For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
38
views
44
references
 Top references
cited by
27
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      167
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Program: current perspectives on strategies for improvement

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the UK. The English National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Program (BCSP) was introduced in 2006 to improve CRC mortality by earlier detection of CRC. It is now offered to patients aged 60–74 years and involves a home-based guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBt) biennially, and if positive, patients are offered a colonoscopy. This has been associated with a 15% reduction in mortality. In 2013, an additional arm to BCSP was introduced, Bowelscope. This offers patients aged 55 years a one-off flexible sigmoidoscopy, and if several adenomas are found, the patients are offered a completion colonoscopy. BCSP has been associated with a significant stage shift in CRC diagnosis; however, the uptake of bowel cancer screening remains lower than that for other screening programs. Further work is required to understand the reasons for nonparticipation of patients to ensure optimal uptake. A change of gFOBt kit to the fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) in the English BCSP may further increase patient participation. This, in addition to increased yield of neoplasia and cancers with the FIT kit, is likely to further improve CRC outcomes in the screened population.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer.

          Michal F Kaminski, Jaroslaw Regula, Ewa Kraszewska … (2010)
          Although rates of detection of adenomatous lesions (tumors or polyps) and cecal intubation are recommended for use as quality indicators for screening colonoscopy, these measurements have not been validated, and their importance remains uncertain. We used a multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression model to evaluate the influence of quality indicators for colonoscopy on the risk of interval cancer. Data were collected from 186 endoscopists who were involved in a colonoscopy-based colorectal-cancer screening program involving 45,026 subjects. Interval cancer was defined as colorectal adenocarcinoma that was diagnosed between the time of screening colonoscopy and the scheduled time of surveillance colonoscopy. We derived data on quality indicators for colonoscopy from the screening program's database and data on interval cancers from cancer registries. The primary aim of the study was to assess the association between quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. A total of 42 interval colorectal cancers were identified during a period of 188,788 person-years. The endoscopist's rate of detection of adenomas was significantly associated with the risk of interval colorectal cancer (P=0.008), whereas the rate of cecal intubation was not significantly associated with this risk (P=0.50). The hazard ratios for adenoma detection rates of less than 11.0%, 11.0 to 14.9%, and 15.0 to 19.9%, as compared with a rate of 20.0% or higher, were 10.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37 to 87.01), 10.75 (95% CI, 1.36 to 85.06), and 12.50 (95% CI, 1.51 to 103.43), respectively (P=0.02 for all comparisons). The adenoma detection rate is an independent predictor of the risk of interval colorectal cancer after screening colonoscopy. 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society
          Article 0 comments Cited 475 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study.

            Jack Mandel, John Bond, Timothy R Church … (1993)
            Although tests for occult blood in the feces are widely used to screen for colorectal cancers, there is no conclusive evidence that they reduce mortality from this cause. We evaluated a fecal occult-blood test in a randomized trial and documented its effectiveness. We randomly assigned 46,551 participants 50 to 80 years of age to screening for colorectal cancer once a year, to screening every two years, or to a control group. Participants who were screened submitted six guaiac-impregnated paper slides with two smears from each of three consecutive stools. About 83 percent of the slides were rehydrated. Participants who tested positive underwent a diagnostic evaluation that included colonoscopy. Vital status was ascertained for all study participants during 13 years of follow-up. A committee determined causes of death. A single pathologist determined the stage of each tissue specimen. Differences in mortality from colorectal cancer, the primary study end point, were monitored with the sequential log-rank statistic. The 13-year cumulative mortality per 1000 from colorectal cancer was 5.88 in the annually screened group (95 percent confidence interval, 4.61 to 7.15), 8.33 in the biennially screened group (95 percent confidence interval, 6.82 to 9.84), and 8.83 in the control group (95 percent confidence interval, 7.26 to 10.40). The rate in the annually screened group, but not in the biennially screened group, was significantly lower than that in the control group. Reduced mortality in the annually screened group was accompanied by improved survival in those with colorectal cancer and a shift to detection at an earlier stage of cancer. Annual fecal occult-blood testing with rehydration of the samples decreased the 13-year cumulative mortality from colorectal cancer by 33 percent.
            Article 0 comments Cited 434 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a randomized clinical trial.

