Colorectal cancer(CRC)is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the world.The incidence and mortality show wide geographical variations.Screening is recommended to reduce both incidence and ...mortality.However,there are significant differences among studies in implementation strategies and detection.This review aimed to present the results and strategies of different screening programs worldwide.We reviewed the literature on national and international screening programs published in Pub Med,on web pages,and in clinical guidelines.CRC Screening programs are currently underway in most European countries,Canada,specific regions in North and South America,Asia,and Oceania.The most extensive screening strategies were based on fecal occult blood testing,and more recently,the fecal immunochemical test(FIT).Participation in screening has varied greatly among different programs.The Netherlands showed the highest participation rate(68.2%)and some areas of Canada showed the lowest(16%).Participation rates were highest among women and in programs that used the FIT test.Men exhibited the greatest number of positive results.The FIT test has been the most widely used screening program worldwide.The advent of this test has increased participation rates and the detection of positive results.
Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening Ladabaum, Uri; Dominitz, Jason A.; Kahi, Charles ...
Gastroenterology (New York, N.Y. 1943),
January 2020, 2020-01-00, 20200101, Letnik:
158, Številka:
2
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing worldwide. CRC has high mortality when detected at advanced stages, yet it is also highly preventable. Given the difficulties in implementing ...major lifestyle changes or widespread primary prevention strategies to decrease CRC risk, screening is the most powerful public health tool to reduce mortality. Screening methods are effective but have limitations. Furthermore, many screen-eligible people remain unscreened. We discuss established and emerging screening methods, and potential strategies to address current limitations in CRC screening. A quantum step in CRC prevention might come with the development of new screening strategies, but great gains can be made by deploying the available CRC screening modalities in ways that optimize outcomes while making judicious use of resources.
To summarize and compare worldwide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations in order to identify similarities and disparities.
A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, ...EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL and ISI Web of knowledge identifying all average-risk CRC screening guideline publications within the last ten years and/or position statements published in the last 2 years. In addition, a hand-search of the webpages of National Gastroenterology Society websites, the National Guideline Clearinghouse, the BMJ Clinical Evidence website, Google and Google Scholar was performed.
Fifteen guidelines were identified. Six guidelines were published in North America, four in Europe, four in Asia and one from the World Gastroenterology Organization. The majority of guidelines recommend screening average-risk individuals between ages 50 and 75 using colonoscopy (every 10 years), or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS, every 5 years) or fecal occult blood test (FOBT, mainly the Fecal Immunochemical Test, annually or biennially). Disparities throughout the different guidelines are found relating to the use of colonoscopy, rank order between test, screening intervals and optimal age ranges for screening.
Average risk individuals between 50 and 75 years should undergo CRC screening. Recommendations for optimal surveillance intervals, preferred tests/test cascade as well as the optimal timing when to start and stop screening differ regionally and should be considered for clinical decision making. Furthermore, local resource availability and patient preferences are important to increase CRC screening uptake, as any screening is better than none.
Immunochemical faecal occult blood testing (FIT) provides quantitative test results, which allows optimisation of the cut-off value for follow-up colonoscopy. We conducted a randomised ...population-based trial to determine test characteristics of FIT (OC-Sensor micro, Eiken, Japan) screening at different cut-off levels and compare these with guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening in an average risk population. A representative sample of the Dutch population (n=10 011), aged 50-74 years, was 1 : 1 randomised before invitation to gFOBT and FIT screening. Colonoscopy was offered to screenees with a positive gFOBT or FIT (cut-off 50 ng haemoglobin/ml). When varying the cut-off level between 50 and 200 ng ml(-1), the positivity rate of FIT ranged between 8.1% (95% CI: 7.2-9.1%) and 3.5% (95% CI: 2.9-4.2%), the detection rate of advanced neoplasia ranged between 3.2% (95% CI: 2.6-3.9%) and 2.1% (95% CI: 1.6-2.6%), and the specificity ranged between 95.5% (95% CI: 94.5-96.3%) and 98.8% (95% CI: 98.4-99.0%). At a cut-off value of 75 ng ml(-1), the detection rate was two times higher than with gFOBT screening (gFOBT: 1.2%; FIT: 2.5%; P<0.001), whereas the number needed to scope (NNscope) to find one screenee with advanced neoplasia was similar (2.2 vs 1.9; P=0.69). Immunochemical faecal occult blood testing is considerably more effective than gFOBT screening within the range of tested cut-off values. From our experience, a cut-off value of 75 ng ml(-1) provided an adequate positivity rate and an acceptable trade-off between detection rate and NNscope.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in men and women in the United States. CRC screening efforts are directed toward removal of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions and detection ...of early-stage CRC. The purpose of this article is to update the 2009 American College of Gastroenterology CRC screening guidelines. The guideline is framed around several key questions. We conducted a comprehensive literature search to include studies through October 2020. The inclusion criteria were studies of any design with men and women age 40 years and older. Detailed recommendations for CRC screening in average-risk individuals and those with a family history of CRC are discussed. We also provide recommendations on the role of aspirin for chemoprevention, quality indicators for colonoscopy, approaches to organized CRC screening and improving adherence to CRC screening. CRC screening must be optimized to allow effective and sustained reduction of CRC incidence and mortality. This can be accomplished by achieving high rates of adherence, quality monitoring and improvement, following evidence-based guidelines, and removing barriers through the spectrum of care from noninvasive screening tests to screening and diagnostic colonoscopy. The development of cost-effective, highly accurate, noninvasive modalities associated with improved overall adherence to the screening process is also a desirable goal.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines include screening colonoscopy and sequential high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing (HSgFOBT), with expectation of similar effectiveness based on the ...assumption of similar high adherence. However, adherence to screening colonoscopy compared with sequential HSgFOBT has not been reported. In this randomized clinical trial, we assessed adherence and pathology findings for a single screening colonoscopy vs sequential and nonsequential HSgFOBTs.
