28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    5
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Performance measures in three rounds of the English bowel cancer screening pilot

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Objectives

          To compare performance measures across all three rounds of the English bowel cancer screening faecal occult blood test pilot and their relation to social deprivation and ethnicity.

          Methods

          In each round in three primary care trusts, data for a restricted population of over 48 500 aged 60–69 years were analysed. Individual-based data included postcode linked to area-based data on the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2004, and ethnicity. Outcomes were the rates of screening and colonoscopy uptake, positivity and detection of neoplasia (adenomas or bowel cancer) and bowel cancer, and the positive predictive values (PPVs) of a positive test for neoplasia and bowel cancer. Sensitivity was calculated by the proportional incidence method using data on interval cancers identified from cancer registrations.

          Results

          The overall uptake rate was 61.8%, 57.0% and 58.7% in the first, second and third rounds, respectively. Although the PPV for cancer decreased over the course of the three rounds (10.9% in the 1st round, 6.5% in 3rd round), the PPV for all neoplasia remained relatively constant (42.6% in 1st round, 36.9% in 3rd round). Deprivation and non-white ethnic background (principally Indian subcontinent in the pilot region) were associated with low screening and colonoscopy uptake rates, and this changed little over the three screening rounds. Uptake was lower in men, although differences in uptake between men and women decreased over time. Non-participation in previous rounds was a strong predictor of low uptake.

          Conclusions

          Performance measures are commensurate with expectations in a screening programme reaching its third round of screening, but a substantial ongoing effort is needed, particularly to address the effects of deprivation and ethnicity in relation to uptake.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

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

          Random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer in a screening population.

          Despite poor performance, guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests (G-FOBT) are most frequently implemented for colorectal cancer screening. Immunochemical fecal occult blood tests (I-FOBT) are claimed to perform better, without randomized comparison in screening populations. Our aim was to randomly compare G-FOBT with I-FOBT in a screening population. We conducted a population-based study on a random sample of 20,623 individuals 50-75 years of age, randomized to either G-FOBT (Hemoccult-II) or I-FOBT (OC-Sensor). Tests and invitations were sent together. For I-FOBT, the standard cutoff of 100 ng/ml was used. Positive FOBTs were verified with colonoscopy. Advanced adenomas were defined as >or=10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, or >or=20% villous component. There were 10,993 tests returned: 4836 (46.9%) G-FOBTs and 6157 (59.6%) I-FOBTs. The participation rate difference was 12.7% (P < .01). Of G-FOBTs, 117 (2.4%) were positive versus 339 (5.5%) of I-FOBTs. The positivity rate difference was 3.1% (P < .01). Cancer and advanced adenomas were found, respectively, in 11 and 48 of G-FOBTs and in 24 and 121 of I-FOBTs. Differences in positive predictive value for cancer and advanced adenomas and cancer were, respectively, 2.1% (P = .4) and -3.6% (P = .5). Differences in specificities favor G-FOBT and were, respectively, 2.3% (P < .01) and -1.3% (P < .01). Differences in intention-to-screen detection rates favor I-FOBT and were, respectively, 0.1% (P < .05) and 0.9% (P < .01). The number-to-scope to find 1 cancer was comparable between the tests. However, participation and detection rates for advanced adenomas and cancer were significantly higher for I-FOBT. G-FOBT significantly underestimates the prevalence of advanced adenomas and cancer in the screening population compared with I-FOBT.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Screening for colorectal cancer: randomised trial comparing guaiac-based and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy.

            Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is widely accepted, but there is no consensus on the preferred strategy. We conducted a randomised trial comparing participation and detection rates (DR) per screenee of guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBT), immunochemical FOBT (FIT), and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) for CRC screening. A representative sample of the Dutch population (n = 15 011), aged 50-74 years, was 1:1:1 randomised prior to invitation to one of the three screening strategies. Colonoscopy was indicated for screenees with a positive gFOBT or FIT, and for those in whom FS revealed a polyp with a diameter > or = 10 mm; adenoma with > or = 25% villous component or high grade dysplasia; serrated adenoma; > or = 3 adenomas; > or = 20 hyperplastic polyps; or CRC. The participation rate was 49.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 48.1 to 50.9%) for gFOBT, 61.5% (CI, 60.1 to 62.9%) for FIT and 32.4% (CI, 31.1 to 33.7%) for FS screening. gFOBT was positive in 2.8%, FIT in 4.8% and FS in 10.2%. The DR of advanced neoplasia was significantly higher in the FIT (2.4%; OR, 2.0; CI, 1.3 to 3.1) and the FS arm (8.0%; OR, 7.0; CI, 4.6 to 10.7) than the gFOBT arm (1.1%). FS demonstrated a higher diagnostic yield of advanced neoplasia per 100 invitees (2.4; CI, 2.0 to 2.8) than gFOBT (0.6; CI, 0.4 to 0.8) or FIT (1.5; CI, 1.2 to 1.9) screening. This randomised population-based CRC-screening trial demonstrated superior participation and detection rates for FIT compared to gFOBT screening. FIT screening should therefore be strongly preferred over gFOBT screening. FS screening demonstrated a higher diagnostic yield per 100 invitees than both FOBTs.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Results from the first three rounds of the Scottish demonstration pilot of FOBT screening for colorectal cancer.

              To assess the effects of the first three rounds of a pilot colorectal screening programme based on guaiac faecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) and their implications for a national population-based programme. A demonstration pilot programme was conducted in three Scottish NHS Boards. Residents aged between 50 and 69 years registered on the Community Health Index were included in the study. In the first round, the uptake was 55.0%, the positivity rate was 2.07% and the cancer detection rate was 2.1/1000 screened. In the second round, these were 53.0%, 1.90% and 1.2/1000, respectively, and in the third round, 55.3%, 1.16% and 0.7/1000, respectively. In the first round, the positive predictive value of the gFOBT was 12.0% for cancer and 36.5% for adenoma; these fell to 7.0% and 30.3% in the second round and were maintained at 7.5% and 29.1% in the third round. The percentage of screen-detected cancers diagnosed at Dukes' stage A was 49.2% in the first round, 40.1% in the second round and 36.3% in the third round. These results are compatible with those of previous randomised trials done in research settings, demonstrating that population-based colorectal cancer screening is feasible in Scotland and should lead to a comparable reduction in disease-specific mortality.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Gut
                gut
                gutjnl
                Gut
                BMJ Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0017-5749
                1468-3288
                10 May 2011
                January 2012
                10 May 2011
                : 61
                : 1
                : 101-107
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit, Section of Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, UK
                [2 ]Centre for Population Health Sciences–General Practice, University of Edinburgh, Medical School, Edinburgh, UK
                [3 ]Midlands & NW Bowel Cancer Screening Hub, University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire, NHS Trust, Coventry, Warwickshire, UK
                [4 ]Bowel Cancer Screening Pilot, Ryde Ward, Rugby, UK
                [5 ]NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, Fulwood House, Sheffield, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to S M Moss, Institute of Cancer Research, SRD Building, Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK; sue.moss@ 123456icr.ac.uk
                Article
                gutjnl236430
                10.1136/gut.2010.236430
                3230830
                21561880
                c48db023-d9dc-4ad3-b18d-97d8f0e262f2
                © 2011, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.

                History
                : 22 March 2011
                : 29 March 2011
                Categories
                Colon
                1506
                Original article

                Gastroenterology & Hepatology
                screening,colorectal cancer
                Gastroenterology & Hepatology
                screening, colorectal cancer

                Comments

                Comment on this article