Recent studies showed that previous negative results from faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening was associated with lower risk of advanced neoplasia (AN). We ...evaluated whether prior FIT results should be included to estimate the risk of AN in 2008-2012.
A community-based screening practice recruited 5,813 asymptomatic residents aged 50 to 70 years in Hong Kong for CRC screening. We included study participants who had (1). positive FIT with subsequent colonoscopy workup (FIT+ group; n = 356); (2). negative FIT in three consecutive years and received a colonoscopy (FIT- group; n = 857); (3). received colonoscopy without FIT (colonoscopy group; n = 473); and (4). received both colonoscopy and FIT at the same time (combined group; n = 4,127). One binary logistic regression model evaluated whether prior FIT results were associated with colonoscopy findings of AN.
The proportion of participants having AN/CRC was 18.0% (FIT+), 5.5% (FIT-), 8.0% (colonoscopy group), and 4.3% (combined group), respectively. When compared with the colonoscopy group, those in the FIT- group were not significantly more or less likely to have AN/CRC (AOR = 0.77, 95% C.I. = 0.51 to 1.18, p = 0.230). Having one (AOR = 0.73, 95% C.I. 0.48-1.12, p = 0.151) or three consecutive negative FIT result (AOR = 0.98, 95% C.I. 0.60-1.62, p = 0.944) were not associated with lower risks of AN/CRC. Subjects in the FIT+ group was 3.32-fold (95% C.I. 2.07 to 5.32, p < 0.001) more likely to have AN/CRC.
These findings indicated that subjects with negative FIT findings could be risk stratified similarly as those who had not previously received FIT.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Colorectal cancer (CRC), prostate cancer (PC) and breast cancer (BC) are among the most common cancers worldwide with well-established screening strategies. We aim to investigate the effectiveness ...and compliance of a one-stop screening service for CRC, PC and BC. Asymptomatic subjects aged 50-75 years were invited. Eligible subjects were offered fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for CRC screening. Serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) and Prostate Health Index (PHI) were offered for male PC screening and mammogram (MMG) for female BC screening as a one-stop service. Colonoscopy was offered to FIT+ subjects, prostate biopsy to PSA/PHI+ (PSA>10/PHI≥35) males and breast biopsy to MMG+ (Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS≥4) females. From August 2018 to April 2020, 3165 subjects were recruited. All participants (1372 men and 1793 women) were willing to accept FIT for CRC screening, and PSA/PHI test or MMG as second cancer screening. 102 subjects diagnosed advanced neoplasms after colonoscopy. Thirty-three males diagnosed PC after prostate biopsy and 15 females diagnosed BC after breast biopsy. No major complication reported in first tier screening tests. Subjects who were willing to undergo CRC screening were highly likely to accept other cancer screening when offered in a one-stop program. In conclusion, the effectiveness and compliance of a one-stop service for CRC, PC, and BC screening among asymptomatic subjects were high. Future studies should be conducted to test various ways of integrating cancer screening programs.
ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04034953.
We evaluated the performance of seven existing risk scoring systems in predicting advanced colorectal neoplasia in an asymptomatic Chinese cohort. We prospectively recruited 5,899 Chinese subjects ...aged 50-70 years in a colonoscopy screening programme(2008-2014). Scoring systems under evaluation included two scoring tools from the US; one each from Spain, Germany, and Poland; the Korean Colorectal Screening(KCS) scores; and the modified Asia Pacific Colorectal Screening(APCS) scores. The c-statistics, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values(PPVs), and negative predictive values(NPVs) of these systems were evaluated. The resources required were estimated based on the Number Needed to Screen(NNS) and the Number Needed to Refer for colonoscopy(NNR). Advanced neoplasia was detected in 364 (6.2%) subjects. The German system referred the least proportion of subjects (11.2%) for colonoscopy, whilst the KCS scoring system referred the highest (27.4%). The c-statistics of all systems ranged from 0.56-0.65, with sensitivities ranging from 0.04-0.44 and specificities from 0.74-0.99. The modified APCS scoring system had the highest c-statistics (0.65, 95% C.I. 0.58-0.72). The NNS (12-19) and NNR (5-10) were similar among the scoring systems. The existing scoring systems have variable capability to predict advanced neoplasia among asymptomatic Chinese subjects, and further external validation should be performed.
Patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) are at higher risks but how they should be screened remains uncertain. Hence, we evaluated the ...cost‐effectiveness of CRC screening among patients with NAFLD and family history by different strategies. A hypothetical population of 100,000 subjects aged 40–75 years receive: (i) yearly fecal immunochemical test (FIT) at 50 years; (ii) flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) every 5 years at 50 years; (iii) colonoscopy 10 yearly at 50 years; (iv) colonoscopy 10 yearly at 50 years among those with family history/NAFLD and yearly FIT at 50 years among those without; (v) colonoscopy 10 yearly at 40 years among those with family history/NAFLD and yearly FIT at 50 years among those without and (vi) colonoscopy 10 yearly at 40 years among those with family history/NAFLD and colonoscopy 10 yearly at 50 years among those without. The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) was studied by Markov modeling. It was found that colonoscopy, FS and FIT reduced incidence of CRC by 49.5, 26.3 and 23.6%, respectively. Using strategies 4, 5 and 6, the corresponding reduction in CRC incidence was 29.9, 30.9 and 69.3% for family history, and 33.2, 34.7 and 69.8% for NAFLD. Compared with no screening, strategies 4 (US$1,018/life‐year saved) and 5 (US$7,485) for family history offered the lowest ICER, whilst strategy 4 (US$5,877) for NAFLD was the most cost‐effective. These findings were robust when assessed with a wide range of deterministic sensitivity analyses around the base case. These indicated that screening patients with family history or NAFLD by colonoscopy at 50 years was economically favorable.
What's new?
Non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), potentially warranting earlier colorectal screening for NAFLD patients. It remains unclear, however, which of the existing CRC screening options would most benefit this population. In the present evaluation of the cost‐effectiveness of different CRC screening strategies, colonoscopy performed once every 10 years starting at age 50 was determined to be economically superior for patients with NAFLD and for persons with a family history of CRC. Annual fecal immunochemical testing was the most cost‐effective approach for individuals without a family history of CRC.
We evaluated whether age- and gender-based colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective.Recent studies in the United States identified age and gender as 2 important variables predicting advanced ...proximal neoplasia, and that women aged <60 to 70 years were more suited for sigmoidoscopy screening due to their low risk of proximal neoplasia. Yet, quantitative assessment of the incremental benefits, risks, and cost remains to be performed.Primary care screening practice (2008-2015).A Markov modeling was constructed using data from a screening cohort. The following strategies were compared according to the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for 1 life-year saved: flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) 5 yearly; colonoscopy 10 yearly; FS for each woman at 50- and 55-year old followed by colonoscopy at 60- and 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, and 65-year old followed by colonoscopy at 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, 65-, and 70-year old. All male subjects received colonoscopy at 50-, 60-, and 70-year old under strategies 3 to 5.From a hypothetical population of 100,000 asymptomatic subjects, strategy 2 could save the largest number of life-years (4226 vs 2268 to 3841 by other strategies). When compared with no screening, strategy 5 had the lowest ICER (US$42,515), followed by strategy 3 (US$43,517), strategy 2 (US$43,739), strategy 4 (US$47,710), and strategy 1 (US$56,510). Strategy 2 leads to the highest number of bleeding and perforations, and required a prohibitive number of colonoscopy procedures. Strategy 5 remains the most cost-effective when assessed with a wide range of deterministic sensitivity analyses around the base case.From the cost effectiveness analysis, FS for women and colonoscopy for men represent an economically favorable screening strategy. These findings could inform physicians and policy-makers in triaging eligible subjects for risk-based screening, especially in countries with limited colonoscopic resources. Future research should study the acceptability, feasibility, and feasibility of this risk-based strategy in different populations.
