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)
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