An ongoing case-control study to evaluate the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme

© 2014 Massat et al.; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated

Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary Care Practice: Innovative Strategies and Future Directions

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been supported by strong research evidence and recommended in clinical practice guidelines for more than a decade. Yet screening rates in the United States remain low, especially relative to other preventable diseases such as breast and cervical cancer. To understand the reasons, the National Cancer Institute and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality sponsored a review of CRC screening implementation in primary care and a program of research funded by these organizations. The evidence base for improving CRC screening supports the value of a New Model of Primary Care Delivery: 1. a team approach, in which responsibility for screening tasks is shared among other members of the practice, would help address physicians’ lack of time for preventive care; 2. information systems can identify eligible patients and remind them when screening is due; 3. involving patients in decisions about their own care may enhance screening participation; 4. monitoring practice performance, supported by information systems, can help target patients at increased risk because of family history or social disadvantage; 5. reimbursement for services outside the traditional provider—patient encounter, such as telephone and e-mail contacts, may foster enhanced screening delivery; 6. training opportunities in communication, cultural competence, and use of information technologies would improve provider competence in core elements of screening programs. Improvement in CRC screening rates largely depends on the efforts of primary care practices to implement effective systems and procedures for screening delivery. Active engagement and support of practices are essential for the enormous potential of CRC screening to be realized

Screening Patients with a Family History of Colorectal Cancer

OBJECTIVES: To compare screening practices and beliefs in patients with and without a clinically important family history. DESIGN: We mailed a brief questionnaire asking about family history and a second, longer survey asking about knowledge of and beliefs about colorectal cancer to all respondents with a family history and a random sample of respondents without a family history of colorectal cancer. We reviewed electronic medical records for screening examinations and recording of family history. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand eight hundred seventy of 6,807 randomly selected patients ages 35–55 years who had been continuously enrolled in a large multispecialty group practice for at least 5 years. MEASUREMENTS: Recognition of increased risk, screening practices, and beliefs—all according to strength of family history and patient’s age. RESULTS: Nineteen percent of respondents reported a family history of colorectal cancer. In 11%, this history was strong enough to warrant screening before age 50 years. However, only 39% (95% CI 36, 42) of respondents under the age of 50 years said they had been asked about family history and only 45% of those with a strong family history of colorectal cancer had been screened appropriately. Forty-six percent of patients with a strong family history did not know that they should be screened at a younger age than average risk people. Medical records mentioned family history of colorectal cancer in 59% of patients reporting a family history. CONCLUSIONS: More efforts are needed to translate information about family history of colorectal cancer into the care of patients

CT colonography with limited bowel preparation for the detection of colorectal neoplasia in an FOBT positive screening population

Item does not contain fulltextPURPOSE: Aim was to evaluate the accuracy of computed tomography colonography (CTC) for detection of colorectal neoplasia in a Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) positive screening population. METHODS: In three different institutions, consecutive FOBT positives underwent CTC after laxative free iodine tagging bowel preparation followed by colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. Each CTC was read by two experienced observers. For CTC and for colonoscopy the per-polyp sensitivity and per-patient sensitivity and specificity were calculated for detection of carcinomas, advanced adenomas, and adenomas. RESULTS: In total 22 of 302 included FOBT positive participants had a carcinoma (7%) and 137 had an adenoma or carcinoma >/=10 mm (45%). CTC sensitivity for carcinoma was 95% with one rectal carcinoma as false negative finding. CTC sensitivity for advanced adenomas was 92% (95% CI: 88-96) vs. 96% (95% CI: 93-99) for colonoscopy (P = 0.26). For adenomas and carcinomas >/=10 mm the CTC per-polyp sensitivity was 93% (95% CI: 89-97) vs. 97% (95% CI: 94-99) for colonoscopy (P = 0.17). The per-patient sensitivity for the detection of adenomas and carcinomas >/=10 mm was 95% (95% CI: 91-99) for CTC vs. 99% (95% CI: 98-100) for colonoscopy (P = 0.07), while the per-patient specificity was 90% (95% CI: 86-95) and 96% (95% CI: 94-99), respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: CTC with limited bowel preparation performed in an FOBT positive screening population has high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of adenomas and carcinomas and a sensitivity similar to that of colonoscopy for relevant lesions.1 december 201

