| Literature DB >> 29250323 |
Ahmad Zia Shams1,2, Ulrike Haug2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal cancers account for one third of total cancer incidence and mortality in developing countries. To date, there is no systematic synthesis of evidence regarding strategies to prevent gastrointestinal cancers in developing countries. We aimed to provide a systematic overview of studies evaluating strategies for prevention or early detection of the three most common gastrointestinal cancers (gastric, liver and colorectal cancer) in developing countries.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29250323 PMCID: PMC5718709 DOI: 10.7189/jogh.07.020405
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Glob Health ISSN: 2047-2978 Impact factor: 4.413
Figure 1Flow diagram of the literature search process.
Studies investigating strategies for prevention of gastric cancer
| Author(s), year | Preventive measure/screening tool | Country (region) | Study design | Study population | Outcome(s) under study | Results | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blot et al., 1993 [ | Daily supplementation of: Factor A (retinol + zinc); Factor B (riboflavin + niacin); Factor C (vitamin C+molybdenum); Factor D (beta–carotene + vitamin E+selenium); Duration of supplementation: 5.25 y | China (Linxian) | Randomized trial with 24 factorial design | Sample size: n = 29 584; Sex distribution: 45% male; Age: range: 40–69 y | RR regarding reduction of gastric cancer incidence and mortality determined at the end of the intervention period; OR regarding reduction of prevalence of gastric dysplasia and cancer determined by endoscopic evaluation at the end of the intervention period; HR regarding reduction of gastric cancer mortality determined at 15 y follow–up | ||
| Factor A: 0.96 (95% CI 0.81–1.14) | Factor A: 1.03 (95% CI 0.83–1.28) | ||||||
| Factor B: 1.04 (95% CI 0.88–1.23) | Factor B: 1.00 (95% CI 0.81–1.24) | ||||||
| Factor C: 1.10 (95% CI 0.92–1.30) | Factor C: 1.09 (95% CI 0.88–1.36) | ||||||
| Factor D: 0.84 (95% CI 0.71–1.00) | Factor D: 0.79 (95% CI 0.64–0.99) | ||||||
| Factor A: 0.58 (95% CI 0.24–1.39) | Factor A: 0.38 (95% CI 0.13–1.15) | ||||||
| Factor B: 1.32 (95% CI 0.56–3.14) | Factor B: 1.67 (95% CI 0.58–4.76) | ||||||
| Factor C: 2.64 (95% CI 1.01–6.93) | Factor C: 2.75 (95% CI 0.86–8.84) | ||||||
| Factor D: 0.83 (95% CI 0.35–2.01) | Factor D: 1.05 (95% CI 0.37–2.92) | ||||||
| Factor A: 0.97 (95% CI 0.87–1.09) | |||||||
| Factor B: 0.90 (95% CI 0.88–1.10) | |||||||
| Factor C: 1.05 (95% CI 0.94–1.18) | |||||||
| Factor D: 0.89 (95% CI 0.79–1.00) | |||||||
| Li et al.,
1993 [ | Daily supplementation of: 14 vitamins and 12 minerals; Duration of supplementation: 6 y | China (Linxian) | Randomized two–armed placebo–controlled trial | Sample size: n = 3318 (adults with cytologically detected oesophageal dysplasia); Sex distribution: 44% male; Age: median: 54 y | RR regarding reduction of gastric cancer incidence and mortality; OR regarding reduction in the prevalence of gastric dysplasia and cancer determined by endoscopic evaluation at 2.5 and 6 y follow–up; HR regarding reduction of gastric cancer mortality determined at 26 y follow–up | ||
| 1.17 (95% CI 0.87–1.58) | 1.18 (95% CI 0.76–1.85) | ||||||
| Dysplasia or cancer: | Dysplasia or cancer: | ||||||
| OR: 2.49 (95% CI 0.94–6.58) | OR: 0.77 (95% CI 0.41–1.47) | ||||||
| Gastric cancer: | Gastric cancer: | ||||||
| OR: 1.91 (95% CI 0.64–5.68). | OR: 0.77 (95% CI 0.38–1.58) | ||||||
| 0.91 (95% CI 0.73–1.13) | |||||||
| Li et al.,
