Characteristics of nonparticipants in a randomised colorectal cancer screening trial comparing sigmoidoscopy and faecal immunochemical testing.

Public health systems should guarantee universal access to health care services, including cancer screening. We assessed whether certain population subgroups were underrepresented among participants in colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy and faecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Between 2012 and 2019, about 140 000 individuals aged 50 to 74 years were randomly invited to once-only sigmoidoscopy or first round of FIT screening. Our study included 46 919 individuals invited to sigmoidoscopy and 70 019 to FIT between 2012 and 2017. We used logistic regression models to evaluate if demographic and socioeconomic factors and use of certain drugs were associated with participation. Twenty-four thousand one hundred and fifty-nine (51.5%) individuals attended sigmoidoscopy and 40 931 (58.5%) FIT screening. Male gender, young age, low education and income, being retired or unemployed, living alone, being an immigrant, long driving time to screening centre, and use of antidiabetic and psychotropic drugs were associated with low participation in both screening groups. Many of these factors also predicted low acceptance of colonoscopy after positive FIT. While male gender, young age and living alone were more strongly associated with nonparticipation in FIT than sigmoidoscopy, low education and income, being retired or immigrant and long driving time were more strongly associated with nonparticipation in sigmoidoscopy than FIT. In conclusion, participation was lower in sigmoidoscopy than FIT. Predictors of nonparticipation were similar between arms. However, low socioeconomic status, being an immigrant and long driving time affected participation more in sigmoidoscopy screening, suggesting that FIT may guarantee more equal access to screening services than sigmoidoscopy.

Colorectal Cancer Screening With Repeated Fecal Immunochemical Test Versus Sigmoidoscopy: Baseline Results From a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The comparative effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is unknown. METHODS: Individuals aged 50-74 years living in Southeast Norway were randomly invited between 2012 and 2019 to either once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy or FIT screening every second year. Colonoscopy was recommended after sigmoidoscopy if any polyp of ≥10 mm, ≥3 adenomas, any advanced adenomas, or CRC was found or, subsequent to, FIT >15 µg hemoglobin/g feces. Data for this report were obtained after complete recruitment in both groups and included 2 full FIT rounds and part of the third round. Outcome measures were participation, neoplasia detection, and adverse events. Age-standardized detection rates and age-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. RESULTS: We included 139,291 individuals: 69,195 randomized to sigmoidoscopy and 70,096 to FIT. The participation rate was 52% for sigmoidoscopy, 58% in the first FIT round, and 68% for 3 cumulative FIT rounds. Compared to sigmoidoscopy, the detection rate for CRC was similar in the first FIT round (0.25% vs 0.27%; OR, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.13) but higher after 3 FIT rounds (0.49% vs 0.27%; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.54-2.27). Advanced adenoma detection rate was lower in the first FIT round compared to sigmoidoscopy at 1.4% vs 2.4% (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.62) but higher after 3 cumulative FIT rounds at 2.7% vs 2.4% (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.23). There were 33 (0.05%) serious adverse events in the sigmoidoscopy group compared to 47 (0.07%) in the FIT group (P = .13). CONCLUSIONS: Participation was higher and more CRC and advanced adenomas were detected with repeated FIT compared to sigmoidoscopy. The risk of perforation and bleeding was comparable. Clinicaltrials.gov, Number: NCT01538550.

Endoscopy assistants influence the quality of colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy performance varies between endoscopists, but little is known about the impact of endoscopy assistants on key performance indicators. We used a large prospective colonoscopy quality database to perform an exploratory study to evaluate differences in selected quality indicators between endoscopy assistants. METHODS: All colonoscopies reported to the Norwegian colonoscopy quality assurance register Gastronet can be used to trace individual endoscopy assistants. We analyzed key quality indicators (cecum intubation rate, polyp detection rate, colonoscopies rated as severely painful, colonoscopies with sedation or analgesia, and satisfaction with information) for colonoscopies performed between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2014. Differences between individual assistants were analyzed by fitting multivariable logistic regression models, with the best performing assistant at each participating hospital as reference. All models were adjusted for the endoscopist. RESULTS: 63 endoscopy assistants from 12 hospitals assisted in 15 365 colonoscopies. Compared with their top performing peers from the same hospital, one assistant was associated with cecum intubation failure, four with poor polyp detection, nine with painful colonoscopy, 16 with administration of sedation or analgesics during colonoscopy, and three with patient dissatisfaction about information given relating to the colonoscopy. The number of procedures during the study period or lifetime experience as an endoscopy assistant were not associated with any quality indicator. CONCLUSION: In this exploratory study, there was little variation on important colonoscopy quality indicators between endoscopy assistants. However, there were differences among assistants that may be clinically important. Endoscopy assistants should be subject to quality surveillance similarly to endoscopists.

"Drop in" gastroscopy outpatient clinic--experience after 9 months.

BACKGROUND: Logistics handling referrals for gastroscopy may be more time consuming than the examination itself. For the patient, "drop in" gastroscopy may reduce uncertainty, inadequate therapy and time off work. METHODS: After an 8-9 month run-in period we asked patients, hospital staff and GPs to fill in a questionnaire to evaluate their experience with "drop in" gastroscopy and gastroscopy by appointment, respectively. The diagnostic gain was evaluated. RESULTS: 112 patients had "drop in" gastroscopy and 101 gastroscopy by appointment. The number of "drop in" patients varied between 3 and 12 per day (mean 6.5). Mean time from first GP consultation to gastroscopy was 3.6 weeks in the "drop in" group and 14 weeks in the appointment group. The half-yearly number of outpatient gastroscopies increased from 696 before introducing "drop in" to 1022 after (47% increase) and the proportion of examinations with pathological findings increased from 42% to 58%. Patients and GPs expressed great satisfaction with "drop in". Hospital staff also acclaimed although it caused more unpredictable working days with no additional staff. CONCLUSIONS: "Drop in" gastroscopy was introduced without increase in staff. The observed increase in gastroscopies was paralleled by a similar increase in pathological findings without any apparent disadvantages for other groups of patients. This should legitimise "drop in" outpatient gastroscopies, but it requires meticulous observation of possible unwanted effects when implemented.

Quality control in colorectal cancer screening: systematic microbiological investigation of endoscopes used in the NORCCAP (Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention) trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is currently implemented in many countries. Since endoscopes cannot be sterilised, the transmission of infectious agents through endoscopes has been a matter of concern. We report on a continuous quality control programme in a large-scale randomised controlled trial on flexible sigmoidoscopy screening of an average-risk population. Continuously, throughout a two-year screening period, series of microbiological samples were taken from cleaned ready-to-use endoscopes and cultured for bacterial growth. RESULTS: 8573 endoscopies were performed during the trial period. Altogether, 178 microbiological samples (2%) were taken from the biopsy channels and surfaces from the endoscopes. One sample (0.5%) showed faecal contamination (Enterobacter cloacae), and 25 samples (14%) showed growth of environmental bacteria. CONCLUSIONS: Growth of bacteria occurs in a clinical significant number of samples from ready-to-use endoscopes. Pathogenic bacteria, however, were found only in one sample. Improvement of equipment design and cleaning procedures are desirable and continuous microbiological surveillance of endoscopes used in CRC screening is recommended.