Screening for Colorectal (Bowel) Cancer
Prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer is important, many patients do not show symptoms until the disease has reached an advanced stage; screening may help detect changes before they become cancerous, or catch the cancer at an early stage. Screening may by targeted at populations thought to have a higher risk of developing colorectal cancer (for example those over age 50, particularly those with a 1st degree relative dignosed with colorectal cancer, or familial predispostion to adenomatous polyposis).Information for Patients and the Public
Information for Health Professionals / Researchers
Latest Research Publications
Colorectal (Bowel) Cancer
Information Patients and the Public (10 links)
Information for Health Professionals / Researchers (5 links)
- PubMed search for publications about Colorectal Cancer, Screening - Limit search to: [Reviews]
PubMed Central search for free-access publications about Colorectal Cancer, Screening
MeSH term: Colorectal Neoplasms
US National Library of Medicine
PubMed has over 22 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Constantly updated.
This list of publications is regularly updated (Source: PubMed).
Screening for Colorectal Cancer and Evolving Issues for Physicians and Patients: A Review.
JAMA. 2016; 316(20):2135-2145 [PubMed] Related Publications
Observations: Recently, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended any of 8 CRC screening approaches for average-risk individuals, beginning at age 50 years. Only 2 methods have been shown in randomized clinical trials to reduce mortality: fecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Of the 8 programs, screenings using the fecal immunochemical test annually and colonoscopy every 10 years are now the most commonly used tests in the United States and among the most effective in reducing CRC mortality as determined by decision models. With the exception of primary screening using colonoscopy, all of the other screening approaches have multiple steps. Adherence to each phase of a multistep program is critical to achieving maximal effectiveness of the screening program. It is likely that each of the recommended programs can reduce CRC mortality, but other key outcomes may differ such as lifetime burden of colonoscopy, complications, patient acceptance, and cost. Decisions about the timing of screening cessation should be individualized.
Conclusions and Relevance: CRC screening is effective if patients adhere to the steps in each screening program. There is no evidence that one program is superior to another. Informed decision-making tools are provided to assist patients and clinicians with the goal of improving adherence to effective screening.
The Offer of Advanced Imaging Techniques Leads to Higher Acceptance Rates for Screening Colonoscopy - a Prospective Study.
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016; 17(8):3871-5 [PubMed] Related Publications
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall, 372 randomly selected patients were prospectively included. A standardized questionnaire was developed that inquired of the patients their knowledge regarding advanced imaging techniques. Second, several media campaigns and information events were organized reporting about advanced imaging techniques, followed by repeated evaluation. After one year the evaluation ended.
RESULTS: At baseline, 64% of the patients declared that they had no knowledge about new endoscopic methods. After twelve months the overall grade of information increased significantly from 14% at baseline to 34%. The percentage of patients who decided to undergo colonoscopy because of the offer of new imaging methods also increased significantly from 12% at baseline to 42% after 12 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients were highly interested in the offer of advanced imaging techniques. Knowledge about these techniques could relatively easy be provided using local media campaigns. The offer of advanced imaging techniques leads to higher acceptance rates for screening colonoscopies.
Equity and practice issues in colorectal cancer screening: Mixed-methods study.
Can Fam Physician. 2016; 62(4):e186-93 [PubMed] Free Access to Full Article Related Publications
DESIGN: Mixed-methods study using cross-sectional administrative data on patient sociodemographic characteristics and semistructured telephone interviews with physicians.
SETTING: Toronto, Ont.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 50 to 74 years and physicians in family health teams in the Toronto Central Local Health Integration Network.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of CRC screening by type; sociodemographic characteristics associated with CRC screening; thematic analysis using constant comparative method for semistructured interviews.
MAIN FINDINGS: Ontario administrative data on CRC screening showed lower overall screening rates among those who were younger, male patients, those who had lower income, and recent immigrants. Colonoscopy rates were especially low among those with lower income and those who were recent immigrants. Semistructured interviews revealed that physician opinions about CRC screening for average-risk patients were divided: one group of physicians accepted the evidence and recommendations for FOBT and the other group of physicians strongly supported colonoscopy for these patients, believing that the FOBT was an inferior screening method. Physicians identified specialist recommendations and patient expectations as factors that influenced their decisions regarding CRC screening type.
