Progress and Challenges in Colorectal Cancer Screening

Although faecal and endoscopic tests appear to be effective in reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, further technological and organizational advances are expected to improve the performance and acceptability of these tests. Several attempts to improve endoscopic technology have been made in order to improve the detection rate of neoplasia, especially in the proximal colon. Based on the latest evidence on the long-term efficacy of screening tests, new strategies including endoscopic and faecal modalities have also been proposed in order to improve participation and the diagnostic yield of programmatic screening. Overall, several factors in terms of both efficacy and costs of screening strategies, including the high cost of biological therapy for advanced colorectal cancer, are likely to affect the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening in the future

Population Based Cancer Screening Programmes as a Teachable Moment for Primary Prevention Interventions. A Review of the Literature

Background and aim: Unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, and smoking are key risk factors for the major non-communicable diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes. The screening procedure may represent an ideal setting for promoting healthy lifestyles as it represents a time when subjects are probably more inclined to consider a relationship between their own habits and their effects on health. The aim of this study is to review available evidence concerning interventions combining screening and primary prevention interventions, aimed at promoting the adoption of healthy lifestyles. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE and Cochrane library electronic databases for intervention studies of primary prevention interventions implemented in the context of established screening programmes, or of pilot screening projects, where the study design included a comparison group. Results: Comprehensive interventions are acceptable for asymptomatic subjects targeted for cancer screening, can result in improvements and may be cost–effective. A positive impact of these interventions in favoring the adoption of cancer protective dietary behaviors was observed in all studies. Conflicting results were instead reported with respect to physical activity, while no impact could be observed for interventions aimed to favor smoking cessation. Conclusions: The retrieved studies suggest that the screening setting may offer valuable opportunities to provide credible, potentially persuasive life style advice, reaching a wide audience. A multiple risk factor approach may maximize the benefit of behavioral change, as the same health related habits are associated not only with cancers targeted by screening interventions, but also with other cancers, coronary artery disease, and other chronic conditions, while unhealthy behaviors may be mutually reinforcing. In order to cover a maximum number of possibilities, health education programmes should include multiple strategies, integrating and combining models of individual, social, and environmental change

Progress and Challenges in Colorectal Cancer Screening

Although faecal and endoscopic tests appear to be effective in reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, further technological and organizational advances are expected to improve the performance and acceptability of these tests. Several attempts to improve endoscopic technology have been made in order to improve the detection rate of neoplasia, especially in the proximal colon. Based on the latest evidence on the long-term efficacy of screening tests, new strategies including endoscopic and faecal modalities have also been proposed in order to improve participation and the diagnostic yield of programmatic screening. Overall, several factors in terms of both efficacy and costs of screening strategies, including the high cost of biological therapy for advanced colorectal cancer, are likely to affect the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening in the future

Quality of colonoscopy in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme with immunochemical faecal occult blood test. The EQuIPE study (Evaluating Quality Indicators of the Performance of Endoscopy)

OBJECTIVES: To assess variation in the main colonoscopy quality indicators in organised colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes based on faecal immunochemical test (FIT). DESIGN: Data from a case-series of colonoscopies of FIT-positive subjects were provided by 44 Italian CRC screening programmes. Data on screening history, endoscopic procedure and histology results, and additional information on the endoscopy centre and the endoscopists were collected. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) and caecal intubation rate (CIR) were assessed for the whole population and the individual endoscopists. To explore variation in the quality indicators, multilevel analyses were performed according to patient/centre/endoscopist characteristics. RESULTS: We analysed 75 569 (mean age: 61.3 years; men: 57%) colonoscopies for positive FIT performed by 479 endoscopists in 79 centres. ADR ranged from 13.5% to 75% among endoscopists (mean: 44.8%). ADR was associated with gastroenterology specialty (OR: 0.87 for others, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.96) and, at the endoscopy centre level, with the routine use of sedation (OR: 0.80 if occasional (600 colonoscopies; 95% CI 1.11 to 2.04) and, at the endoscopy centre level, screening-dedicated sessions (OR: 2.18; 95% CI 1.24 to 3.83) and higher rates of sedation (OR: 0.47 if occasional; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of colonoscopy was affected by patient-related, endoscopist-related and centre-related characteristics. Policies addressing organisational issues should improve the quality of colonoscopy in our programme and similar programmes. 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

Flexible Sigmoidoscopy and CT Colonography Screening: Patients' Experience with and Factors for Undergoing Screening-Insight from the Proteus Colon Trial