2004 [ | Supplementation of: allitridum (daily) and selenium (every other day); Duration of supplementation: 2 months supplementation in 2 y | China (Shandong) | Randomized two–armed placebo– controlled trial | Sample size: n = 5033; Sex distribution: 65% male; Age: range: 35–74 y | RR regarding gastric cancer determined at 5 y follow–up | RR: 0.48 (95% CI 0.21–1.06)
Subgroup analysis restricted to males:
RR: 0.36 (95% CI 0.14–0.92) | |
| Plummer et al., 2007 [ | Daily supplementation of: vitamin C, vitamin E and beta carotene; Duration of supplementation:3 y | Venezuela (Tashira) | Randomized two–armed placebo–controlled trial | Sample size: n = 1980; Sex distribution: 47% male; Age: range: 35–69 y | RR regarding regression of precancerous lesions | RR:1.02 (95% CI 0.90–1.33) | |
| Correa et al., 2000 [ | Anti– | Colombia (Narino) | Randomized placebo– controlled trial with 23 factorial design | Sample size: n = 852 (individuals with precancerous lesions – multi–focal atrophy and/or intestinal metaplasia); Sex distribution: 46% male; Age: mean: 51 y | RR regarding regression of precancerous lesions at 7 y follow–up | ||
| Anti– | |||||||
| RR: 4.80 (95% CI 1.60–14.20) | |||||||
| Beta–carotene: | |||||||
| RR: 5.1 (95% CI 1.70–15.00) | |||||||
| Ascorbic acid: | |||||||
| RR: 5.00 (95%CI 1.70–14.40) | |||||||
| Anti– | |||||||
| RR: 3.10 (95% CI 1.00–9.30) | |||||||
| Beta–carotene: | |||||||
| RR: 3.40 (95% CI 1.10–9.80) | |||||||
| Ascorbic acid: | |||||||
| RR: 3.30 (95% CI 1.10–9.50) | |||||||
| Sung et al., 2000 [ | Anti– | China (Yanati) | Randomized two–armed placebo–controlled trial | Sample size: n = 587 ( | Changes in histologic grading: determined at 1 y follow–up; determined at 10 y follow–up | ||
| RR: 0.88 (95% CI 0.79–0.97) in antrum | |||||||
| RR: 0.62 (95% CI 0.49–0.77) in corpus | |||||||
| RR: 0.85 (95% CI 0.78–0.92) in antrum | |||||||
| RR: 0.87 (95% CI 0.74–1.02) in corpus | |||||||
| RR: 1.33 (95% CI 0.85–2.07) in antrum | |||||||
| RR: 1.01 (95% CI 0.38–2.68) in corpus | |||||||
| Guo et al., 2003 [ | Health education: both intervention and control group; Treatment of high risk subjects (with precancerous lesions): antibiotics, Chinese herb medicine and nutritional therapy (only intervention group) | China (Zhuanghe) | Cluster–randomized two–armed controlled intervention study | Sample size: n = 100 966 (of which n = 1781 were identified as high risk subjects); Sex distribution: 51% male (intervention group), 50% male (control group); Age: >35 y | RR regarding gastric cancer mortality at 3 y follow–up | RR: 0.50 (95% CI 0.34–0.73) | |
| Zhou et al., 2003 [ | Anti– | China (Shandong) | Randomized two–armed placebo– controlled trial | Sample size: n = 552 ( | Proportion of subjects in whom severity of precancerous lesions has improved/not changed since baseline in | Only for intestinal metaplasia in antrum the proportion of subjects in whom lesion severity has improved/not changed was higher in | |
| Wong et al., 2004 [ | Anti– | China (Fujian) | Randomized two–armed placebo–controlled trial | Sample size: n = 1630 (healthy carriers of | HR regarding gastric cancer incidence at 7.5 y follow–up; Subgroup analysis restricted to subjects without precancerous lesions | HR: 0.63 (95% CI 0.24–1.62)
n = 0 in treatment group vs n = 6 in control group ( | |
| Ley et al., 2004 [ | Anti– | Mexico (Chiapas) | Randomized two–armed placebo–controlled trial | Sample size: n = 248 (healthy carriers of | |||