CONCLUSION: There was considerable variation in CRC screening by sociodemographic characteristics. A key theme that emerged from the interviews was that physicians were divided in their preference for FOBT or colonoscopy; factors that influenced physician preference included the health care system, recommendations by other specialists, and patient characteristics. Providing an informed choice of screening method to patients might result in higher screening rates and fewer disparities. Changes in policy and physician attitudes might be needed in order for this to occur.
Fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer from a prospective cohort with 513,283 individuals: Providing detailed number needed to scope (NNS) before colonoscopy.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95(36):e4414 [PubMed] Free Access to Full Article Related Publications
High prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in the Thai population: a prospective screening colonoscopy of 1,404 cases.
BMC Gastroenterol. 2016; 16:101 [PubMed] Free Access to Full Article Related Publications
METHODS: Screening colonoscopy was offered to 1,500 healthy volunteers aged 50-65 years old who were registered into the program between July 2009 and June 2010. Biopsy and surgery was performed depending on the identified lesions. Fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) were additionally performed for comparison with colonoscopy.
RESULTS: There were 1,404 participants who underwent colonoscopy. The mean age of the cohort was 56.9 ± 4.2 years and 69.4 % were females. About 30 % (411 cases) of all colonoscopies had abnormal colonoscopic findings, and of these, 256 cases had adenomatous polyps. High risk adenomas (villous or tubulovillous or high grade dysplasia or size > 1 cm or > 3 adenomatous polyps) were found in 98 cases (7 %), low risk adenoma in 158 cases (11.3 %), and hyperplastic polyps in 119 cases (8.5 %). Eighteen cases (1.3 %) had colorectal cancer and 90 % of them (16 cases) were non-metastatic including five stage 0 cases, seven stage I cases, and four stage IIA cases. Only two cases had metastasis: one to regional lymph nodes (stage IIIB) and another to other organs (stage IVA). The most common cancer site was the distal intestine including rectum (7 cases, 38.9 %) and sigmoid colon (7 cases, 38.9 %). Ten colorectal cancer cases had positive FIT whereas 8 colorectal cancer cases were FIT-negative. The sensitivity and specificity of FIT was 55.6 % and 96.2 %, respectively, while the positive predictive value was 16.4 % and negative predictive value was 99.4 %. The overall survival of colorectal cancer cases at 5-year was 83.3 %.
CONCLUSION: High prevalence of colorectal cancer and high-risk adenoma was found in the Thai population aged 50-65 years old by screening colonoscopy. FIT was not sensitive enough to detect colorectal cancer in this asymptomatic cohort. Integration of screening colonoscopy into the national cancer screening program should be implemented to detect early cases of advanced colorectal neoplasia and improve survival of colorectal cancer patients in Thailand.
Colorectal cancer development and advances in screening.
Clin Interv Aging. 2016; 11:967-76 [PubMed] Free Access to Full Article Related Publications
Increased survival and decreased recurrence in colorectal cancer patients diagnosed in a screening programme.
Cancer Epidemiol. 2016; 43:70-5 [PubMed] Related Publications
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective study of all the patients undergoing programmed surgery for CRC at the JM Morales Meseguer Hospital in Murcia (Spain) between 2004 and 2010. The patients were divided into two groups: (a) those diagnosed through screening (125 cases); and (b) those diagnosed in the symptomatic stage (565 cases). Survival and disease-free survival were analysed and compared for both groups using the Mantel method.
RESULTS: The screen-detected CRC patients show a higher rate of survival (86.3% versus 72.1% at 5 years, p<0.05) and a lower rate of tumour recurrence (73.4% versus 88.3% at 5 years, p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Population-based screening for CRC is an effective strategic measure for reducing mortality specific to this neoplasia.
Patient experience of CT colonography and colonoscopy after fecal occult blood test in a national screening programme.
Eur Radiol. 2017; 27(3):1052-1063 [PubMed] Free Access to Full Article Related Publications
METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patient experience postal questionnaires. We included screenees from a fecal occult blood test (FOBt) based screening programme, where CTC was performed when colonoscopy was incomplete or deemed unsuitable. We analyzed questionnaire responses concerning communication of test risks, test-related discomfort and post-test pain, as well as complications. CTC and colonoscopy responses were compared using multilevel logistic regression.
