10.08.2013 Views

Report in English with a Dutch summary (KCE reports 45A)

Report in English with a Dutch summary (KCE reports 45A)

Report in English with a Dutch summary (KCE reports 45A)

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> vol.45 Screen<strong>in</strong>g for Colorectal Cancer 83<br />

colonoscopic exam<strong>in</strong>ation. Hospital files and the files of The Norwegian Cancer<br />

Registry were searched to register any cases of CRC <strong>in</strong> the period 1983 - 1996.<br />

In the first round (1983), 324 (81% of <strong>in</strong>tervention group) <strong>in</strong>dividuals attended<br />

endoscopic screen<strong>in</strong>g and 451 (71% of total group) <strong>in</strong> 1996. From 1983 to 1996,<br />

altogether 10 <strong>in</strong>dividuals <strong>in</strong> the control group and 2 <strong>in</strong> the screen<strong>in</strong>g group were<br />

registered to have developed CRC (RR 0,2 - 95% CI: 0,03 - 0,95; P = 0,02).<br />

Strik<strong>in</strong>gly, a higher overall mortality was observed <strong>in</strong> the screen<strong>in</strong>g group, <strong>with</strong><br />

55 (14%) deaths, compared <strong>with</strong> 35 (9%) <strong>in</strong> the control group (RR 1,57 - 95%<br />

CI: 1,03 - 2,4; P = 0,03). However, before draw<strong>in</strong>g possible conclusions on this,<br />

the possible effect of screen<strong>in</strong>g on overall mortality should be addressed <strong>in</strong><br />

larger studies. Currently, a few larger trials are underway, but those are not<br />

expected to report mortality results <strong>in</strong> the near future.<br />

5.5.3.2 UK FS Screen<strong>in</strong>g Trial<br />

In the UK FS Screen<strong>in</strong>g Trial 279 170.432 men and women aged 60 to 64 <strong>in</strong><br />

fourteen centers were sent a questionnaire by mail to ask if they would attend<br />

for FS screen<strong>in</strong>g if <strong>in</strong>vited. Of 354.262 people to whom this questionnaire was<br />

sent, 194.726 (55%) agreed to participate. Interested respondents were<br />

excluded if they <strong>in</strong>formed the local trial unit of exclusion criteria missed by their<br />

general practitioner, or if they had a strong family history of colorectal cancer<br />

(at least two affected close relatives), a temporary health problem that would<br />

prevent them from hav<strong>in</strong>g the screen<strong>in</strong>g test, or a worry<strong>in</strong>g bowel symptom<br />

that required <strong>in</strong>vestigation. Individuals <strong>with</strong> a strong family history of bowel<br />

cancer or suspicious symptoms were managed outside of the trial, because<br />

randomisation would not have been <strong>in</strong> their <strong>in</strong>terest. F<strong>in</strong>ally, 170.432 eligible<br />

subjects were randomized us<strong>in</strong>g a 2:1 ratio of controls (N = 113.178) to those<br />

<strong>in</strong>vited for screen<strong>in</strong>g (N= 57.254). The screen<strong>in</strong>g protocol <strong>in</strong>volved a FS <strong>with</strong><br />

removal of all small polyps seen at the time of sigmoidoscopy <strong>with</strong> colonoscopy<br />

reserved for those <strong>with</strong> high-risk polyps (three or more adenomas, an adenoma<br />

greater than 1 cm <strong>in</strong> diameter, a villous or severely dysplastic adenoma) or<br />

<strong>in</strong>vasive cancers. Of the 57.254 <strong>in</strong>dividuals <strong>in</strong>vited for screen<strong>in</strong>g 40.674 (71%)<br />

attended. The attendance rate was higher <strong>in</strong> men than <strong>in</strong> women (20.519 of<br />

28.097 (73%) vs. 20.155 of 29.157 (69%, p< 0·001). However, the men and<br />

women who attended for screen<strong>in</strong>g showed similar age distributions:<br />

proportions aged over 60 years: men 8.976 of 20.519 (44%), women 8.839 of<br />

20.155 (44%). Of the 16.580 who did not attend, 7.541 (46%) provided a reason<br />

to the unit: 3.324 no longer wanted the test, 547 said they had had a similar test<br />

already, 794 were undergo<strong>in</strong>g hospital treatment or await<strong>in</strong>g an appo<strong>in</strong>tment,<br />

265 had moved away, 97 had died, and 2.514 provided various other reasons.<br />

It should be recognised that this study is essentially a volunteer study. The trial<br />

used a two-stage recruitment procedure whereby eligible participants were<br />

enrolled only if they responded positively to a questionnaire ask<strong>in</strong>g whether<br />

they would be likely to accept the offer of screen<strong>in</strong>g. 55% of questioned people<br />

responded positively, and 71% of those <strong>in</strong>vited for screen<strong>in</strong>g (all of whom had<br />

replied positively) actually attended. Therefore, as the researchers state, the<br />

population coverage achieved was equivalent to 39%.<br />

In the screen<strong>in</strong>g group, 2.131 (5,2%) were classified as high-risk and referred<br />

straight to colonoscopy; of these 165 for reasons other than high-risk polyps<br />

(safety of polypectomy: 31; family history of cancer: 20; suspicious symptoms:<br />

16). 38.525 <strong>with</strong> no polyps or only low-risk polyps detected were discharged<br />

after screen<strong>in</strong>g FS. Distal adenomas were detected <strong>in</strong> 4.931 (12%) and distal<br />

cancer <strong>in</strong> 131 (0,3%). Proximal adenomas were detected <strong>in</strong> 386 (18%) of those<br />

undergo<strong>in</strong>g colonoscopy and proximal cancer <strong>in</strong> n<strong>in</strong>e cases (0,4%). Of particular

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!