The role of area-level deprivation and gender in participation in population-based faecal immunochemical test (FIT) colorectal cancer screening

This study aimed to investigate the effects of sex and deprivation on participation in a population-based faecal immunochemical test (FIT) colorectal cancer screening programme. The study population included 9785 individuals invited to participate in two rounds of a population-based biennial FIT-based screening programme, in a relatively deprived area of Dublin, Ireland. Explanatory variables included in the analysis were sex, deprivation category of area of residence and age (at end of screening). The primary outcome variable modelled was participation status in both rounds combined (with “participation” defined as having taken part in either or both rounds of screening). Poisson regression with a log link and robust error variance was used to estimate relative risks (RR) for participation. As a sensitivity analysis, data were stratified by screening round. In both the univariable and multivariable models deprivation was strongly associated with participation. Increasing affluence was associated with higher participation; participation was 26% higher in people resident in the most affluent compared to the most deprived areas (multivariable RR = 1.26: 95% CI 1.21–1.30). Participation was significantly lower in males (multivariable RR = 0.96: 95%CI 0.95–0.97) and generally increased with increasing age (trend per age group, multivariable RR = 1.02: 95%CI, 1.01–1.02). No significant interactions between the explanatory variables were found. The effects of deprivation and sex were similar by screening round. Deprivation and male gender are independently associated with lower uptake of population-based FIT colorectal cancer screening, even in a relatively deprived setting. Development of evidence-based interventions to increase uptake in these disadvantaged groups is urgently required

Recommendations for a step-wise comparative approach to the evaluation of new screening tests for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND: New screening tests for colorectal cancer continue to emerge, but the evidence needed to justify their adoption in screening programs remains uncertain.METHODS: A review of the literature and a consensus approach by experts was undertaken to provide practical guidance on how to compare new screening tests with proven screening tests.RESULTS: Findings and recommendations from the review included the following: Adoption of a new screening test requires evidence of effectiveness relative to a proven comparator test. Clinical accuracy supported by programmatic population evaluation in the screening context on an intention-to-screen basis, including acceptability, is essential. Cancer-specific mortality is not essential as an endpoint provided that the mortality benefit of the comparator has been demonstrated and that the biologic basis of detection is similar. Effectiveness of the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test provides the minimum standard to be achieved by a new test. A 4-phase evaluation is recommended. An initial retrospective evaluation in cancer cases and controls (Phase 1) is followed by a prospective evaluation of performance across the continuum of neoplastic lesions (Phase 2). Phase 3 follows the demonstration of adequate accuracy in these 2 prescreening phases and addresses programmatic outcomes at 1 screening round on an intention-to-screen basis. Phase 4 involves more comprehensive evaluation of ongoing screening over multiple rounds. Key information is provided from the following parameters: the test positivity rate in a screening population, the true-positive and false-positive rates, and the number needed to colonoscope to detect a target lesion.CONCLUSIONS: New screening tests can be evaluated efficiently by this stepwise comparative approach. Cancer 2016;122:826-39. © 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.</p

Effectiveness of empirical <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> eradication therapy with furazolidone in Russia: results from the European Registry on <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> Management (Hp-EuReg)

Background. First-line therapy does not always provide a high level of Helicobacter pylori eradication due to the increase of H. pylori resistance to antibiotics; therefore, it remains necessary to identify the most effective rescue treatments. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of empirical H. pylori furazolidone-containing regimens. Materials and methods. Adult H. pylori infected patients empirically treated with furazolidone-containing eradication regimens were registered in an international, prospective, multicenter non-intervention European registry on H. pylori management (Hp-EuReg). Data were collected at AEG-REDCap e-CRF from 2013 to 2021 and the quality was reviewed. Modified intention-to-treat (mITT) effectiveness analyses were performed. Results. Overall 106 patients received empirical furazolidone-containing therapy in Russia. Furazolidone was prescribed in a sequential scheme along with amoxicillin, clarithromycin and a proton pump inhibitor in 68 (64%) cases, triple regimens were prescribed in 28 (26%) patients and quadruple regimens in 10 (9.4%). Treatment duration of 7 days was assigned to 2 (1.9%) patients, 10-day eradication therapy in case of 80 (75%) and 14 days in 24 (23%) patients. Furazolidone was mainly used in first- (79%) and second-line (21%) regimens. The methods used to diagnose H. pylori infection were: histology (81%), stool antigen test (64%), 13C-urea breath test (6.6%), and rapid urease test (1.9%). The mITT effectiveness of sequential therapy was 100%; 93% with the triple therapy and 75.5% with quadruple therapy. Compliance was reported in 98% of cases. Adverse events were revealed in 5.7% of patients, mostly nausea (3.8%). No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion. Furazolidone containing eradication regimens appear to be an effective and safe empirical therapy in Russia

Common polygenic variation in coeliac disease and confirmation of ZNF335 and NIFA as disease susceptibility loci

Coeliac disease (CD) is a chronic immune-mediated disease triggered by the ingestion of gluten. It has an estimated prevalence of approximately 1% in European populations. Specific HLA-DQA1 and HLA-DQB1 alleles are established coeliac susceptibility genes and are required for the presentation of gliadin to the immune system resulting in damage to the intestinal mucosa. In the largest association analysis of CD to date, 39 non-HLA risk loci were identified, 13 of which were new, in a sample of 12 014 individuals with CD and 12 228 controls using the Immunochip genotyping platform. Including the HLA, this brings the total number of known CD loci to 40. We have replicated this study in an independent Irish CD case–control population of 425 CD and 453 controls using the Immunochip platform. Using a binomial sign test, we show that the direction of the effects of previously described risk alleles were highly correlated with those reported in the Irish population, (P=2.2 × 10−16). Using the Polygene Risk Score (PRS) approach, we estimated that up to 35% of the genetic variance could be explained by loci present on the Immunochip (P=9 × 10−75). When this is limited to non-HLA loci, we explain a maximum of 4.5% of the genetic variance (P=3.6 × 10−18). Finally, we performed a meta-analysis of our data with the previous reports, identifying two further loci harbouring the ZNF335 and NIFA genes which now exceed genome-wide significance, taking the total number of CD susceptibility loci to 42

An efficient strategy for evaluating new non-invasive screening tests for colorectal cancer: the guiding principles

Objective: New screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) are rapidly emerging. Conducting trials with mortality reduction as the end point supporting their adoption is challenging. We re-examined the principles underlying evaluation of new non-invasive tests in view of technological developments and identification of new biomarkers. Design: A formal consensus approach involving a multidisciplinary expert panel revised eight previously established principles. Results: Twelve newly stated principles emerged. Effectiveness of a new test can be evaluated by comparison with a proven comparator non-invasive test. The faecal immunochemical test is now considered the appropriate comparator, while colonoscopy remains the diagnostic standard. For a new test to be able to meet differing screening goals and regulatory requirements, flexibility to adjust its positivity threshold is desirable. A rigorous and efficient four-phased approach is proposed, commencing with small studies assessing the test’s ability to discriminate between CRC and non-cancer states (phase I), followed by prospective estimation of accuracy across the continuum of neoplastic lesions in neoplasia-enriched populations (phase II). If these show promise, a provisional test positivity threshold is set before evaluation in typical screening populations. Phase III prospective studies determine single round intention-to-screen programme outcomes and confirm the test positivity threshold. Phase IV studies involve evaluation over repeated screening rounds with monitoring for missed lesions. Phases III and IV findings will provide the real-world data required to model test impact on CRC mortality and incidence. Conclusion: New non-invasive tests can be efficiently evaluated by a rigorous phased comparative approach, generating data from unbiased populations that inform predictions of their health impact