| You et al., 2006 [ | Anti– | China (Shandong) | Randomized placebo–controlled trial with 23 and 22 factorial design | Sample size: n = 3365; | OR regarding reduction in the prevalence of advanced precancerous lesions determined at 3.5 and 7.5 y follow–up; OR regarding gastric cancer incidence and HR regarding gastric cancer mortality determined at 15 y follow–up; Subgroup analysis in subjects ≥55 y (results refer to anti– | ||
| Anti– | |||||||
| 3.5 y: OR: 0.77 (95% CI 0.62–0.95) | |||||||
| 7.5 y: OR = 0.60 (95% CI 0.47–0.75) | |||||||
| Garlic: | |||||||
| 3.5 y: OR = 0.9 (95% CI 0.84–1.18) | |||||||
| 7.5 y: OR = 1.08 (95% CI 0.90–1.29) | |||||||
| Vitamins/minerals: | |||||||
| 3.5 y: OR = 1.32 (95% CI 1.12–1.57) | |||||||
| 7.5 y: OR = 1.14 (95% CI 0.96–1.37) | |||||||
| Anti– | |||||||
| OR: 0.61 (95% CI 0.38–0.96) / HR: 0.67 (95% CI 0.36–1.28) | |||||||
| Garlic: | |||||||
| OR: 0.80 (95% CI 0.53–1.20) / HR: 0.65 (95% CI 0.35–1.20) | |||||||
| Vitamins/minerals | |||||||
| OR: 0.81 (95% CI 0.54–1.22) / HR: 0.55 (95% CI 0.29–1.03) | |||||||
| OR: 0.36 (95% CI 0.17–0.79) / HR: 0.26 (95% CI 0.09–0.79) | |||||||
| OR: 0.56 (95% CI 0.34–0.91) | |||||||
| Ji et al.,
2006 [ | Anti– | China (Zhejiang) | Randomized two–armed placebo– controlled trial | Sample size: n = 48 (with hyperplastic gastric polyps and | Treatment arm: 86% (95% CI 63%–99%);
Control arm: 0% (95% CI 0%–21%)
Treatment arm: 68% (95% CI 54%–91%);
Control arm: 0% (95% CI 0%–21%) | ||
| Sari et al., 2008 [ | Anti– | Turkey | Randomized two–armed intervention study | Sample size: Group 1: n = 70 ( | Rate of | Group 1: 7%; Group 2: 39%; OR: 8.61 (95% CI 2.91–22.84) | |
| Wong et al., 2012 [ | Anti– | China (Linqu) | Randomized placebo–controlled trial with 22 factorial design | Sample size: n = 1024 ( | OR regarding regression of advanced PLs determined at 2 y follow–up | ||
| Massarrat et al.,
2012 [ | Anti– | Iran (Tehran) | Randomized two–armed placebo– controlled trial | Sample size: n = 521 ( | Proportion of subjects in whom severity of PLs changed by at least one score in the treatment group vs the control group determined at 2.5 and 4.5 y follow–up | ||
| 2.5 y: 62% vs 31% ( | |||||||
| 4.5 y: 50% vs 30% ( | |||||||
| 2.5 y: 36% vs 13% ( | |||||||
| 4.5 y: 43% vs 21% ( | |||||||
| 2.5 y: 35% vs 28% ( | |||||||
| 4.5 y: 38% vs 21% ( | |||||||
| 2.5 y: 9% vs 10% ( | |||||||
| 4.5 y: 20% vs 29% ( | |||||||
| Pan et al., 2016 [ | Anti– | China (Linqu) | Cluster–randomized two–armed placebo–controlled trial | Sample size: group 1: n = 44 345; group 2: n = 43 930 (all | Group 1: 73%; Group 2: 15% | ||
| Qin et al., 1988 [ | Occult blood bead detector; positive results followed up by gastroscopy | China (Henan & Jiangsu) | Cross–sectional diagnostic study | Sample size: n = 38 073; Sex distribution: 42% male; Age: range: 35–70 y | Positivity rate; Gastric cancer detection rate; Proportion of gastric cancers detected at an early stage | 24% (9204/38 073);
0.2% regarding the whole study population (85/38 073);
2% regarding those who underwent gastroscopy (85/4023);
45% (57/126) | |
| Qin et al., 1997 [ | Occult blood bead detector; positive results followed up by gastroscopy | China (Henan) | Cross–sectional diagnostic study | Sample size: n = 4970; Sex distribution: n.r.; Age: range: 30–70 y | Positivity rate; Gastric cancer detection rate; Proportion of gastric cancers detected at an early stage | 7% (372/4,970);
0.2% regarding the whole study population (11/4,970);
1% regarding those who underwent gastroscopy (11/817);
84% (9/11) | |