RESULTS: Of 67,114 subjects identified, 52,805 (79 %) responded. Understanding of test risks was lower for CTC (1712/1970 = 86.9 %) than colonoscopy (48783/50975 = 95.7 %, p < 0.0001). Overall, a slightly greater proportion of screenees found CTC unexpectedly uncomfortable (506/1970 = 25.7 %) than colonoscopy (10,705/50,975 = 21.0 %, p < 0.0001). CTC was tolerated well as a completion procedure for failed colonoscopy (unexpected discomfort; CTC = 26.3 %: colonoscopy = 57.0 %, p < 0.001). Post-procedural pain was equally common (CTC: 288/1970,14.6 %, colonoscopy: 7544/50,975,14.8 %; p = 0.55). Adverse event rates were similar in both groups (CTC: 20/2947 = 1.2 %; colonoscopy: 683/64,312 = 1.1 %), but generally less serious with CTC.
CONCLUSIONS: Even though CTC was reserved for individuals either unsuitable for or unable to complete colonoscopy, we found only small differences in test-related discomfort. CTC was well tolerated as a completion procedure and was extremely safe. CTC can be delivered across a national screening programme with high patient satisfaction.
KEY POINTS: • High patient satisfaction at CTC is deliverable across a national screening programme. • Patients who cannot tolerate screening colonoscopy are likely to find CTC acceptable. • CTC is extremely safe; complications are rare and almost never serious. • Patients may require more detailed information regarding the expected discomfort of CTC.
Factors Predicting Fecal Occult Blood Testing among Residents of Bushehr, Iran, Based on the Health Belief Model.
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016; 17 Spec No.:17-22 [PubMed] Related Publications
Colon Cancer Screening in North Carolina.
N C Med J. 2016 May-Jun; 77(3):183-7 [PubMed] Related Publications
Determinants of non-participation in a mass screening program for colorectal cancer in Finland.
Acta Oncol. 2016; 55(7):870-4 [PubMed] Related Publications
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was based on a population-based nationwide cohort of persons invited for CRC screening in 2004-2011. Information on the first round of the CRC screening participation and related background factors was obtained from the Finnish Cancer Registry, and information about health behavior factors from the Health Behavior Survey (HBS) in 1978-1999. Non-participation in CRC screening was analyzed with Poisson regression as incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).
RESULTS: Of all persons invited for CRC screening (79 871 men and 80 891 women) 35% of men and 21% of women refused. Of those invited for screening, 2456 men (3.1%) and 2507 women (3.1%) were also invited to the HBS. Persons, who declined HBS, were also more likely to refuse CRC screening (men IRR 1.40, 95% CI 1.26-1.56, women 1.75, 1.52-2.02) compared to HBS participants. Never married persons had about a 75% higher risk for refusing than married ones. The youngest age group (60 years) was more likely to refuse screening than the older age groups (62 or >64 years). Smoking was associated with non-participation in screening (current smokers, men: IRR 1.32, 95% CI 1.05-1.67, women: 2.10, 1.61-2.73).
CONCLUSIONS: Participation in CRC screening was affected by gender, age, and marital status. Persons, who refused the HBS, were also more likely to refuse CRC screening. Smoking was a risk factor for non-participation in CRC screening.
Cost-Effectiveness between Double and Single Fecal Immunochemical Test(s) in a Mass Colorectal Cancer Screening.
Biomed Res Int. 2016; 2016:6830713 [PubMed] Free Access to Full Article Related Publications
Third Annual Fecal Occult Blood Testing in Community Health Clinics.
Am J Health Behav. 2016; 40(3):302-9 [PubMed] Article available free on PMC after 01/05/2017 Related Publications
METHODS: Between 2008 and 2011, a quasi-experimental intervention was conducted in 8 predominantly rural Federally Qualified Health Centers. Clinics were randomly assigned to enhanced care (screening recommendation and FOBT kit mailed annually), education (patients additionally received a health literacy appropriate pamphlet and simplified FOBT instructions), or nurse support (same as education but with nurse follow-up). Participants included 206 patients with negative FOBTs in years 1 and 2; ages 50-85, 80% female, 70% African American, and 52% had limited health literacy. The main outcome measure was completion of a third annual FOBT.