Participants aged 40–69 years were enrolled at 3 centers representing different clinical settings. Participants were randomized into a single screening colonoscopy arm vs sequential HSgFOBT arm composed of 4–7 rounds. Initial adherence to screening colonoscopy and sequential adherence to HSgFOBT, follow-up colonoscopy for positive HSgFOBT tests, crossover to colonoscopy, and detection of advanced neoplasia or large serrated lesions (ADN-SERs) were measured.
There were 3523 participants included in the trial; 1761 and 1762 participants were randomized to the screening colonoscopy and HSgFOBT arms, respectively. Adherence was 1473 (83.6%) for the screening colonoscopy arm vs 1288 (73.1%) for the HSgFOBT arm after 1 round (relative risk RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10–1.19; P ≤ .001), but only 674 (38.3%) over 4 sequential HSgFOBT rounds (RR, 2.19; 95% CI, 2.05–2.33). Overall adherence to any screening increased to 1558 (88.5%) in the screening colonoscopy arm during the entire study period and 1493 (84.7%) in the HSgFOBT arm (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02–1.07). Four hundred thirty-six participants (24.7%) crossed over to screening colonoscopy during the first 4 rounds. ADN-SERs were detected in 121 of the 1473 participants (8.2%) in the colonoscopy arm who were adherent to protocol in the first 12 months of the study, whereas detection of ADN-SERs among those who were not sequentially adherent (n = 709) to HSgFOBT was subpar (0.6%) (RR, 14.72; 95% CI, 5.46–39.67) compared with those who were sequentially adherent (3.3%) (n = 647) (RR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.61–3.98) to HSgFOBT in the first 4 rounds. When including colonoscopies from HSgFOBT patients who were never positive yet crossed over (n = 1483), 5.5% of ADN-SERs were detected (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.15–1.96) in the first 4 rounds.
Observed adherence to sequential rounds of HSgFOBT was suboptimal compared with a single screening colonoscopy. Detection of ADN-SERs was inferior when nonsequential HSgFOBT adherence was compared with sequential adherence. However, the greatest number of ADN-SERs was detected among those who crossed over to colonoscopy and opted to receive a colonoscopy. The effectiveness of an HSgFOBT screening program may be enhanced if crossover to screening colonoscopy is permitted. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT00102011.
Fecal-based colorectal cancer screening is effective when there is adherence to the program of sequential (annual) testing. In circumstances when the uptake of fecal-based tests is suboptimal, colonoscopy should be considered in order to obtain maximum benefit.
Little information is available on the effectiveness of organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening on screening uptake, incidence, and mortality in community-based populations.
We contrasted ...screening rates, age-adjusted annual CRC incidence, and incidence-based mortality rates before (baseline year 2000) and after (through 2015) implementation of organized screening outreach, from 2007 through 2008 (primarily annual fecal immunochemical testing and colonoscopy), in a large community-based population. Among screening-eligible individuals 51–75 years old, we calculated annual up-to-date status for cancer screening (by fecal test, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy), CRC incidence, cancer stage distributions, and incidence-based mortality.
Initiation of organized CRC screening significantly increased the up-to-date status of screening, from 38.9% in 2000 to 82.7% in 2015 (P < .01). Higher rates of screening were associated with a 25.5% reduction in annual CRC incidence between 2000 and 2015, from 95.8 to 71.4 cases/100,000 (P < .01), and a 52.4% reduction in cancer mortality, from 30.9 to 14.7 deaths/100,000 (P < .01). Increased screening was initially associated with increased CRC incidence, due largely to greater detection of early-stage cancers, followed by decreases in cancer incidence. Advanced-stage CRC incidence rates decreased 36.2%, from 45.9 to 29.3 cases/100,000 (P < .01), and early-stage CRC incidence rates decreased 14.5%, from 48.2 to 41.2 cases/100,000 (P < .04).
Implementing an organized CRC screening program in a large community-based population rapidly increased screening participation to the ≥80% target set by national organizations. Screening rates were sustainable and associated with substantial decreases in CRC incidence and mortality within short time intervals, consistent with early detection and cancer prevention.
Display omitted
There is a wide choice of fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) for colorectal cancer screening.