| Pisani et al., 1994 [ | Photofluorography | Venezuela (Tashira) | Case–control study | Sample size:n = 241 (cases), n = 2410 (controls); Sex distribution: n.r.; Age: ≥35 y | OR regarding reduction in gastric cancer mortality | OR: 1.26 (95% CI 0.83–1.91) | |
| Rosero–Bixby et al., 2007 [ | X–ray | Costa Rica (Cartago and Perez Zeledon) | Non–randomized community–controlled study (measures before and after intervention) | Sample size: n = 6828; Sex distribution: 64% male; Age: mean: 64 y | Gastric cancer death rate at 2–7 y follow–up in the intervention group vs four control groups | Reduction in death rate by 48–59% ( | |
| Zhang et al., 2002 [ | Direct gastroscopy | China | Cross–sectional diagnostic study | Sample size: n = 3048; Sex distribution: 95% male; Age: range 60–93 y, mean: 70 y | Gastric cancer detection rate; Proportion of gastric cancers detected at an early stage | 3% (92/3048);
63% (58/92) | |
| Lu et al., 2014 [ | Direct gastroscopy | China (Henan) | Cross–sectional diagnostic study | Sample size: n = 36 154; Sex distribution: 59% male; Age: range 40–69 y | Gastric cancer detection rate; Proportion of gastric cancers detected at an early stage | 0.84% (307/36154);
79% (243/307) | |
| Zheng et al., 2015 [ | Direct gastroscopy | China (Yangzhong) | Cross–sectional diagnostic study | Sample size: n = 12 453; Sex distribution: 43% male; Age: range: 40–69 y | Gastric cancer detection rate (mucosal and submucosal carcinoma and high–grade intraepithelial neoplasia) Proportion of gastric cancers detected at an early stage | 0.48% (60/12 453); excluding high–grade intraepithelial neoplasia: 0.37% (47/12 453);
100% (60/60) | |
| Chen et al., 2016 [ | Direct gastroscopy | China (Linzhou) | Case–control study | Sample size: cases: n = 313 (individuals who died of gastric cancer), controls: n = 1876; Sex distribution: 69% male; Age: range: 40–69 y | OR regarding reduction in gastric cancer mortality | OR: 0.72 (95% CI 0.54–0.97) | |
HR – hazard ratio, n – number, n.r. – not reported, OR – odds ratio, PLs – precancerous lesions, RR – relative risk, y – year
Studies investigating strategies for prevention of liver cancer
| Author(s), year | Preventive measure/screening tool | Country (region) | Study design | Study population | Outcome(s) under study | Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maupas et al., 1981 [ | HBV immunization with: 10 µg HBVD; Vaccination regimen: 3 times at one month intervals | Senegal (Niakhar) | Cluster–randomized controlled trial | Sample size: n = 602; Sex distribution: 49% male; Age: range: 0–2 y | Reduction in incidence of HBsAg carrier state in susceptible children (seronegative and anti–HBc alone) at 1 y follow–up | 85% ( | ||
| Sun et al., 1986 [ | HBV immunization with: 5 µg HBVD+HBIG; 5 µg HBVD; 2.5 µg HBVD+HBIG; 2.5 µg HBVD. Vaccination regimen: 3 times at 0, 1 and 6 months after birth | China (Qidong) | Cluster–randomized controlled trial | Sample size: n = 1703; Sex distribution: 50% male; Age: new–born infants | Reduction in incidence of HBsAg carrier state: determined at 1 y and 5 y follow–up | |||
| 5 µg HBVD+HBIG: 85% | 5 µg HBVD+HBIG: 86% | |||||||
| 5 µg HBVD: 83% | 5 µg HBVD: 80% | |||||||
| 2.5 µg HBVD+HBIG:65% | 2.5 µg HBVD+HBIG: 62% | |||||||
| 2.5 µg HBVD: 85% | 2.5 µg HBVD: 75% | |||||||
| HBV immunization with: 5µg HBVD; Vaccination regimen: 3 times at 0, 1 and 6 months after birth; booster dose after 10 to 14 y | China (Qidong) | Cluster–randomized controlled trial | Sample size: n = 73 733; Sex distribution: 51% male; Age: new–born infants | Reduction in incidence of HBsAg carrier state: determined at 18 y follow–up;
determined at 30 y follow–up.