European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication

Population-based screening for early detection and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) and precursor lesions, using evidence-based methods, can be effective in populations with a significant burden of the disease provided the services are of high quality. Multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidelines for quality assurance in CRC screening and diagnosis have been developed by experts in a project co-financed by the European Union. The 450-page guidelines were published in book format by the European Commission in 2010. They include 10 chapters and over 250 recommendations, individually graded according to the strength of the recommendation and the supporting evidence. Adoption of the recommendations can improve and maintain the quality and effectiveness of an entire screening process, including identification and invitation of the target population, diagnosis and management of the disease and appropriate surveillance in people with detected lesions. To make the principles, recommendations and standards in the guidelines known to a wider professional and scientific community and to facilitate their use in the scientific literature, the original content is presented in journal format in an open-access Supplement of Endoscopy. The editors have prepared the present overview to inform readers of the comprehensive scope and content of the guidelines.Fil: Arrossi, Silvina. Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: von Karsa, Lawrence. International Agency for Research on Cancer; FranciaFil: Patrick, J.. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes Sheffield; Reino Unido. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Segnan, N.. International Agency for Research on Cancer; Francia. AO Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino; ItaliaFil: Atkin, W.. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Halloran, S.. University of Surrey; Reino UnidoFil: Saito, H.. National Cancer Centre; JapónFil: Sauvaget, C.. International Agency for Research on Cancer; FranciaFil: Scharpantgen, A.. Ministry of Health; LuxemburgoFil: Schmiegel, W.. Ruhr-Universität Bochum; AlemaniaFil: Senore, C.. AO Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino; ItaliaFil: Siddiqi, M.. Cancer Foundation of India; IndiaFil: Sighoko, D.. University of Chicago; Estados Unidos. Formerly International Agency for Research on Cancer; FranciaFil: Smith, R.. American Cancer Society; Estados UnidosFil: Smith S.. University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust; Reino UnidoFil: Suchanek, S.. Charles University; República ChecaFil: Suonio, E.. International Agency for Research on Cancer; FranciaFil: Tong, W.. Chinese Academy of Sciences; República de ChinaFil: Törnberg, S.. Stockholm Gotland Regional Cancer Centre. Department of Cancer Screening; SueciaFil: Van Cutsem, E.. Katholikie Universiteit Leuven; BélgicaFil: Vignatelli, L.. Agenzia Sanitaria e Sociale Regionale; ItaliaFil: Villain, P.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Voti, L.. Formerly International Agency for Research on Cancer; Francia. University of Miami; Estados UnidosFil: Watanabe, H.. Niigata University; JapónFil: Watson, J.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Winawer, S.. Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center; Estados UnidosFil: Young, G.. Flinders University. Gastrointestinal Services; AustraliaFil: Zaksas, V.. State Patient Fund; LituaniaFil: Zappa, M.. Cancer Prevention and Research Institute; ItaliaFil: Valori, R.. NHS Endoscopy; Reino Unid

Chemoprevention of Colonic Polyps with Balsalazide: An Exploratory, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

A number of agents, including aspirin, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, folic acid, calcium, and vitamins, have been evaluated for their potential in chemoprevention of sporadic colorectal adenomas or cancer. Preclinical data suggest that 5-aminosalicylates also may have a chemopreventive effect. To investigate chemoprevention of colonic polyps with balsalazide, a 5-aminosalicylate prodrug. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adults diagnosed with small polyps in the rectosigmoid colon were treated with either balsalazide 3 g/d or placebo for 6 months. Follow-up lower endoscopy was performed, and all polyps were measured and analyzed histologically. The primary endpoint was reduction in mean size of the largest polyp per subject. Among 241 participants screened, 86 were randomized to treatment, with 75 subjects evaluable. Balsalazide 3 g/d (n = 38) did not significantly reduce the mean size of the largest colonic polyp or the number of polyps compared with placebo (n = 37). Although not significant, post-hoc analysis revealed that total adenoma burden per subject, calculated as the sum of the volumes of all adenomas in mm3, increased by 55% in the balsalazide group compared with 95% in the placebo group. Although balsalazide did not have significant chemopreventive effects on established colonic polyps, these results can aid in designing future prospective studies

Tumour M2-PK as a stool marker for colorectal cancer: comparative analysis in a large sample of unselected older adults vs colorectal cancer patients

Stool testing based on tumour-derived markers might offer a promising approach for non-invasive colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The aim of this study was to estimate the potential of a new test for faecal tumour M2-PK to discriminate patients with CRC from a large sample of unselected older adults. Faecal tumour M2-PK concentrations were determined in 65 CRC patients and in a population-based sample of 917 older adults (median age: 65 and 62 years, respectively). Sensitivity and specificity of the test were calculated at different cutoff values, and receiver-operating characteristic curves (ROC) were constructed to visualise the discriminatory power of the test. The median (interquartile range) faecal tumour M2-PK concentration was 8.6 U ml−1 (2.8–18.0) among CRC patients and <2 U ml−1 (<2–3.2; P<0.0001) in the population sample. At a cutoff value of 4 U ml−1, sensitivity (95% confidence interval) was 85% (65–96%) for colon cancer and 56% (41–74%) for rectum cancer. Specificity (95% confidence interval) was estimated to be 79% (76–81%). Given the comparatively high sensitivity of the tumour M2-PK stool test (especially for colon cancer) and its simple analysis, the potential use of the test for early detection of CRC merits further investigation. Possibilities to enhance specificity of the test should be explored

Screening for colorectal cancer: random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing at different cut-off levels

Immunochemical faecal occult blood testing (FIT) provides quantitative test results, which allows optimisation of the cut-off value for follow-up colonoscopy. We conducted a randomised population-based trial to determine test characteristics of FIT (OC-Sensor micro, Eiken, Japan) screening at different cut-off levels and compare these with guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening in an average risk population. A representative sample of the Dutch population (n=10 011), aged 50–74 years, was 1 : 1 randomised before invitation to gFOBT and FIT screening. Colonoscopy was offered to screenees with a positive gFOBT or FIT (cut-off 50 ng haemoglobin/ml). When varying the cut-off level between 50 and 200 ng ml−1, the positivity rate of FIT ranged between 8.1% (95% CI: 7.2–9.1%) and 3.5% (95% CI: 2.9–4.2%), the detection rate of advanced neoplasia ranged between 3.2% (95% CI: 2.6–3.9%) and 2.1% (95% CI: 1.6–2.6%), and the specificity ranged between 95.5% (95% CI: 94.5–96.3%) and 98.8% (95% CI: 98.4–99.0%). At a cut-off value of 75 ng ml−1, the detection rate was two times higher than with gFOBT screening (gFOBT: 1.2%; FIT: 2.5%; P<0.001), whereas the number needed to scope (NNscope) to find one screenee with advanced neoplasia was similar (2.2 vs 1.9; P=0.69). Immunochemical faecal occult blood testing is considerably more effective than gFOBT screening within the range of tested cut-off values. From our experience, a cut-off value of 75 ng ml−1 provided an adequate positivity rate and an acceptable trade-off between detection rate and NNscope