Goal
: To highlight the issues applicable when choosing a FOBT, in particular which FOBT is best suited to ...the range of screening scenarios. Four scenarios characterize the constraints and expectations of screening programs: (1) limited colonoscopy resource with a need to constrain test positivity rate; (2) a priority for maximum colorectal neoplasia detection with little need to constrain colonoscopy workload; (3) an “adequate” endoscopy resource that allows balancing the benefits of detection with the burden of service provision; and (4) a need to maximize participation in screening. Guaiac-based FOBTs (gFOBTs) have significant deficiencies, and fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for hemoglobin have emerged as better tests. gFOBTs are not sensitive to small bleeds, specificity can be affected by diet or drugs, participant acceptance can be low, laboratory quality control opportunities are limited, and they have a fixed hemoglobin concentration cutoff determining positivity. FITs are analytically more specific, capable of quantitation and hence provide flexibility to adjust cutoff concentration for positivity and the balance between sensitivity and specificity. FITs are clinically more sensitive for cancers and advanced adenomas, and because they are easier to use, acceptance rates are high.
Conclusions
: FOBT must be chosen carefully to meet the needs of the applicable screening scenario. Quantitative FIT can be adjusted to suit Scenarios 1, 2 and 3, and for each, they are the test of choice. FITs are superior to gFOBT for Scenario 4 and gFOBT is only suitable for Scenario 1.
Abstract There is increasing evidence that faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for haemoglobin offer a number of advantages over traditional guaiac based faecal occult blood tests (gFOBTs). However, ...evidence on diagnostic performance from direct comparisons with colonoscopy findings in all participants in the average risk population is still sparse. We aimed for a head-to-head comparison of three quantitative FITs with a gFOBT among participants of the German screening colonoscopy programme. Pre-colonoscopy stool samples and colonoscopy reports were obtained from 2235 participants of screening colonoscopy in 2005–2009. To enhance comparability of diagnostic performance of the various tests, we assessed sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios of FITs after adjusting the FIT cut-off haemoglobin (Hb) concentrations in such a way that FIT positivity rates equalled the positivity rate of the gFOBT. Colorectal cancer, advanced adenomas and other adenomas were found in 15 (0.7%), 207 (9.3%) and 398 (17.8%) participants. The gFOBT was positive in 111 (5.0%) participants, with sensitivities (specificities) for detecting colorectal cancer, any advanced neoplasm or any neoplasm of 33.3% (95.2%), 8.6% (95.4%) and 5.5% (95.2%). At the same positivity rate, all three FITs outperformed the gFOBT in all indicators. In particular, all sensitivities of FITs were approximately two to three times higher at increased levels of specificity. All differences were statistically significant, except for some of the performance indicators for colorectal cancer. In conclusion, FITs can detect much larger proportions of colorectal neoplasms even if their cut-offs are set to levels that ensure equally low positivity rates as gFOBT.
Screening programs involve testing asymptomatic individuals with an accurate screening test to identify those likely to have the disease of interest and to further investigate them to confirm or ...exclude the disease. The aim of cancer screening is to prevent cancer deaths and improve quality of life by finding cancers early and by effectively treating them. A decision to introduce a screening program in public health services depends on the evidence that the benefits outweigh the harms of screening, disease burden, availability of suitable screening test, effective treatment, adequate resources, and efficient health services. Screening programs should achieve high participation for testing, diagnosis, and treatment to be effective and efficient.
To describe the current status of cancer screening programs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
A review of literature and on-going cancer screening initiatives in LMICs was made to discuss cancer screening in these countries.
Although population-based programs offering Papanicolaou testing every 3 to 5 years have reduced cervical cancer incidence and mortality in high-income countries, such programs have been less successful in reducing cervical cancer burden in LMICs due to poor organization, lack of coverage, and lack of quality assurance. The challenges in introducing high-quality cytology screening in LMICs have led to evaluation of alternative screening approaches such as visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), human papillomavirus (HPV) testing-based screening, and novel paradigms such as a “single-visit screen and treat” in which treatment with cryotherapy or cold coagulation is provided to screen-positive women without clinical evidence of cancer. Both HPV testing and VIA have been found to prevent cervical neoplasia and cervical cancer deaths in clinical trials. Although mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality, associated overdiagnosis and overtreatment and the balance between benefits and harms have received much attention in recent years. Although introduction of clinical breast examination screening in LMICs should wait for evidence from ongoing trials, improving breast awareness and access to early diagnosis and treatment in health services is a valuable breast cancer control option in LMICs. Organized colorectal cancer screening programs are still evolving and are in early stages of development in many high-income countries. To date, there is insufficient evidence to support the introduction of population-based stomach, lung, ovarian, and prostate cancer screening in public health services.
Implementation of VIA screening in several LMICs is conducive to future HPV screening programs when affordable HPV tests become widely available. Both HPV vaccination and HPV screening have a huge potential to eliminate cervical cancer in LMICs. A mammography screening program is a complex undertaking involving substantial resources and infrastructure that may not be feasible in many LMICs.
PDF
