15-Year Benefits of Sigmoidoscopy Screening on Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality : A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) by sex and age in randomized trials is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 15-year effect of sigmoidoscopy screening on CRC incidence and mortality. DESIGN: Pooled analysis of 4 large-scale randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening. SETTING: Norway, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy. PARTICIPANTS: Women and men aged 55 to 64 years at enrollment. INTERVENTION: Sigmoidoscopy screening. MEASUREMENTS: Primary end points were cumulative incidence rate ratio (IRR) and mortality rate ratio (MRR) and rate differences after 15 years of follow-up comparing screening versus usual care in intention-to-treat analyses. Stratified analyses were done by sex, cancer site, and age at screening. RESULTS: Analyses comprised 274 952 persons (50.7% women), 137 493 in the screening and 137 459 in the usual care group. Screening attendance was 58% to 84%. After 15 years, the rate difference for CRC incidence was 0.51 cases (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.63 cases) per 100 persons and the IRR was 0.79 (CI, 0.75 to 0.83). The rate difference for CRC mortality was 0.13 deaths (CI, 0.07 to 0.19 deaths) per 100 persons, and the MRR was 0.80 (CI, 0.72 to 0.88). Women had less benefit from screening than men for CRC incidence (IRR for women, 0.84 [CI, 0.77 to 0.91]; IRR for men, 0.75 [CI, 0.70 to 0.81]; P = 0.032 for difference) and mortality (MRR for women, 0.91 [CI, 0.77 to 1.17]; MRR for men, 0.73 [CI, 0.64 to 0.83]; P = 0.025 for difference). There was no statistically significant difference in screening effect between persons aged 55 to 59 years and those aged 60 to 64 years. LIMITATION: Data from the U.K. trial were less granular because of privacy regulations. CONCLUSION: This pooled analysis of all large randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening demonstrates a significant and sustained effect of sigmoidoscopy on CRC incidence and mortality for 15 years. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Health Fund of South-East Norway.

Long-Term Follow-up of the Italian Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent reports showed that the protective effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening was maintained up to17 years, although differences were reported by sex. OBJECTIVE: To assess long-term reduction of colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality after a single FS screening. DESIGN: Parallel randomized controlled trial. (ISRCTN registry number: 27814061). SETTING: 6 centers in Italy. PARTICIPANTS: Persons aged 55 to 64 years expressing interest in having FS screening if invited, recruited from 1995 to 1999 and followed until 2012 (incidence) and 2014 to 2016 (mortality). INTERVENTION: Eligible persons were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to either the once-only FS screening group or control (usual care) group. MEASUREMENTS: Incidence and mortality rate ratios (RRs) and rate differences. RESULTS: A total of 34 272 persons (17 136 in each group) were included in the analysis; 9911 participants had screening in the intervention group. Median follow-up was 15.4 years for incidence and 18.8 years for mortality. Incidence of CRC was reduced by 19% (RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.71 to 0.93]) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, comparing the intervention with the control group, and by 33% (RR, 0.67 [CI, 0.56 to 0.81]) in the per protocol (PP) analysis, comparing participants screened in the intervention group with the control persons. Colorectal cancer mortality was reduced by 22% (RR, 0.78 [CI, 0.61 to 0.98]) in the ITT analysis and by 39% (RR, 0.61 [CI, 0.44 to 0.84]) in the PP analysis. Incidence of CRC was statistically significantly reduced among both men and women. Colorectal cancer mortality was statistically significantly reduced among men (ITT RR, 0.73 [CI, 0.54 to 0.97]) but not among women (ITT RR, 0.90 [CI, 0.59 to 1.37]). LIMITATION: Self-selection of volunteers from the general population sample targeted for recruitment may limit generalizability. CONCLUSION: The strong protective effect of a single FS screening for CRC incidence and mortality was maintained up to 15 and 19 years, respectively. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Italian Association for Cancer Research, Italian National Research Council, Istituto Oncologico Romagnolo, Fondo "E. Tempia," University of Milan, and Local Health Unit ASL-Torino.

A randomised controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography as primary screening tests: Screening results over subsequent episodes of the Proteus Donna study.