              Øyvind Holme, Magnus Løberg, Mette Kalager … (2014)
              Colorectal cancer is a major health burden. Screening is recommended in many countries. To estimate the effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in a population-based trial. Randomized clinical trial of 100,210 individuals aged 50 to 64 years, identified from the population of Oslo city and Telemark County, Norway. Screening was performed in 1999-2000 (55-64-year age group) and in 2001 (50-54-year age group), with follow-up ending December 31, 2011. Of those selected, 1415 were excluded due to prior colorectal cancer, emigration, or death, and 3 could not be traced in the population registry. Participants randomized to the screening group were invited to undergo screening. Within the screening group, participants were randomized 1:1 to receive once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy or combination of once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood testing (FOBT). Participants with positive screening test results (cancer, adenoma, polyp ≥10 mm, or positive FOBT) were offered colonoscopy. The control group received no intervention. Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. A total of 98,792 participants were included in the intention-to-screen analyses, of whom 78,220 comprised the control group and 20,572 comprised the screening group (10,283 randomized to receive a flexible sigmoidoscopy and 10,289 to receive flexible sigmoidoscopy and FOBT). Adherence with screening was 63%. After a median of 10.9 years, 71 participants died of colorectal cancer in the screening group vs 330 in the control group (31.4 vs 43.1 deaths per 100,000 person-years; absolute rate difference, 11.7 [95% CI, 3.0-20.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.94]). Colorectal cancer was diagnosed in 253 participants in the screening group vs 1086 in the control group (112.6 vs 141.0 cases per 100,000 person-years; absolute rate difference, 28.4 [95% CI, 12.1-44.7]; HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.70-0.92]). Colorectal cancer incidence was reduced in both the 50- to 54-year age group (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.94) and the 55- to 64-year age group (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96). There was no difference between the flexible sigmoidoscopy only vs the flexible sigmoidoscopy and FOBT screening groups. In Norway, once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening or flexible sigmoidoscopy and FOBT reduced colorectal cancer incidence and mortality on a population level compared with no screening. Screening was effective both in the 50- to 54-year and the 55- to 64-year age groups. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00119912.
              Article 0 comments Cited 116 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Risk Manag Healthc Policy
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Risk Manag Healthc Policy
                Journal ID (publisher-id): Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
                Title: Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
                Publisher: Dove Medical Press
                ISSN (Electronic): 1179-1594
                Publication date Collection: 2017
                Publication date (Electronic): 04 December 2017
                Volume: 10
                Pages: 177-187
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Gastroenterology, South Tyneside District Hospital, South Shields
                [2 ]Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London
                [3 ]School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Stockton on Tees
                [4 ]Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Colin J Rees, Department of Gastroenterology, South Tyneside District Hospital, Harton Lane, South Shields NE34 0PL, UK, Email Colin.Rees@ 123456stft.nhs.uk
                Article
                Publisher ID: rmhp-10-177
                DOI: 10.2147/RMHP.S109116
                PMC ID: 5720037
                PubMed ID: 29270036
                SO-VID: b40c114c-9363-4e2d-bed8-9f3b064ccd2a
                Copyright © © 2017 Koo et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited
                License:

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                History
                Categories
                Subject: Review

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Social policy & Welfare
                Keywords: colorectal cancer,flexible sigmoidoscopy screening,bowelscope,ct colongraphy,fecal immunochemical tests,gfobt screening,uptake,quality in colonoscopy
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Social policy & Welfare
                Keywords: colorectal cancer, flexible sigmoidoscopy screening, bowelscope, ct colongraphy, fecal immunochemical tests, gfobt screening, uptake, quality in colonoscopy

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content167

                See all similar

                Cited by26

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,529

                See all reference authors