| Literature DB >> 27470598 |
D Saraste1, A Martling1, P J Nilsson1, J Blom1, S Törnberg2, M Janson3.
Abstract
Objectives To compare preoperative staging, multidisciplinary team-assessment, and treatment in patients with screening detected and non-screening detected colorectal cancer. Methods Data on patient and tumour characteristics, staging, multidisciplinary team-assessment and treatment in patients with screening and non-screening detected colorectal cancer from 2008 to 2012 were collected from the Stockholm-Gotland screening register and the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. Results The screening group had a higher proportion of stage I disease (41 vs. 15%; p < 0.001), a more complete staging of primary tumour and metastases and were more frequently multidisciplinary team-assessed than the non-screening group ( p < 0.001). In both groups, patients with endoscopically resected cancers were less completely staged and multidisciplinary team-assessed than patients with surgically resected cancers ( p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed between the screening and non-screening groups in the use of neoadjuvant treatment in rectal cancer (68 vs.76%), surgical treatment with local excision techniques in stage I rectal cancer (6 vs. 9%) or adjuvant chemotherapy in stages II and III disease (46 vs. 52%). Emergency interventions for colorectal cancer occurred in 4% of screening participants vs. 11% of non-compliers. Conclusions Screening detected cancer patients were staged and multidisciplinary team assessed more extensively than patients with non-screening detected cancers. Staging and multidisciplinary team assessment prior to endoscopic resection was less complete compared with surgical resection. Extensive surgical and (neo)adjuvant treatment was given in stage I disease. Participation in screening reduced the risk of emergency surgery for colorectal cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Colorectal cancer; multidisciplinary team; screening; staging; treatment
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27470598 DOI: 10.1177/0969141316656216
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Screen ISSN: 0969-1413 Impact factor: 2.136