Proteus Donna is a randomised controlled trial aimed at prospectively evaluating screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), including interval cancer detection (ICD) and cancer detection (CD) in the analysis as a cumulative measure over subsequent screening episodes. Consenting women aged 46 to 68 attending the regional Breast Screening Service were randomly assigned to conventional digital mammography (DM, control arm) or DBT in addition to DM (DBT, study arm). At the subsequent round all participants underwent DM. Thirty-six months follow-up allowed for the identification of cancers detected in the subsequent screening and interscreening interval. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were computed. Cumulative CD and Nelson-Aalen incidence were analysed over the follow-up period. Between 31 December 2014 and 31 December 2017, 43 022 women were randomised to DM and 30 844 to DBT. At baseline, CD was significantly higher (RR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.21-1.71) in the study arm. ICD did not differ significantly between the two arms (RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.62-1.35). At subsequent screening with DM, the CD was lower (nearly significant) in the study arm (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.65-1.06). Over the follow-up period, the cumulative CD (comprehensive of ICD) was slightly higher in the study arm (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01-1.31). The Nelson-Aalen cumulative incidence over time remained significantly higher in the study arm for approximately 24 months. Benign lesions detection was higher in the study arm at baseline and lower at subsequent tests. Outcomes are consistent with a lead time gain of DBT compared to DM, with an increase in false positives and moderate overdiagnosis.

Measures of longitudinal adherence to fecal-based colorectal cancer screening: Literature review and recommended approaches.

The success of fecal occult blood-based colorectal cancer screening programs is dependent on repeating screening at short intervals (ie, every 1-2 years). We conducted a literature review to assess measures that have been used to assess longitudinal adherence to fecal-based screening. Among 46 citations identified and included in this review, six broad classifications of longitudinal adherence were identified: (a) stratified single-round attendance, (b) all possible adherence permutations, (c) consistent/inconsistent/never attendance, (d) number of times attended, (e) program adherence and (f) proportion of time covered. Advantages and disadvantages of these measures are described, and recommendations on which measures to use based on data availability and scientific question are also given. Stratified single round attendance is particularly useful for describing the yield of screening, while programmatic adherence measures are best suited to evaluating screening efficacy. We recommend that screening programs collect detailed longitudinal, individual-level data, not only for the screening tests themselves but additionally for diagnostic follow-up and surveillance exams, to allow for maximum flexibility in reporting adherence patterns using the measure of choice.

Disability-Adjusted Life Years Averted Versus Quality-Adjusted Life Years Gained: A Model Analysis for Breast Cancer Screening.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the impact of mammography-based screening on the quality of life, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted or quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained can be used. We aimed to assess whether the use of DALYs averted or QALYs gained will lead to different cost-effective screening strategies. METHODS: Using the microsimulation model MISCAN, we simulated different breast cancer screening strategies varying in starting age (starting at 45, 47, and 50 years), stopping age (stopping at 69, 72, and 74 years), and frequency (annual [A], biennial [B], combination of both [A + B], and triennial [T]). In total, we defined 24 different breast cancer screening strategies, including no screening as a reference strategy. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and compared which strategies were on the efficiency frontiers for DALYs and QALYs. RESULTS: Breast cancer screening averted between 46.00 and 105.58 DALYs and gained between 28.69 and 64.50 QALYs per 1000 women. For DALYs there were 5 strategies on the efficiency frontier (T50-69, T50-74, T45-74, B45-74, and A45-74). The same strategies plus one (B45-72) were on the efficiency frontier for QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Using DALYs averted instead of QALYs gained to assess the effects on quality of life from breast cancer screening in the Dutch population yields differences in ICERs, but almost the same strategies were on the efficiency frontiers. Whether the choice in outcome measure leads to a difference in optimal policy depends on the cost-effectiveness threshold.

Faecal haemoglobin concentration among subjects with negative FIT results is associated with the detection rate of neoplasia at subsequent rounds: a prospective study in the context of population based screening programmes in Italy.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the predictive role of faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) concentration among subjects with faecal immunochemical test (FIT) results below the positivity cut-off for the subsequent risk of advanced neoplasia (AN: colorectal cancer-CRC-or advanced adenoma). DESIGN: Prospective cohort of subjects aged 50-69 years, undergoing their first FIT between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2010 in four population-based programmes in Italy. METHODS: All programmes adopted the same analytical procedure (OC Sensor, Eiken Japan), performed every 2 years, on a single sample, with the same positivity cut-off (20 µg Hb/g faeces). We assessed the AN risk at subsequent exams, the cumulative AN detection rate (DR) over the 4-year period following the second FIT and the interval CRC (IC) risk following two negative FITs by cumulative amount of f-Hb concentration over two consecutive negative FITs, using multivariable logistic regression models and the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The cumulative probability of a positive FIT result over the subsequent two rounds ranged between 7.8% (95% CI 7.5 to 8.2) for subjects with undetectable f-Hb at the initial two tests (50% of the screenees) and 48.4% (95% CI 44.0 to 53.0) among those (0.7% of the screenees) with a cumulative f-Hb concentration ≥20 µg/g faeces. The corresponding figures for cumulative DR were: 1.4% (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6) and 25.5% (95% CI 21.4 to 30.2) for AN; 0.17% (95% CI 0.12 to 0.23) and 4.5% (95% CI 2.8 to 7.1) for CRC. IC risk was also associated with cumulative f-Hb levels. CONCLUSION: The association of cumulative f-Hb concentration with subsequent AN and IC risk may allow to design tailored strategies to optimise the utilisation of endoscopy resources: subjects with cumulative f-Hb concentration ≥20 µg/g faeces over two negative tests could be referred immediately for total colonoscopy (TC), while screening interval might be extended for those with undetectable f-Hb.