RESULTS: Third-year FOBT rates were 48% overall, 34.2% enhanced care, 59.6% education, and 47.4% nurse support (p = .21), even after adjustment for sex, marital status, and health literacy.
CONCLUSION: All mailed interventions were similarly effective in sustaining rates of FOBT screening. Post hoc analyses of the results analyzed by health literacy skills found that patients with both limited and adequate health literacy skills were more likely to complete FOBTs when mailed simplified instructions.
Screening colonoscopy and colorectal cancer: a single center long term study.
Z Gastroenterol. 2016; 54(4):312-5 [PubMed] Related Publications
Exploring the Perceptions of Anal Cancer Screening and Behaviors Among Gay and Bisexual Men Infected With HIV.
Cancer Control. 2016; 23(1):52-8 [PubMed] Article available free on PMC after 01/05/2017 Related Publications
METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with 58 MSM infected with HIV.
RESULTS: Other than 2 participants treated for anal cancer and 3 treated for precancerous anal lesions, the majority of participants had never heard of anal cancer. Men reported lack of awareness and recommendations from their health care professionals as the greatest barriers to screening. Upon learning about their risk for anal cancer and the availability of screening, the men were eager to discuss screening with their physicians. Participants provided numerous recommendations for future interventions, including training health care professionals to promote screening, disseminating information pertaining to anal cancer through social networks, and creating media campaigns to raise awareness about the need to screen for this type of cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Future intervention work should focus on ensuring that health care professionals, particularly among HIV/primary care specialists, promote screening for anal dysplasia. It is critical that intervention methods use a community-based approach to raise awareness about the need to screen for anal cancer, especially among MSM infected with HIV.
Reinvitation to screening colonoscopy: a randomized-controlled trial of reminding letter and invitation to educational meeting on attendance in nonresponders to initial invitation to screening colonoscopy (REINVITE).
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016; 28(5):538-42 [PubMed] Related Publications
METHODS: Within the NordICC trial framework, individuals living in the region of Warsaw, who were drawn from Population Registries and assigned randomly to the screening group, received an invitation letter and a reminder with a prespecified screening colonoscopy appointment date. One thousand individuals, aged 55 to 64 years, who did not respond to both the invitation and the reminding letter were assigned randomly in a 1:1 ratio to the reinvitation group (REI) and the educational meeting group (MEET). The REI group was sent a reinvitation letter and reminder 6 and 3 weeks before the new colonoscopy appointment date, respectively. The MEET group was sent an invitation 6 weeks before an educational meeting date. Outcome measures were participation in screening colonoscopy within 6 months and response rate within 3 months from the date of reinvitation or invitation to an educational meeting.
RESULTS: The response rate and the participation rate in colonoscopy were statistically significantly higher in the REI group compared with the MEET group (16.5 vs. 4.3%; P<0.001 and 5.2 vs. 2.1%; P=0.008, respectively).
CONCLUSION: A simple reinvitation letter results in a higher response rate and participation rate to screening colonoscopy than invitation to tailored educational meeting in nonresponders to previous invitations. (NCT01183156).
Colorectal Cancer Screening: Fecal Occult Blood Test Literature Review for Occupational Health Nurses.
Workplace Health Saf. 2016; 64(3):114-22; quiz 123 [PubMed] Related Publications
Colorectal Cancer Screening: Stool DNA and Other Noninvasive Modalities.
Gut Liver. 2016; 10(2):204-11 [PubMed] Article available free on PMC after 01/05/2017 Related Publications
The Use of the Whole Primary-Care Team, Including Community Health Workers, to Achieve Success in Increasing Colon Cancer Screening Rate.
J Healthc Qual. 2016 Mar-Apr; 38(2):76-83 [PubMed] Related Publications
Reducing income-related inequities in colorectal cancer screening: lessons learned from a retrospective analysis of organised programme and non-programme screening delivery in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
BMJ Open. 2016; 6(2):e009470 [PubMed] Article available free on PMC after 01/05/2017 Related Publications
SETTING: Winnipeg, Manitoba, a region with universal healthcare and an organised CRC screening programme.
