Randomized Trial of Different Screening Strategies for Colorectal Cancer: Patient Response and Detection Rates
Open Access
- 1 March 2005
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Vol. 97 (5) , 347-357
- https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji050
Abstract
Background: Although there is general consensus concerning the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening, there is a lack of agreement about which routine screening strategy should be adopted. We compared the participation and detection rates achievable through different strategies of colorectal cancer screening. Methods: From November 1999 through June 2001 we conducted a multicenter, randomized trial in Italy among a sample of 55–64 year olds in the general population who had an average risk of colorectal cancer. People with previous colorectal cancer, adenomas, inflammatory bowel disease, a recent (≤2 years) colorectal endoscopy or fecal occult blood test (FOBT), or two first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer were excluded. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned, within the roster of their general practitioner, to 1) biennial FOBT (delivered by mail), 2) biennial FOBT (delivered by general practitioner or a screening facility), 3) patient's choice of FOBT or “once-only” sigmoidoscopy, 4) “once-only” sigmoidoscopy, or 5) sigmoidoscopy followed by biennial FOBT. An immunologic FOBT was used. Participation and detection rates of the strategies tested were compared using multivariable logistic regression models that adjusted for age, sex, and screening center. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Of 28 319 people sampled, 1637 were excluded and 26 682 were randomly assigned to a screening arm. After excluding undelivered letters ( n = 427), the participation rates for groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were 30.1% (682/2266), 28.1% (1654/5893), 27.1% (970/3579), 28.1% (1026/3650), and 28.1% (3049/10 867), respectively. Of the 2858 subjects screened by FOBT, 122 (4.3%) had a positive test result, 10 (3.5 per 1000) had colorectal cancer, and 39 (1.4%) had an advanced adenoma. Among the 4466 subjects screened by sigmoidoscopy, 341 (7.6%) were referred for colonoscopy, 18 (4 per 1000) had colorectal cancer, and 229 (5.1%) harbored an advanced adenoma. Conclusions: The participation rates were similar for sigmoidoscopy and FOBT. The detection rate for advanced neoplasia was three times higher following screening by sigmoidoscopy than by FOBT.Keywords
This publication has 39 references indexed in Scilit:
- Predictive value of rectal bleeding for distal colonic neoplastic lesions in a screened populationEuropean Journal Of Cancer, 2004
- Design, Organization and Management of a Controlled Population Screening Study for Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia: Attendance Rates in the NORCCAP Study (Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention)Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 2002
- Rectal bleeding in general and hospital practice; ‘the tip of the iceberg’Colorectal Disease, 2000
- Recommendations on cancer screening in the European UnionEuropean Journal Of Cancer, 2000
- Randomized trial of the addition of flexible sigmoidoscopy to faecal occult blood testing for colorectal neoplasia population screeningBritish Journal of Surgery, 1997
- Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood testThe Lancet, 1996
- Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancerThe Lancet, 1996
- Determinants of persistent compliance with screening for colorectal cancerSocial Science & Medicine, 1995
- Colorectal adenomas containing invasive carcinoma. Pathologic assessment of lymph node metastatic potentialCancer, 1989
- Rectal bleedingDiseases of the Colon & Rectum, 1989