Purpose To compare the acceptability of computed tomographic (CT) colonography and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening and the factors predicting CT colonographic screening participation, targeting participants in a randomized screening trial. Materials and Methods Eligible individuals aged 58 years (n = 1984) living in Turin, Italy, were randomly assigned to be invited to screening for colorectal cancer with FS or CT colonography. After individuals who had died or moved away (n = 28) were excluded, 264 of 976 (27.0%) underwent screening with FS and 298 of 980 (30.4%) underwent CT colonography. All attendees and a sample of CT colonography nonattendees (n = 299) were contacted for a telephone interview 3-6 months after invitation for screening, and screening experience and factors affecting participation were investigated. Odds ratios (ORs) were computed by means of multivariable logistic regression. Results For the telephone interviews, 239 of 264 (90.6%) FS attendees, 237 of 298 (79.5%) CT colonography attendees, and 182 of 299 (60.9%) CT colonography nonattendees responded. The percentage of attendees who would recommend the test to friends or relatives was 99.1% among FS and 93.3% among CT colonography attendees. Discomfort associated with bowel preparation was higher among CT colonography than FS attendees (OR, 2.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.47, 5.24). CT colonography nonattendees were less likely to be men (OR, 0.36; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.71), retired (OR, 0.31; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.75), to report regular physical activity (OR, 0.37; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.70), or to have read the information leaflet (OR, 0.18; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.41). They were more likely to mention screening-related anxiety (mild: OR, 6.30; 95% CI: 2.48, 15.97; moderate or severe: OR, 3.63; 95% CI: 1.87, 7.04), erroneous beliefs about screening (OR, 32.15; 95% CI: 6.26, 165.19), or having undergone a recent fecal occult blood test (OR, 13.69; 95% CI: 3.66, 51.29). Conclusion CT colonography and FS screening are well accepted, but further reducing the discomfort from bowel preparation may increase CT colonography screening acceptability. Negative attitudes, erroneous beliefs about screening, and organizational barriers are limiting screening uptake; all these factors are modifiable and therefore potentially susceptible to interventions. (©) RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article

Optimizing the Quality of Colorectal Cancer Screening Worldwide

Screening, followed by colonoscopic polypectomy (or surgery for malignant lesions), prevents incident colorectal cancer and mortality. However, there are variations in effective application of nearly every aspect of the screening process. Screening is a multistep process, and failure in any single step could result in unnecessary morbidity and mortality. Awareness of variations in operator- and system-dependent performance has led to detailed, comprehensive recommendations in the United States and Europe on how colonoscopy screening should be performed and measured. Likewise, guidance has been provided on quality assurance for nonprimary colonoscopy-based screening programs, including strategies to maximize adherence. Quality improvement is now a validated science, and there is clear evidence that higher quality prevents incident cancer and cancer death. Quality must be addressed at the levels of the system, provider, and individuals, to maximize the benefits of screening for any population. We review the important aspects of measuring and improving the quality of colorectal cancer screening

CT colonography: Preliminary assessment of a double-read paradigm that uses computer-aided detection as the first reader

Purpose: To compare diagnostic performance and time efficiency of double-reading first-reader computer-aided detection (CAD) (DR FR CAD) followed by radiologist interpretation with that of an unassisted read using segmentally un-blinded colonoscopy as reference standard. Materials and Methods: The local ethical committee approved this study. Written consent to use examinations was obtained from patients. Three experienced radiologists searched for polyps 6 mm or larger in 155 computed tomographic (CT) colonographic studies (57 containing 10 masses and 79 polyps >= 6 mm). Reading was randomized to either unassisted read or DR FR CAD. Data sets were reread 6 weeks later by using the opposite paradigm. DR FR CAD consists of evaluation of CAD prompts, followed by fast two-dimensional review for mass detection. CAD sensitivity was calculated. Readers' diagnoses and reviewing times with and without CAD were compared by using McNemar and Student t tests, respectively. Association between missed polyps and lesion characteristics was explored with multiple regression analysis. Results: With mean rate of 19 (standard deviation, 14; median, 15; range, 4-127) false-positive results per patient, CAD sensitivity was 90% for lesions 6 mm or larger. Readers' sensitivity and specificity for lesions 6 mm or larger were 74% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 65%, 84%) and 93% (95% CI: 89%, 97%), respectively, for the unassisted read and 77% (95% CI: 67%, 85%) and 90% (95% CI: 85%, 95%), respectively, for DR FR CAD (P = .343 and P = .189, respectively). Overall unassisted and DR FR CAD reviewing times were similar (243 vs 239 seconds; P = .623); DR FR CAD was faster when the number of CAD marks per patient was 20 or fewer (187 vs 220 seconds, P < .01). Odds ratio of missing a polyp with CAD decreased as polyp size increased (0.6) and for polyps visible on both prone and supine scans (0.12); it increased for flat lesions (9.1). Conclusion: DR FR CAD paradigm had similar performance compared with unassisted interpretation but better time efficiency when 20 or fewer CAD prompts per patient were generated. (C) RSNA, 201