HR regarding liver cancer incidence rate at 30 y follow–up | 78% (95% CI 75–80%) | |||
| 72% (95% CI 68–75%) | ||||||||
| HR: 0.16 (95% CI 0.03–0.77) | ||||||||
| Chotard et al., 1992 [ | HBV immunization with: 10 µg HBVD; Vaccination regimen: 4 times at 0, 1, 4 and 9 months after birth | Gambia | Cohort study among vaccinated children combined with a cross–sectional survey among unvaccinated children | Sample size: n = 1000; Sex distribution: n.r.; Age: children that received HBV vaccine in infancy | Reduction in incidence of HBsAg carrier state determined at 3 y follow–up;
determined at 4 y follow–up; determined at 9 y follow–up; determined at 15 y follow–up; | 95% (95% CI n.r.) | ||
| 94% (95% CI 84–98%) | ||||||||
| 94% (95% CI 84–98%) | ||||||||
| 97% (95% CI 91.5–100%) | ||||||||
| Cross–sectional study | Sample size: n = 2670; Sex distribution: 44% male; Age: 17–21 y (birth years 1986–90) | Reduction in incidence of HBsAg carrier state determined at 21 y follow–up | 94% (95% CI 77–99%) | |||||
| Whittle et al., 1991 [ | HBV immunization with varied HBVDs (2, 2.5, 5, 10 and 20 µg) and different vaccination regimens (3 or 4 times between 0–4 y) | Gambia (Keneba & Manduar) | Intervention trial | Sample size: n = 856 (continued recruitment); Sex distribution: n.r.; Age: range: 0–4 y | Reduction in incidence of HBsAg carrier state determined at 4 y follow–up;
determined at 8 y follow–up; determined at 14 y follow–up; determined at 24 y follow–up | 97% (95% CI 91.0–99.2%);
95% (95% CI 91.0–97.5%);
94% (95% CI 89–97%);
95% (95% CI 91.5–97.1%) | ||
| Wichajarn et al., 2008 [ | HBV immunization | Thailand (Khon Kaen) | Retrospective cohort study | Sample size: n = n.r. (newborns in Khon Kaen); Sex distribution: n.r.; Age: newborns | Age–standardized incidence rate of hepatocellular carcinoma in vaccinated vs non–vaccinated children aged 5–18 y | Non–vaccinated: 0.97 per million; vaccinated: 0.24 per million ( | ||
| Shen et al. 2011 [ | HBV immunization | China (Long An) | Cross–sectional study | Sample size: n = 4686; Sex distribution: 49% male; Age: range: 0.25–60 y, median: 34 y | Rate of HBsAg seroprevalence in subjects born before vs after start of the HBV vaccination programme (<20 y vs ≥20 y) | ≥20 y: 10.5% (95% CI 9.4–11.7%);
<20 y: 2.4% (95% CI 1.7–3.1%) | ||
| Posuwan et al., 2016 [ | HBV immunization | Thailand | Cross–sectional study | Sample size: n = 5964; Sex distribution: n.r.; Age: range: 0.5–60 y | Rate of HBsAg seroprevalence in subjects born before vs after start of the HBV vaccination programme (<22–24 y vs ≥22–24 y; exact cutoff depending on region) | ≥22–24 y: 4.5%;
<22–24 y: 0.6%; ( | ||
| Yu et al., 1991 [ | Daily supplementation of: selenium fortified salt in the general population. Duration of supplementation: 8 y | China (Qidong) | Placebo–controlled trial with intervention and control communities | Sample size: n = 130 471; Sex distribution: n.r. | Age–adjusted incidence of primary liver cancer in the intervention vs control group before and after the trial | Intervention group:
before trial: 42/100 000;
after trial: 27/100 000.
Control group: no change | ||
| Daily supplementation of: selenized yeast tablets in HBsAg carriers. Duration of supplementation: 4 y | China (Qidong) | Randomized placebo–controlled trial | Sample size: n = 226 (HBsAg carriers); Sex distribution: n.r.; Age: range: 21–63 y | Incidence of primary liver cancer in the intervention vs the control group determined at the end of the trial | Intervention group: 0/113.