Performance indicators in breast cancer screening in the European Union: A comparison across countries of screen positivity and detection rates.

Comparable performance indicators for breast cancer screening in the European Union (EU) have not been previously reported. We estimated adjusted breast cancer screening positivity rate (PR) and detection rates (DR) to investigate variation across EU countries. For the age 50-69 years, the adjusted EU-pooled PR for initial screening was 8.9% (cross-programme variation range 3.2-19.5%) while DR of invasive cancers was 5.3/1,000 (range 3.8-7.4/1,000) and DR of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was 1.3/1,000 (range 0.7-2.7/1,000). For subsequent screening, the adjusted EU-pooled PR was 3.6% (range 1.4-8.4%), the DR was 4.0/1,000 (range 2.2-5.8/1,000) and 0.8/1,000 (range 0.5-1.3/1,000) for invasive and DCIS, respectively. Adjusted performance indicators showed remarkable heterogeneity, likely due to different background breast cancer risk and awareness between target populations, and also different screening protocols and organisation. Periodic reporting of the screening indicators permits comparison and evaluation of the screening activities between and within countries aiming to improve the quality and the outcomes of screening programmes. Cancer Screening Registries would be a milestone in this direction and EU Screening Reports provide a fundamental contribution to building them.

Key issues that need to be considered while revising the current annex of the European Council Recommendation (2003) on cancer screening.

The 2003 European Council recommendation urging the Member States to introduce or scale up breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening through an organized population-based approach has had a remarkable impact. We argue that the recommendation needs to be updated for at least two sets of reasons. First, some of the current clinical guidelines include new tests or protocols that were not available at the time of the Council document. Some have already been adopted by organized screening programs, such as newly defined age ranges for mammography screening, Human Papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening, fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and sigmoidoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Second, the outcomes of randomized trials evaluating screening for lung and prostate cancer have been published recently and the balance between harms and benefits needs to be pragmatically assessed. In the European Union, research collaboration and networking to exchange and develop best practices should be regularly supported by the European Commission. Integration between primary and secondary preventive strategies through comprehensive approaches is necessary not only to maximize the reduction in cancer burden but also to control the rising trend of other noncommunicable diseases sharing the same risk factors.

Accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy for advanced neoplasia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE-2) has shown promising accuracy for the diagnosis of overall neoplasia. Advanced neoplasia (AN) represents the main target of colorectal cancer screening programs. Our aim was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CCE-2 for the detection of AN in patients with a positive result for the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) who are undergoing screening. METHODS: Patients aged 50 to 69 years with a positive result for the FIT in 4 population screening programs in Italy and Spain were enrolled. Screenees were asked to undergo CCE-2, followed by traditional colonoscopy (TC). TC was performed the same day or the following morning. Bowel preparation included a split-dose polyethylene glycol-based regimen, with sodium phosphate (NaP) with gastrografin as boosters. The CCE-2 video was read by an endoscopist blinded to the results of TC. The main outcomes were CCE-2 accuracy in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for AN when using 2 different size thresholds for TC referral (ie, polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm). RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-two patients were enrolled, and 178 patients completed both CCE-2 and TC (87.7%). Overall, 59 cases of AN were detected at TC. CCE-2 sensitivity was 90%, specificity was 66.1%, PPV was 57.4%, and NPV was 92.9% for AN when using a 6-mm cut-off (TC referral rate, 52.8%) and 76.7%, 90.7%, 80.7%, and 88.4% when using a 10-mm cut-off (TC referral rate, 32%), respectively. CCE-2 detected that 8 of 9 already developed colorectal cancers. Among the 41 false positives at the 6-mm cut-off, 34 (82.9%) presented with a nonadvanced adenoma at TC. Mean transit time was 4 hours and 4 minutes, and ≥70% of patients excreted the capsule within 5 hours. CONCLUSIONS: In an enriched disease setting, we showed the high sensitivity of CCE-2 for the diagnosis of AN at a 6-mm cut-off. The apparently low CCE-2 specificity is related to the choice of AN as the main outcome. (Clinical trial registration number: ISRCTN 62158762.).