PARTICIPANTS: Individuals who had a non-programme FOBT were identified from the Provincial Medical Claims database. Individuals who had a programme FOBT were identified from the provincial screening registry. Census data were used to determine average household income based on area of residence.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Trends in age-standardised FOBT rates were examined using Joinpoint Regression. Logistic regression was performed to explore the association between programme and non-programme FOBT use and income quintile.
RESULTS: FOBT use (non-programme and programme) increased from 32.2% in 2008 to 41.6% in 2012. Individuals living in the highest income areas (Q5) were more likely to have a non-programme FOBT compared with those living in other areas. Individuals living in areas with the lowest average income level (Q1) were less likely to have had programme FOBT than those living in areas with the highest average income level (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.82). There was no difference in programme FOBT use for individuals living in areas with the second lowest income level (Q2) compared with those living in areas with the highest. Individuals living in areas with a moderate-income level (Q3 and Q4) were more likely to have had a programme FOBT compared with those living in an area with the highest income level (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.15 for Q3 and OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.13 for Q4).
CONCLUSIONS: Inequities by income observed for non-programme FOBTs were largely eliminated when programme FOBTs were examined. Targeted interventions within organised screening programmes in very low-income areas are needed.
A qualitative investigation of factors influencing participation in bowel screening in New South Wales.
Health Promot J Austr. 2016; 27(1):48-53 [PubMed] Related Publications
The Diagnostic Performance of Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95(5):e2129 [PubMed] Article available free on PMC after 01/05/2017 Related Publications
The discriminatory capability of existing scores to predict advanced colorectal neoplasia: a prospective colonoscopy study of 5,899 screening participants.
Sci Rep. 2016; 6:20080 [PubMed] Article available free on PMC after 01/05/2017 Related Publications
Recommendations for a step-wise comparative approach to the evaluation of new screening tests for colorectal cancer.
Cancer. 2016; 122(6):826-39 [PubMed] Article available free on PMC after 01/05/2017 Related Publications
METHODS: A review of the literature and a consensus approach by experts was undertaken to provide practical guidance on how to compare new screening tests with proven screening tests.
RESULTS: Findings and recommendations from the review included the following: Adoption of a new screening test requires evidence of effectiveness relative to a proven comparator test. Clinical accuracy supported by programmatic population evaluation in the screening context on an intention-to-screen basis, including acceptability, is essential. Cancer-specific mortality is not essential as an endpoint provided that the mortality benefit of the comparator has been demonstrated and that the biologic basis of detection is similar. Effectiveness of the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test provides the minimum standard to be achieved by a new test. A 4-phase evaluation is recommended. An initial retrospective evaluation in cancer cases and controls (Phase 1) is followed by a prospective evaluation of performance across the continuum of neoplastic lesions (Phase 2). Phase 3 follows the demonstration of adequate accuracy in these 2 prescreening phases and addresses programmatic outcomes at 1 screening round on an intention-to-screen basis. Phase 4 involves more comprehensive evaluation of ongoing screening over multiple rounds. Key information is provided from the following parameters: the test positivity rate in a screening population, the true-positive and false-positive rates, and the number needed to colonoscope to detect a target lesion.
CONCLUSIONS: New screening tests can be evaluated efficiently by this stepwise comparative approach.
Adenoma Detection Rate in Colonoscopy: Is Indication a Predictor?
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016; 26(2):156-61 [PubMed] Related Publications
METHODS: Consecutive colonoscopies performed by a single endoscopist between January 2008 and December 2014 were reviewed. Indications for colonoscopy were tested for association with ADR after adjusting for age and sex.
RESULTS: A total of 2648 colonoscopies were analyzed. Adenomas were detected in 630 patients (23.8%). Overall ADR was 22.9% in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. ADR was higher in fecal occult blood test-triggered screening colonoscopies (32%) than colonoscopies performed for patients with a family history of colorectal cancer (21.7%) or asymptomatic average-risk individuals (20.4%) (P=0.05). ADR was 36.1% in patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy and ranged from 12% to 30% in patients with gastrointestinal symptoms undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: ADR differs depending on whether the indication is screening, surveillance, or diagnosis. Within screening colonoscopies, ADR seems to be higher in patients with a positive fecal occult blood test.
