This is the author manuscript accepted for publication and has undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as
Faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is implemented in several countries. Approximately half of all screen positive persons have negative colonoscopy, but consensus is lacking on how these persons should be followed up. Health authorities in Denmark and The Netherlands recommend suspending screening for 8-10 years, while patients in UK are invited to screening after 2 years. In this cohort-study, we followed 166,277 individuals invited to FOBT-screening in 2005-2006 and a reference group comprising the remaining 1,240,348 Danes of the same age. We linked Danish population and health service registers to obtain information about colonoscopy outcome and incident CRC. We estimated CRC risk by colonoscopy outcome (adenoma, other colorectal pathology or negative colonoscopy) for the reference group, the screening group, and subgroups. Persons with positive screening FOBT followed by negative colonoscopy had the same long-term CRC risk as persons with adenoma detected due to a positive screening FOBT (aHR 1.33, 95% CI: 0.65-2.71). We found no difference in the long-term CRC risk between persons with negative colonoscopy after a positive FOBT screening test and the unscreened reference population (aHR 1.05, 95% CI: 0.62-1.78). Since FOBT screen positive persons in our study remained at average risk of CRC despite of a negative index colonoscopy, we question the safety of suspending FOBT screening for this group. It needs to be monitored whether recent efforts to improve colonoscopy quality have been successful in ensuring low CRC risk after negative colonoscopy also in FOBT positive persons.
Risk stratification of adenoma patients, as recommended by the European guidelines, is appropriate for postpolypectomy surveillance after FOBT screening.
BackgroundIn Denmark, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequent cancer. Randomised trials have shown that guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening can reduce CRC mortality, but a recent large randomised study from Finland did not find any effect. A feasibility study was carried out in Denmark in 2005–2006 where residents aged 50–74 years in 2 Danish counties were invited once to participate in gFOBT screening. We used the unique Danish registers to assess the impact of gFOBT screening in this group on CRC incidence and mortality.MethodsIn this cohort study, we followed a group comprising 166 277 individuals invited to screening and a reference group comprising the remaining 1 240 348 Danes of the same age. We linked the Danish population and health service registers to obtain information about colonoscopies, polypectomies, incident CRC and cause of death.ResultsAfter a median follow-up time of 8.9 years, the CRC mortality was significantly lower in the screening group than in the reference group with an adjusted HR (aHR) of 0.92 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.99), while the aHR for all-cause mortality was 0.95 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.96). For screening participants, the aHR for CRC mortality and all-cause mortality was 0.72 (0.64 to 0.80) and 0.59 (0.57 to 0.60), respectively.ConclusionsAbout 10 years after a single round of gFOBT screening, we found a significant 8% deficit in CRC mortality in the screening group compared with other Danes. We found almost the same deficit in all-cause mortality, and on this basis, it is not possible to conclude that one screening round had an effect on CRC mortality. Our study indicated that close monitoring of the outcome of CRC screening is warranted.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.