Offering people a choice for colorectal cancer screening

Senore, Carlo; Ederle, A.; Benazzato, L.; Arrigoni, Arrigo; Silvani, Marco; Fantin, Alberto; Fracchia, M.; Armaroli, Paola; Segnan, Nereo

doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301013

Cited by 49 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The regional FS programme in Italy adopted a sequential approach, offering FS, once in the lifetime, as primary screening test, and biennial FIT, as an alternative to those who refuse FS 13. Such strategy combining the two tests results in substantial increase in the population coverage (from 24% to 40% in the reference year) achieving a similar coverage among men as among women.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of colorectal cancer screening in the European Union Member States: data from the second European screening report

Senore

Basu

Anttila

et al. 2018

Gut

Self Cite

132

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo present comparative data about the performance of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes in the European Union Member States (EU MSs).DesignCross-sectional study. We analysed key performance indicators—participation rate, positivity rate (PR), detection rate (DR) and positive predictive value for adenomas and CRC—based on the aggregated quantitative data collected for the second EU screening report. We derived crude and pooled (through a random effects model) estimates to describe and compare trends across different MSs/regions and screening protocols.ResultsParticipation rate was higher in countries adopting faecal immunochemical test (FIT) (range: 22.8%–71.3%) than in those using guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) (range 4.5%–66.6%), and it showed a positive correlation (ρ=0.842, p<0.001) with participation in breast cancer screening in the same areas. Screening performance showed a large variability. Compliance with referral for colonoscopy (total colonoscopy (TC)) assessment ranged between 64% and 92%; TC completion rate ranged between 92% and 99%. PR and DR of advanced adenomas and CRC were higher in FIT, as compared with gFOBT programmes, and independent of the protocol among men, older subjects and those performing their first screening.ConclusionsThe variability in the results of quality indicators across population-based screening programmes highlights the importance of continuous monitoring, as well as the need to promote quality improvement efforts, as recommended in the EU guidelines. The implementation of monitoring systems, ensuring availability of data for the entire process, together with initiatives aimed to enhance reproducibility of histology and quality of endoscopy, represent a priority in screening programmes management.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of colorectal cancer screening in the European Union Member States: data from the second European screening report

Senore

Basu

Anttila

et al. 2018

Gut

Self Cite

132

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Traditional guaiac-based test is faulted for its inadequate power to detect advanced adenomas [17], [18], [20], [21]. A majority of recent studies focused on quantitative tests (qnFITs) in CRC screening [9], [11], [17], [22], [23]. Since qnFIT is more costly while less available than qualitative FIT (qlFIT), comparing diagnostic performance between these two methods is of clinical and economic significance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Performance of Three-Sample Qualitative Immunochemical Fecal Test to Detect Colorectal Adenoma and Cancer in Gastrointestinal Outpatients: An Observational Study

Luo

Zhou

et al. 2014

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRepeated qualitative fecal immunochemical test (qlFIT) is a clinical strategy widely used to detect lower gastrointestinal lesions, but its diagnostic power has not been assessed in opportunistic screening for colorectal neoplasia.ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine the performance of three-sample qlFIT in screening for colorectal cancer and its precursors in high-risk participants.Methods513 gastrointestinal outpatients yielded three qlFITs before a standard colonoscopy. We evaluated the diagnostic value of one, two, and three positive qlFITs serving as the positivity threshold. The risk factors of colorectal neoplasia to yield positive qlFITs were also determined.Results52 patients were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 70 with advanced adenomatous polyp. For colorectal cancer, the sensitivity and specificity of one positive qlFIT were 90.4% and 53.8%, of two were 80.8% and 75.1%, and of three were 53.9% and 88.5%, respectively. For advanced adenomatous polyp, the sensitivity and specificity of one positive qlFIT were 81.4% and 54.2%, of two were 50.0% and 72.5%, and of three were 28.6% and 86.2%. Left-sided location (OR 2.50, 95%CI 1.26–4.95) and advanced histology of tumors (OR 3.08, 95%CI 1.58–6.01) were independently associated with positive qlFITs.ConclusionsThree-sample qlFIT is a reasonably good method to detect colorectal neoplasia in high-risk population. Tumors in the left side or with advanced pathological features are more likely to produce positive qlFITs.

show abstract

“…Separate guidelines from the American College of Gastroenterology ( 21 ) and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ( 22 ) recommend a sequential approach with colonoscopy off ered fi rst. Sequential testing can maximize compliance overall as well as with the test recommended fi rst (23)(24)(25). Clinicians using the colonoscopy-fi rst sequential approach place emphasis on the high effi cacy of colonoscopy in preventing CRC and less emphasis on the risks of colonoscopy.…”

Section: Screening Targetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

Rex

Boland

Dominitz

et al. 2017

American Journal of Gastroenterology

530

266

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Offering people a choice for colorectal cancer screening

Abstract: A strategy involving the sequential offer of FS and FIT is a feasible and efficient approach. FIT in people not attending for FS increases screening uptake and detection of advanced adenomas and CRCs.

Cited by 49 publications

References 29 publications

Performance of colorectal cancer screening in the European Union Member States: data from the second European screening report

Performance of colorectal cancer screening in the European Union Member States: data from the second European screening report

The Performance of Three-Sample Qualitative Immunochemical Fecal Test to Detect Colorectal Adenoma and Cancer in Gastrointestinal Outpatients: An Observational Study

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About