Improved survival of patients with colon cancer detected by screening colonoscopy.
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016; 31(5):1039-45 [PubMed] Related Publications
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical, histological, diagnostic, and survival data of 1016 consecutive patients with CC from a prospectively expanded single-institutional database were analyzed for diagnostic, treatment, and prognostic factors. Findings were then stratified according to detection by screening colonoscopy vs. patients who became symptomatic prior to further diagnostic work-up.
RESULTS: 7.1 % of all patients were identified by screening colonoscopy for colon cancer. Screened patients were younger (68.2 vs. 64.8 years), had smaller T stage (p = 0.032), lower tumor stage (p = 0.009), and a tendency to less lymph node metastasis. Overall survival was superior in screened patients, and stage-specific survival showed a tendency to improved survival, which was not statistically significant. Furthermore, a higher percentage of screened patients underwent adjuvant chemotherapy (84.6 vs. 55.0 %, p = 0.032).
CONCLUSION: Survival outcome and enrollment in a multimodal treatment was higher in screening-detected patients compared to patients diagnosed after the onset of clinical symptoms. Besides a potential occurrence of lead time bias, these findings strongly support the need for continued improvement of screening programs and the recruitment of more patients for colorectal cancer screening.
Colonoscopy Reduces Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Patients With Non-Malignant Findings: A Meta-Analysis.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2016; 111(3):355-65 [PubMed] Article available free on PMC after 01/05/2017 Related Publications
METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and conference abstracts were searched through 30 April 2015. The primary outcomes were overall CRC incidence and mortality. Pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effect models.
RESULTS: Eleven observational studies with a total of 1,499,521 individuals were included. Pooled analysis showed that colonoscopy was associated with a 61% RR reduction in CRC incidence (RR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.26-0.60; I(2)=93.6%) and a 61% reduction in CRC mortality (RR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.35-0.43; I(2)=12.0%) in patients with non-malignant findings, although there was high heterogeneity for the outcome of CRC incidence. After excluding one outlier study, there was low heterogeneity for the outcome of incidence (I(2)=44.7%). Subgroup analysis showed that the effect of screening colonoscopy was more prominent, corresponding to an 89% reduction in CRC incidence (RR: 0.11; 95% CI: 0.08-0.15), in comparison with settings involving diagnostic colonoscopy (RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.43-0.59; P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this meta-analysis of observational studies, CRC incidence and mortality in patients with non-malignant findings are significantly reduced after colonoscopy. The effect of screening colonoscopy on CRC incidence is more marked than diagnostic colonoscopy.
A novel multitarget stool DNA test for colorectal cancer screening.
Postgrad Med. 2016; 128(2):268-72 [PubMed] Related Publications
Reduced and Full-Preparation CT Colonography, Fecal Immunochemical Test, and Colonoscopy for Population Screening of Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Trial.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016; 108(2) [PubMed] Related Publications
METHODS: Citizens of a district of Florence, Italy, age 54 to 65 years, were allocated (8:2.5:2.5:1) with simple randomization to be invited by mail to one of four screening interventions: 1) biennial FIT for three rounds, 2) r-CTC, 3) f-CTC, 4) OC. Patients tested positive to FIT or CTC (at least one polyp ≥6mm) were referred to OC work-up. The primary outcomes were participation rate and detection rate (DR) for cancer or advanced adenoma (advanced neoplasia). All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS: Sixteen thousand eighty-seven randomly assigned subjects were invited to the assigned screening test. Participation rates were 50.4% (4677/9288) for first-round FIT, 28.1% (674/2395) for r-CTC, 25.2% (612/2430) for f-CTC, and 14.8% (153/1036) for OC. All differences between groups were statistically significant (P = .047 for r-CTC vs f-CTC; P < .001 for all others). DRs for advanced neoplasia were 1.7% (79/4677) for first-round FIT, 5.5% (37/674) for r-CTC, 4.9% (30/612) for f-CTC, and 7.2% (11/153) for OC. Differences in DR between CTC groups and FIT were statistically significant (P < .001), but not between r-CTC and f-CTC (P = .65).
CONCLUSIONS: Reduced preparation increases participation in CTC. Lower attendance and higher DR of CTC as compared with FIT are key factors for the optimization of its role in population screening of CRC.