Performance of colorectal cancer screening in the European Union Member States: data from the second European screening report.

OBJECTIVE: To present comparative data about the performance of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes in the European Union Member States (EU MSs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. We analysed key performance indicators-participation rate, positivity rate (PR), detection rate (DR) and positive predictive value for adenomas and CRC-based on the aggregated quantitative data collected for the second EU screening report. We derived crude and pooled (through a random effects model) estimates to describe and compare trends across different MSs/regions and screening protocols. RESULTS: Participation rate was higher in countries adopting faecal immunochemical test (FIT) (range: 22.8%-71.3%) than in those using guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) (range 4.5%-66.6%), and it showed a positive correlation (ρ=0.842, p<0.001) with participation in breast cancer screening in the same areas. Screening performance showed a large variability. Compliance with referral for colonoscopy (total colonoscopy (TC)) assessment ranged between 64% and 92%; TC completion rate ranged between 92% and 99%. PR and DR of advanced adenomas and CRC were higher in FIT, as compared with gFOBT programmes, and independent of the protocol among men, older subjects and those performing their first screening. CONCLUSIONS: The variability in the results of quality indicators across population-based screening programmes highlights the importance of continuous monitoring, as well as the need to promote quality improvement efforts, as recommended in the EU guidelines. The implementation of monitoring systems, ensuring availability of data for the entire process, together with initiatives aimed to enhance reproducibility of histology and quality of endoscopy, represent a priority in screening programmes management.

Number of Adenomas Removed and Colorectal Cancers Prevented in Randomized Trials of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) with sigmoidoscopy reduces CRC incidence by detecting and removing adenomas. The number needed to screen is a measure of screening efficiency, but is not directly associated with adenoma removal. We propose the following 2 new metrics for quantifying the relationship between adenoma removal and CRC prevented: number of adenomas needed to remove (NNR) and adenoma dwell time avoided (DTA). METHODS: We collected data from 4 randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening (1 in the United States and 3 in Europe) to assess NNR and DTA. For each trial, NNR was computed as the number of adenomas removed from subjects in the intervention group, divided by the number of CRCs prevented. DTA was computed similarly but taking into account the timing of adenoma removal. Combined results across trials were assessed using standard meta-analytic techniques. RESULTS: The estimated NNR for the PLCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian) trial was 74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 56-110), for the NORCCAP (Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention) trial was 71 (95% CI, 44-174), for the SCORE (Screening for Colon Rectum) trial was 27 (95% CI, 14-135), and for the UKFSST (UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial) was 36 (95% CI, 28-52). The combined estimate (meta-analysis) of NNR was 52 (95% CI, 36-93) assuming heterogeneity (P for heterogeneity = .014). DTA estimates among trials ranged from 278 to 730 years, with a combined estimate of 500 (95% CI, 344-833) years assuming heterogeneity (P for heterogeneity = .035), or 2 CRC cases prevented per 1000 adenoma dwell years avoided. The combined estimates of NNR and DTA restricted to advanced adenomas were 13 (95% CI, 9-22) and 122 (95% CI, 90-190) years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We collected data from 4 randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening for CRC to develop metrics of endoscopic efficiency, NNR and DTA, which are directly linked to adenoma detection and removal. They can be used to compare screening among endoscopic modalities and to more precisely measure adenoma to carcinoma transition rates.

Low-grade screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ progresses more slowly than high-grade lesions: evidence from an international multi-centre study.

