Quality of life in participants of a CRC screening program

Background: Little is known about the effect of participating in a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme on quality of life (QOL), neither for participants with a negative nor for those with a positive test result. These findings, however, are important to evaluate the impact of CRC screening. Methods: Participants from CRC screening trials were sent a questionnaire, which included validated measures on generic health-related QOL, generic anxiety and screen-specific anxiety. Both faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) participants, either with negative or positive test results, were addressed. Results: The response rate was 73% (1289 out of 1772) for FIT and 78% (536 out of 689) for FS participants, with mean ages varying from 63-66 years. Positive FIT participants had worse physical (PCS-12, 47.1 vs 48.3, P=0.02), but equal mental QOL scores (MCS-12, 51.1 vs 51.6, P=0.26). Positive and negative FS participants had similar QOL scores. Both FIT and FS participants with a positive test result reported more screen-specific anxiety than negative FIT and FS participants. Positive and negative FS participants had similar generic anxiety scores. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that the burden of participating in CRC screening may be limited. Conducting a prospective study to confirm these results is recommended

Cost-effectiveness of one versus two sample faecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening

Objective The sensitivity and specificity of a single faecal immunochemical test (FIT) are limited. The performance of FIT screening can be improved by increasing the screening frequency or by providing more than one sample in each screening round. This study aimed to evaluate if two-sample FIT screening is cost-effective compared with one-sample FIT. Design The MISCANecolon microsimulation model was used to estimate costs and benefits of strategies with either one or two-sample FIT screening. The FIT cut-off level varied between 50 and 200 ng haemoglobin/ml, and the screening schedule was varied with respect to age range and interval. In addition, different definitions for positivity of the two-sample FIT were considered: at least one positive sample, two positive samples, or the mean of both samples being positive. Results Within an exemplary screening strategy, biennial FIT from the age of 55-75 years, one-sample FIT provided 76.0-97.0 life-years gained (LYG) per 1000 individuals, at a cost of $259000-264000 (range reflects different FIT cut-off levels). Two-sample FIT screening with at least one sample being positive provided 7.3-12.4 additional LYG compared with one-sample FIT at an extra cost of$50000-59 000. However, when all screening intervals and age ranges were considered, intensifying screening with one-sample FIT provided equal or more LYG at lower costs compared with two-sample FIT. Conclusion If attendance to screening does not differ between strategies it is recommended to increase the number of screening rounds with one-sample FIT screening, before considering increasing the number of FIT samples provided per screening round

Random comparison of repeated faecal immunochemical testing at different intervals for population-based colorectal cancer screening

Objective: Colorectal cancer screening by means of faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) requires successive screening rounds for an optimal preventive effect. However, data on the influence of the length of the screening interval on participation and diagnostic yield are lacking. Repeated FIT screening was therefore performed in a population-based trial comparing various repeat intervals. Design: 7501 Dutch individuals aged 50-74 years were randomly selected and invited for two 1-sample FIT screening rounds (haemoglobin (Hb) concentration ≥50 ng/ml, corresponding to 10 μg Hb/g faeces) with intervals of 1 (group I), 2 (group II) or 3 years (group III). Results: In group I, participation was 64.7% in the first screening round and 63.2% in the second. The corresponding percentages for groups II and III were 61.0% vs 62.5% and 62.0% vs 64.0%. Triennial screening resulted in a higher participation rate in the second screening round compared with annual screening (p=0.04). The overall positivity rate in the second screening round was significantly lower compared with the first round (6.0% vs 8.4%; OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82) and did not depend on interval length (p=0.23). Similarly, the overall detection rate of advanced neoplasia was significantly lower in the second round compared with the first screening round (1.9% vs 3.3%; OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76) and also did not depend on interval length (p=0.62). The positive predictive value of the FIT did not significantly change over time (41% vs 33%; p=0.07). Conclusion: The total number of advanced neoplasia found at repeat FIT screening is not influenced by the interval length within a range of 1-3 years. Furthermore, there is a stable and acceptably high participation in the second screening round. This implies that screening intervals can be tailored to local resources