Placebo group: 7/113 | |||
| Qu et al., 2007 [ | Daily supplementation of: Factor A (retinol + zinc); Factor B (riboflavin + niacin); Factor C (vitamin C +molybdenum); Factor D (beta–carotene + vitamin E + selenium); Duration of supplementation: 5.25 y | China (Linxian) | Randomized trial with 24factorial design | Sample size: n = 29 450; Sex distribution: 45% male; Age: range: 40–69 y | HR regarding reduction of liver cancer mortality determined at 15 y follow–up | Factor A: 0.86 (95% CI 0.62–1.18);
Factor B: 0.86 (95% CI 0.62–1.18);
Factor C: 0.84 (95% CI 0.61–1.16);
Factor D: 0.81 (95% CI 0.59–1.12) | ||
| Yang et al., 1997 [ | Biannual testing of serum alpha–fetoprotein | China (Shanghai) | Randomized controlled study | Sample size: n = 18816 (HBV infected or history of chronic hepatitis); Sex distribution: 63% male; Age: range: 35–55 y, mean: 53 y | Reduction in liver cancer mortality determined at 5 y follow–up (after 5–10 screening rounds) | RR: 0.63 (95% CI 0.41–0.98) | ||
| Chen et al., 2003 [ | Biannual testing of serum alpha–fetoprotein for 62 months | China (Qidong) | Randomized controlled study | Sample size: n = 5581 (HBsAg carriers); Sex distribution: 100% male; Age: range: 30–69 y, mean: 41 y | Liver cancer detection rate; Proportion of liver cancers detected at an early stage;
Reduction in liver cancer mortality determined 6 y after start of the trial | 7% (374/5581);
28% (67/240) (screen group);
4% (4/108) (control group); ( | ||
| Eltabbakh et al., 2015 [ | Biannual testing of serum alpha–fetoprotein and ultrasonography of liver for at least 18 months | Egypt | Screening pilot study | Sample size: n = 1286 (patients with liver cirrhosis undergoing screening); Sex distribution: 35% male; Age: >18 y, mean: 51 y | Liver cancer detection rate; Proportion of liver cancers detected at an early stage in the screening cohort as compared to 155 symptomatic liver cancer patients | 8% (102/1286);
89% (91/102) (screen–detected patients); 22% (35/155) (symptomatic patients)
( | ||
Anti–HBc – hepatitis B core antibody, HBIG – Hepatitis B virus immune globulin, HBsAg – hepatitis B surface antigen, HBV – hepatitis B virus, HBVD – hepatitis B vaccine dose, HR – hazard ratio, n – number, n.r. – not reported, OR – odds ratio, y – year
Studies investigating strategies for prevention of colorectal cancer
| Author(s), year | Preventive measure/screening tool | Country (region) | Study design | Study population | Outcome(s) under study | Results | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zheng et al., 1991 [ | Rectoscopy (alone or in combination with fecal occult blood testing) | China (Jiashan) | Cross–sectional diagnostic study | Sample size: n = 26 171; Sex distribution: n.r.; Age: ≥30 y | Polyp detection rate;
Rectal cancer detection rate; Proportion of rectal cancers detected at an early stage | 3% (899/26 171);
0.05% (15/26 171);
53% (8/15) | |||||
| Zheng et al., 2002 [ | Proctoscopy. Endoscopic follow–up of individuals with removed precursor lesions every 2–5 y | China (Haining) | Cohort study with external control group | Sample size: n = 4072; Sex distribution: 64% male; Age: range: 30–70 y; mean: 50 y | Standardized incidence ratio and standardized mortality ratio determined at 20 y follow–up | Rectal cancer
Standardized incidence ratio: 0.69;
Standardized mortality ratio: 0.82.
