Literature DB >> 28839624

Bowel cancer screening is safe, detects earlier stage cancer and adenomas in 50% of cases: experience of the prevalent round of screening from two first wave centres in the North East of England.

P T Rajasekhar1,2, G M Clifford1, T J W Lee2,3, M D Rutter2,3, G Waddup3, M Ritchie1, D Nylander1,2, J Painter1,2, J Singh1,2, I Ward4, N Dempsey1, J Bowes1, G Handley4, J Henry1, C J Rees1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) began roll-out in 2006 aiming to reduce cancer mortality through detection at an earlier stage. We report results from the prevalent round of screening at two first wave centres and compare with the UK pilot study.
DESIGN: This is a service evaluation study. Data were collected prospectively for all individuals undergoing faecal occult blood testing (FOBt) and colonoscopy including: uptake and outcomes of FOBt, colonoscopic performance, findings, histological data and complications. Continuous data were compared using a two-tailed test of two proportions.
SETTING: The South of Tyne and Tees Bowel Cancer Screening centres. PATIENTS: Participants of the BCSP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 1) Colonoscopy Quality Assurance and 2) Cancer stage shift.
RESULTS: 195,772 individuals were invited to participate. Uptake was 54% and FOBt positivity 1.7%. 1524 underwent colonoscopy with caecal intubation in 1485 (97%). 180 (12%) cancers were detected. Dukes stages were: 76 (42%) A; 47 (26%) B; 47 (26%) C; 8 (4%) D and 2 (1%) unknown. This demonstrates a significantly earlier stage at diagnosis compared with data from 2867 non-screening detected cancers (p<0.001). Adenomas were detected in 758 (50%). One perforation occurred (0.07%) and two intermediate bleeds requiring transfusion only (0.12%). Both caecal intubation and adenoma detection were significantly higher than in the UK pilot study (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalent round of screening demonstrates a high adenoma and cancer detection rate and significantly earlier stage at diagnosis. Complications were few providing reassurance regarding safety. Efforts are required to improve uptake.

Entities:  

Year:  2011        PMID: 28839624      PMCID: PMC5517241          DOI: 10.1136/flgastro-2011-100004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol        ISSN: 2041-4137


  13 in total

1.  Surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomatous polyps.

Authors:  W S Atkin; B P Saunders
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop.

Authors:  Peter B Cotton; Glenn M Eisen; Lars Aabakken; Todd H Baron; Matt M Hutter; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Albert Nemcek; Bret T Petersen; John L Petrini; Irving M Pike; Linda Rabeneck; Joseph Romagnuolo; John J Vargo
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Deprivation and the development of obesity a multilevel, longitudinal study in England.

Authors:  Mai Stafford; Eric J Brunner; Jenny Head; Nancy A Ross
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 5.043

4.  Procedural success and complications of large-scale screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas B Nelson; Kenneth R McQuaid; John H Bond; David A Lieberman; David G Weiss; Tiina K Johnston
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  J D Hardcastle; J O Chamberlain; M H Robinson; S M Moss; S S Amar; T W Balfour; P D James; C M Mangham
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-11-30       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Socioeconomic status and smoking: analysing inequalities with multiple indicators.

Authors:  Mikko Laaksonen; Ossi Rahkonen; Sakari Karvonen; Eero Lahelma
Journal:  Eur J Public Health       Date:  2005-03-08       Impact factor: 3.367

Review 7.  Hemorrhage following colonoscopic polypectomy.

Authors:  L Rosen; D S Bub; J F Reed; S A Nastasee
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 4.585

8.  Results of the first round of a demonstration pilot of screening for colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom.

Authors: 
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-07-05

9.  Bleeding and perforation after outpatient colonoscopy and their risk factors in usual clinical practice.

Authors:  Linda Rabeneck; Lawrence F Paszat; Robert J Hilsden; Refik Saskin; Des Leddin; Eva Grunfeld; Elaine Wai; Meredith Goldwasser; Rinku Sutradhar; Therese A Stukel
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2008-09-13       Impact factor: 22.682

10.  Colonoscopic perforations: a retrospective review.

Authors:  Corey W Iqbal; Yun Shin Chun; David R Farley
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.267

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Program: current perspectives on strategies for improvement.

Authors:  Sara Koo; Laura Jane Neilson; Christian Von Wagner; Colin John Rees
Journal:  Risk Manag Healthc Policy       Date:  2017-12-04
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.