PURPOSE: Nuclear grade is an important indicator of the biological behaviour of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). De-escalation of treatment has been suggested for low-grade DCIS. Our aim is to estimate the relative rate of progression of DCIS by nuclear grade by analysing the distribution of nuclear grade by detection at initial or subsequent screening. METHODS: We asked International Cancer Screening Network sites to complete, based on their screening and clinical databases, an aggregated data file on DCIS detection, diagnosis and treatment. RESULTS: Eleven screening programs reported 5068 screen-detected pure DCIS in nearly 7 million screening tests in women 50-69 years of age. For all programs combined, low-grade DCIS were 20.1% (range 11.4-31.8%) of graded DCIS, intermediate grade 31.0% and high grade 48.9%. Detection rates decreased more steeply from initial to subsequent screening in low compared to high-grade DCIS: the ratios of subsequent to initial detection rates were 0.39 for low grade, 0.51 for intermediate grade, and 0.75 for high grade (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the duration of the preclinical detectable phase is longer for low than for high-grade DCIS. The findings from this large multi-centre, international study emphasize that the management of low-grade DCIS should be carefully scrutinized in order to minimize overtreatment of screen-detected slow-growing or indolent lesions. The high variation by site in the proportion of low grade suggests that further pathology standardization and training would be beneficial.

A comparative effectiveness trial of two faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT). Assessment of test performance and adherence in a single round of a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer.

AIM: To compare acceptability and diagnostic accuracy of a recently available faecal immunochemical test (FIT) system (HM-JACKarc) with the FIT routinely used in an established screening programme (OC-Sensor). DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN20086618) within a population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme. Subjects eligible for invitation in the Umbria Region (Italy) programme were randomised (ratio 1:1) to be screened using one of the FIT systems. RESULTS: Screening uptake among the 48 888 invitees was the same for both systems among subjects invited in the first round and higher with OC-Sensor than with HM-JACKarc (relative risk (RR): 1.03; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.04) among those invited in subsequent rounds. Positivity rate (PR) was similar with OC-Sensor (6.5%) as with HM-JACKarc (6.2%) among subjects performing their first FIT screening and higher with OC-Sensor (5.6%, RR: 1.25, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.40) than with HM-JACKarc (4.4%) among those screened in previous rounds. Positive predictive value (PPV) (OC-Sensor: 25.9%, HM-JACKarc: 25.6%) and detection rate (DR) (OC-Sensor: 1.40%; HM-JACKarc: 1.42%) for advanced neoplasia (AN: CRC + advanced adenoma) were similar among subjects performing their first FIT screening. The differences in the AN PPV (OC-Sensor: 20.3%, HM-JACKarc: 22.6%) and DR (OC-Sensor: 0.96%, HM-JACKarc: 0.83%) among those screened in previous rounds were not statistically significant. The number needed to scope to detect one AN was 3.9 (95% CI 5.8 to 2.9) and 3.9 (95% CI 5.5 to 2.9) at first and 4.9 (95% CI 5.8 to 4.2) and 4.4 (95% CI 5.3 to 3.7) at subsequent screening, with OC-Sensor and HM-JACKarc, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that acceptability and diagnostic performance of HM-JACKarc and of OC-Sensor systems are similar in a screening setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN20086618; Results.

Population-based cancer screening programmes in low-income and middle-income countries: regional consultation of the International Cancer Screening Network in India.

The reductions in cancer morbidity and mortality afforded by population-based cancer screening programmes have led many low-income and middle-income countries to consider the implementation of national screening programmes in the public sector. Screening at the population level, when planned and organised, can greatly benefit the population, whilst disorganised screening can increase costs and reduce benefits. The International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) was created to share lessons, experience, and evidence regarding cancer screening in countries with organised screening programmes. Organised screening programmes provide screening to an identifiable target population and use multidisciplinary delivery teams, coordinated clinical oversight committees, and regular review by a multidisciplinary evaluation board to maximise benefit to the target population. In this Series paper, we report outcomes of the first regional consultation of the ICSN held in Agartala, India (Sept 5-7, 2016), which included discussions from cancer screening programmes from Denmark, the Netherlands, USA, and Bangladesh. We outline six essential elements of population-based cancer screening programmes, and share recommendations from the meeting that policy makers might want to consider before implementation.

Status of implementation and organization of cancer screening in The European Union Member States-Summary results from the second European screening report.