Colon cancer: no effect was observed. | |||||
| Wan et al., 2002 [ | Colonoscopy | China | Cross–sectional diagnostic study | Sample size: n = 2196 (74% were asymptomatic); Sex distribution: 94% male; Age: range: 60–90 y; average: 70 y | Polyp detection rate;
CRC detection rate;
Proportion of CRCs detected at an early stage | 62% (1364/2196);
2% (52/2196);
37% (19/52) | |||||
| Croitoru et al., 2010 [ | Colonoscopy | Romania (Suceava & Iasi) | Cross–sectional diagnostic study | Sample size: n = 102; (all asymptomatic and with at least one first–degree relative with CRC); Sex distribution: 57% male; Age: range: 36–72 y; mean: 52 y | Participation rate;
CRC detection rate;
Proportion of CRCs detected at an early stage | 47% (102/216);
2% (2/102);
50% (1/2) | |||||
| Arafa et al., 2011 [ | Colonoscopy | Jordan (Hashemite) | Cross–sectional diagnostic study | Sample size: n = 95 (symptomatic first degree relatives of CRC patients); Sex distribution: 61% male; Age: range: 40–75 y, mean: 53 y | Participation rate;
Polyp detection rate;
CRC detection rate;
Proportion of CRCs detected at an early stage | 62% (95/153);
11%(10/95)
2% (2/95);
100% (2/2) | |||||
| Aswakul et al., 2012 [ | Colonoscopy | Thailand | Cross–sectional diagnostic study | Sample size: n = 1594 (asymptomatic average and high risk individuals); Sex distribution: 45% male; Age: mean: 58 y | Adenoma detection rate;
Advanced adenoma detection rate;
CRC detection rate | 16% (263/1954);
3% (43/1594);
0.6% (10/1594) | |||||
| Ionescu et al., 2015 [ | Colonoscopy | Romania (Bucharest) | Cross–sectional diagnostic study | Sample size: n = 1087 (average risk individuals); Sex distribution: 47% male; Age: range: 23–97 y, mean: 58 y | Adenoma detection rate;
Advanced adenoma detection rate;
CRC detection rate | 13% (228/1807);
6% (110/1807);
3% (61/1807) | |||||
| Panic et al., 2015 [ | Colonoscopy | Montenegro | Cross–sectional diagnostic study | Sample size: n = 540 (first–degree relatives of CRC patients); Sex distribution: 41% male; Age: >40 y or 10 y before index case age | Participation rate;
Adenoma detection rate;
Advanced adenoma detection rate;
CRC detection rate | 76% (540/710);
28% (151/540);
11% (58/540);
6% (31/540) | |||||
| FIT | Montenegro | Cross–sectional diagnostic study | Sample size: n = 920 (average risk individuals); Sex distribution: 51% male; Age: range: 50–74 y | Participation rate;
Adenoma detection rate;
Advanced adenoma detection rate;
CRC detection rate | 33% (920/2760);
3% (26/920);
2% (19/920);
1% (5/920) | ||||||
| Siripongpreeda et al., 2016 [ | Colonoscopy | Thailand | Screening pilot study | Sample size: n = 1404 (average–risk); Sex distribution: 31% male; Age: mean: 57 y | Participation rate;
Adenoma detection rate;
Advanced adenoma detection rate;
CRC detection rate;
Proportion of CRCs detected at an early stage | 87% (1404/1612);
18% (256/1404);
7% (98/1404);
1% (18/1404);
89% (16/18) | |||||
| Li et al.
2003 [ | Sequential FOBT (guaiac FOBT followed by FIT)* | China
(Beijing) | Screening pilot study | Sample size: n = 19852; Sex distribution: 51% male; Age: mean: 50 y | Participation rate;
Positivity rate;
Polyp detection rate;
CRC detection rate;
Proportion of CRCs detected at an early stage | 74% (19852/26827)
3% (501/19852)
1% (188/19852)
0.06%(12/19852)
92% (11/12) | |||||
| Li et al.