The predictors of poor bowel preparation in colorectal cancer screening participants have not been adequately studied, and the association between the quality of bowel preparation and adenoma ...detection has not been firmly established. This study examined the determinants of poor bowel preparation, and evaluated its relationship with adenoma detection.We included subjects aged between 50 and 70 years who received colonoscopy between 2008 and 2014 in a colorectal cancer screening program in Hong Kong. The quality of the bowel preparation was assessed by colonoscopists, and the factors associated with poor bowel cleansing were evaluated by a binary logistic regression analysis. A multivariate regression model was constructed to evaluate if poor bowel preparation was associated with detection of colorectal neoplasia.From 5470 screening participants (average age 57.7 years, SD 4.9), 1891 (34.6%) had poor or fair bowel preparation. The average cecal intubation time was 7.0 minutes (SD 5.4; range 1.22-36.9 minutes) and the average colonoscopy withdrawal time was 10.8 minutes (SD 6.9; range 6.0-107.0 minutes). Among all, 26.5% had colorectal neoplasia and 5.5% had advanced neoplasia. Older age (≥60 years; adjusted odds ratio AOR = 1.19-1.38, P = 0.02-0.04), male sex (AOR = 1.38, 95% confidence interval CI 1.19-1.60, P < 0.001), and current smoking (AOR = 1.41, 95% CI 1.14-1.75, P = 0.002) were significantly associated with poor/fair bowel preparation. Poorer cleansing resulted in significantly lower detection rate of neoplasia (AOR = 0.35-0.62) and advanced neoplasia (AOR = 0.36-0.50) irrespective of polyp size.Steps to improve proper procedures of bowel preparation are warranted, especially among subjects at risk of poor bowel preparation. Strategies should be implemented to improve bowel cleansing, which is now demonstrated as a definite quality indicator.
Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the different recalling approaches for enhancing adherence to faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening.
The authors evaluated the ...effectiveness of two telecommunication strategies on improving adherence to yearly FIT screening.
A randomised, parallel group trial was performed in a primary care screening practice.
The authors recruited 629 asymptomatic individuals aged 40-70 years with a negative FIT in 2015 to a population-based screening programme. On participation, they were invited to repeat their second round of FIT in 2016, 12 months after the first test. Each participant was randomly assigned to either interactive telephone reminder (
= 207), short message service reminder (SMS,
= 212), or control, where no additional interventions were delivered after the findings of their first FIT was communicated to the participants (
= 210). Reminders in the intervention groups were delivered 1 month before subjects' expected return. Additional telephone reminders were delivered 2 months after the expected return date to all subjects who defaulted specimen return. The outcomes included rates of FIT collection and specimen return up to 6 months after their expected return.
At 6 months, the cumulative FIT collection rate was 95.1%, 90.4%, and 86.5%, respectively, for the telephone, SMS, and control groups (
= 0.010). The corresponding specimen return rate was 94.1%, 90.0%, and 86.0% (
= 0.022). When compared with the control, only subjects in the telephone group were significantly more likely to collect FIT tubes (adjusted odds ratio AOR 3.18, 95% confidence interval CI = 1.50 to 6.75,
= 0.003) and return completed specimens (AOR = 2.73, 95% CI = 1.35 to 5.53,
= 0.005).
Interactive telephone reminders are effective at securing previously screened subjects to repeat screening 1 year after a negative finding.