The second report on the implementation status of cancer screening in European Union (EU) was published in 2017. The report described the implementation status, protocols and organization (updated till 2016) and invitation coverage (for index year 2013) of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in the EU. Experts in screening programme monitoring (N = 80) from the EU Member States having access to requisite information in their respective countries provided data on breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening through online questionnaires. Data was collected for screening performed in the framework of publicly mandated programmes only. Filled in questionnaires were received from 26 Member States for all three sites and from one Member State for breast cancer only. Substantial improvement in screening implementation using population-based approach was documented. Among the age-eligible women, 94.7% were residents of Member States implementing or planning population-based breast cancer screening in 2016, compared to 91.6% in 2007. The corresponding figures for cervical cancer screening were 72.3 and 51.3% in 2016 and 2007, respectively. Most significant improvement was documented for colorectal cancer screening with roll-out ongoing or completed in 17 Member States in 2016, compared to only five in 2007. So the access to population-based screening increased to 72.4% of the age-eligible populations in 2016 as opposed to only 42.6% in 2007. The invitation coverage was highly variable, ranging from 0.2-111% for breast cancer, 7.6-105% for cervical cancer and 1.8-127% for colorectal cancer in the target populations. In spite of the considerable progress, much work remains to be done to achieve optimal effectiveness. Continued monitoring, regular feedbacks and periodic reporting are needed to ensure the desired impacts of the programmes.

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.

Full-spectrum (FUSE) versus standard forward-viewing colonoscopy in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme.

OBJECTIVE: Miss rate of polyps has been shown to be substantially lower with full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) compared with standard forward-viewing (SFV) colonoscopy in a tandem study at per polyp analysis. However, there is uncertainty on whether FUSE is also associated with a higher detection rate of colorectal neoplasia, especially advanced lesions, in per patient analysis. METHODS: Consecutive subjects undergoing colonoscopy following a positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT) by experienced endoscopists and performed in the context of a regional colorectal cancer population-screening programme were randomised between colonoscopy with either FUSE or SFV colonoscopy in seven Italian centres. Randomisation was stratified by gender, age group and screening history. Primary outcomes included detection rates of advanced adenomas (A-ADR), adenomas (ADR) and sessile-serrated polyps (SSPDR). RESULTS: Of 741 eligible subjects, 658 were randomised to either FUSE (n=328) or SFV (n=330) colonoscopy and included in the analysis. Overall, 293/658 and 143/658 subjects had at least one adenoma (ADR 44.5%) and advanced adenoma (A-ADR 21.7%), respectively, while SSP was the most advanced lesion in 18 cases (SSPDR 2.7%). ADR and A-ADR were 43.6% and 19.5% in the FUSE arm, and 45.5% and 23.9% in the SFV arm, with no difference for both ADR (OR for FUSE: 0.96, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.14) and A-ADR (OR for FUSE: 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.09). No difference in SSPDR or multiplicity was detected between the two arms. In the per polyp analysis, the mean number of adenomas and proximal adenomas per patient was 0.81±1.25 and 0.47±0.93 in the FUSE arm, and 0.85±1.33 and 0.48±0.96 in the SFV colonoscopy arm (p=NS for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant difference in ADR and A-ADR between FUSE and SFV colonoscopy was detected in a per patient analysis in FIT-positive patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10357435.

Comparing CT colonography and flexible sigmoidoscopy: a randomised trial within a population-based screening programme.

IMPORTANCE AND AIMS: The role of CT colonography (CTC) as a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test is uncertain. The aim of our trial was to compare participation and detection rate (DR) with sigmoidoscopy (flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS)) and CTC in a screening setting. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted two randomised clinical trials (RCTs). (1) Participation RCT: individuals, aged 58 years, living in Turin (Italy), were randomly assigned to be invited to FS or CTC screening; (2) detection RCT: residents in northern Italy, aged 58-60, giving their consent to recruitment, were randomly allocated to CTC or FS. Polyps ≥6 mm at CTC, or 'high-risk' distal lesions at FS, were referred for colonoscopy (TC). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participation rate (proportion of invitees examined); DR of advanced adenomas or CRC (advanced neoplasia (AN)). RESULTS: Participation was 30.4% (298/980) for CTC and 27.4% (267/976) for FS (relative risk (RR) 1.1; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.29). Among men, participation was higher with CTC than with FS (34.1% vs 26.5%, p=0.011). In the detection RCT, 2673 subjects had FS and 2595 had CTC: the AN DR was 4.8% (127/2673, including 9 CRCs) with FS and 5.1% (133/2595, including 10 CRCs) with CTC (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.37). Distal AN DR was 3.9% (109/2673) with FS and 2.9% (76/2595) with CTC (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96); proximal AN DR was 1.2% (34/2595) for FS vs 2.7% (69/2595) for CTC (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.37 to 3.10). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Participation and DR for FS and CTC were comparable. AN DR was twice as high in the proximal colon and lower in the distal colon with CTC than with FS. Men were more likely to participate in CTC screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01739608; Pre-results.