2006 [ | Guaiac FOBT, FIT, sequential FOBT (comparative evaluation)* | China
(Beijing) | Cross–sectional diagnostic study | Sample size: n = 323 (patients referred for colonoscopy); Sex distribution: 57% male; Age: range: 18–68 y, mean: 53 y | Sensitivity and specificity of guaiac FOBT, FIT and sequential FOBT regarding CRC | ||||||
| FIT
Guaiac FOBT
Sequential FOBT
FIT
Guaiac FOBT
Sequential FOBT | Sensitivity
88%
78%
76%
Specificity
96%
89%
99% | Specificity
96%
96%
94%
Specificity
89%
76%
94% | |||||||||
| Fenocchi et al., 2006 [ | FIT | Uruguay (Montevideo) | Screening pilot study | Sample size: n = 10 573 (average–risk); Sex distribution: 31% male; Age: mean: 61 y | Participation rate;
Positivity rate;
Proportion of test positives undergoing colonoscopic follow–up;
CRC detection rate;
Proportion of CRCs detected at an early stage | 90% (10 573/11 734);
11% (1,170/10 573);
75% (879/1170);
1% (101/10 573);
47%(47/101) | |||||
| Yang et al., 2011 [ | FIT | China (Shanghai) | Screening pilot study | Sample size: n = 5919; Sex distribution: 55% male; Age: mean: 55 y | Positivity rate;
Proportion of test positives undergoing FIT follow–up;
CRC detection rate;
Proportion of CRC detected at an early stage;
Adenoma detection rate | 5% (314/5919);
84% (264/314);
0.2% (16/5919);
94% (15/16);
1% (94/5919) | |||||
| Khuhamprema et al., 2014 [ | FIT | Thailand (Lampang) | Screening pilot study | Sample size: n = 127 301; Sex distribution: 46% male; Age: range: 50–65 y | Participation rate;
Positivity rate;
Proportion of test positives undergoing colonoscopic follow–up;
CRC detection rate; proportion of CRC detected at an early stage;
Adenoma detection rate | 63% (80 012/127 301);
1% (873/80 012);
72% (627/873);
4% (23/627);
61% (14/23);
30% (187/627) | |||||
| Dimova et al., 2015 [ | FIT | Bulgaria | Screening pilot study | Sample size: n = 600 (average–risk); Sex distribution: 45% male; Age: mean: 61 y | Participation rate;
Positivity rate;
Proportion of test positives with information on colonoscopy;
CRC detection rate | 79% (473/600);
8% (40/473);
75% (30/40);
0.6% (3/473) | |||||
| Bankovic et al., 2016 [ | FIT | Serbia | Screening pilot study | Sample size: n = 99 592; Sex distribution: n.r.; Age: range:50–74 y | Participation rate;
Positivity rate;
Proportion of test positives undergoing colonoscopic follow–up;
CRC detection rate;
Adenoma detection rate | 62% (62252/99592);
6% (3690/62252);
42% (1554/3690);
8% (129/1554);
38% (586/1554) | |||||
| Zheng et al., 2003 [ | Step 1: Risk stratification based on clinical score combined with FIT result; Step 2: Flexible sigmoidoscopy | China (Jiashan) | Cluster–randomized screening pilot study | Sample size: n = 62 677 (average –risk); Sex distribution: 51% male; Age: ≥30 y | Positivity rate;
Polyp detection rate;
CRC detection rate;
Proportion of CRC detected at an early stage;
Mortality and incidence rate of CRC in the screening vs control group at 8 y follow–up | 7% (4299/62677);
0.5% (331/62677);
0.03% (21/62677);
71% (15/21) | |||||
| 208/100 000 (95% CI 196–218/100 000) (screening group) | |||||||||||
| 244/100 000 (95% CI 233–255/100 000) (control group) | |||||||||||
| 395/100 000 (95% CI 381–410/100 000) (screening group) | |||||||||||
| 401/100 000 (95% CI 386–411/100 000) (control group) | |||||||||||
| Aniwan et al., 2015 [ | Step 1: Risk stratification based on clinical score combined with FIT result; Step 2: Colonoscopy | Thailand (Bankok) | Cross–sectional diagnostic study | Sample size: n = 948 (average risk); Sex distribution: 35% male; Age: range: 50–75 y, mean: 61 y | Polyp and CRC detection rate | ||||||
| High risk score and positive FIT (n = 84) | 44% | 37% | 5% | ||||||||
| High risk score and negative FIT (n = 173) | 30% | 12% | 1% | ||||||||
| Moderate risk score and positive FIT (n = 192) | 27% | 12% | 2% | ||||||||
| Moderate risk score and negative FIT (n = 499) | 23% | 6% | 0% | ||||||||
CRC – colorectal cancer, FIT – fecal immunochemical testing for hemoglobin, FOBT – fecal occult blood testing, n – number, n.r. – not reported, y – year
*Sequential FOBT was called a sequential method that combined guaiac FOBT and FIT, ie, guaiac FOBT was performed first and FIT was only performed if the guaiac FOBT was positive. The result was interpreted as positive if both tests were positive.