concentration thresholds for reassurance and urgent investigation for colorectal cancer based on a faecal immunochemical test in symptomatic patients in primary care.

Authors:  Craig Mowat; Jayne Digby; Judith A Strachan; Rebecca K McCann; Francis A Carey; Callum G Fraser; Robert Jc Steele
Journal:  Ann Clin Biochem       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 2.057

10.  Factors of Never Screened with Faecal Occult Blood Test in Public Primary Care Facilities.

Authors:  Mohd Fazeli Sazali; Syed Sharizman Syed Abdul Rahim; Richard Avoi; Mohd Rohaizat Hassan; Firdaus Hayati; Zahir Izuan Azhar; Mohammad Saffree Jeffree; Khamisah Awang Lukman; Naing Oo Tha; Helmy Sajali; Azman Atil; Muhammad Aklil Abd Rahim
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2021-01-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.