This study developed a clinical scoring system to predict the risks of PN among screening participants for colorectal cancer. We recruited 5,789 Chinese asymptomatic screening participants who ...received colonoscopy in Hong Kong (2008-2014). From random sampling of 2,000 participants, the independent risk factors were evaluated for PN using binary regression analysis. The odds ratios for significant risk factors were used to develop a scoring system, with scores stratified into 'average risk' (AR):0-2 and 'high risk' (HR):3-5. The other 3,789 subjects formed an independent validation cohort. Each participant received a score calculated based on their risk factors. The performance of the scoring system was evaluated. The proportion of PN in the derivation and validation cohorts was 12.6% and 12.9%, respectively. Based on age, gender, family history, body mass index and self-reported ischaemic heart disease, 85.0% and 15.0% in the validation cohort were classified as AR and HR, respectively. Their prevalence of PN was 12.0% and 18.1%, respectively. Participants in the HR group had 1.51-fold (95% CI = 1.24-1.84, p < 0.001) higher risk of PN than the AR group. The overall c-statistics of the prediction model was 0.71(0.02). The scoring system is useful in predicting the risk of PN to prioritize patients for colonoscopy.
To compare the performance of existing sigmoidoscopy-based strategies in predicting advanced proximal neoplasia (APN) in an asymptomatic Chinese cohort.
We included all screening participants aged ...50-70 years who received colonoscopy between 2008 and 2014 in Hong Kong. Sigmoidoscopy yield was estimated from the colonoscopic findings based on the: (1) UK flexible sigmoidoscopy; (2) Screening for COlon REctum (SCORE); (3) NORwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention (NORCCAP) trials and (4) US clinical index based on age, gender and distal findings. The sensitivity, specificity, the number of subjects needed to screen (NNS) and the number of subjects needed to refer (NNR) for colonoscopy to detect one APN were evaluated. Binary logistic regression modelling identified the distal findings associated with APN.
From 5879 eligible subjects, 132 (2.2%) had APN. The US strategy achieved the highest sensitivity for APN detection (42.0%) and the UK criteria attained the highest specificity (96%). The US criteria led to the lowest NNS (92 vs 103-267) and the UK criteria required the least NNR (12 vs 16-21). Using the US strategy, the rates of APN detected were 1.4% (low-risk group), 2.2% (intermediate risk) and 5.9% (high risk). The c-statistics of the UK, SCORE, NORCCAP and the US criteria were 0.55±0.03; 0.59±0.03; 0.59±0.03 and 0.62±0.05 respectively.
The US criteria had the highest sensitivity for detection of APN and lowest NNS and the UK score had the highest specificity and the lowest NNR. The performance of all these four criteria to predict APN is limited, highlighting an urgent need to devise a novel APN prediction system for Asian subjects.
Abstract Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) and colonoscopy are two commonly used screening tools for colorectal cancer (CRC), and FS mainly detects distal lesions. Colonoscopy resource is limited, yet ...there is no definite evidence on when flexible sigmoidoscopy is suitable as a screening alternative. This study evaluated the optimal cut-off score from a validated risk stratification system which best predicts proximal advanced neoplasia (PAN) by comparing the sensitivity, specificity and relative risk of PAN according to various cut-off scores. 5819 asymptomatic subjects aged between 50 and 70 years (average age 57.7 years, standard deviation (SD) 4.9) received colonoscopy between 2008 and 2014 in Hong Kong. Their prevalence of PAN was evaluated according to a prediction tool for colorectal neoplasia based on age, gender, smoking status, family history of CRC, body mass index (BMI) and diabetes (ranging from 0 to 6). One binary logistic regression model was performed with PAN as the outcome variable and the risk score as the variable tested for association. In multivariate regression analysis, risk score ⩾3 was associated with significantly higher risk of PAN (3.4–9.1%; AOR = 3.18–8.09, p < 0.001) when compared with those scoring 0. Risk scores 0–2 were associated with either insignificant or lower risks of PAN compared to the overall risk. Applying FS for screening those who scored 0–2 and colonoscopy for those who scored ⩾3 led to a very small proportion of PAN being missed (1.60%), whilst maintaining a high level of specificity (81.9%). Clinicians may use this scoring system to inform subjects and facilitate their choice between colonoscopy and FS.
PDF
