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.

A comparison of different strategies used to invite subjects with a positive faecal occult blood test to a colonoscopy assessment. A randomised controlled trial in population-based screening programmes.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this parallel randomised controlled trial was to compare compliance with different modalities used to invite patients with a positive immunochemical faecal occult blood test (FIT+) for a total colonoscopy (TC). METHOD: FIT+ patients from nine Italian colorectal cancer screening programmes were randomised to be invited for a TC initially by mail or by phone and, for non-compliers, to be recalled by mail, for counselling with a general practitioner, or to meet with a specialist screening practitioner (nurse or healthcare assistant). RESULTS: In all, 3777 patients were randomised to different invitation strategies. Compliance with an initial invitation by mail and by phone was similar (86.0% vs. 84.0%, relative risk - RR: 1.02; 95%CI 0.97-1.08). Among non-responders to the initial invitation, compliance with a recall by appointment with a specialist practitioner was 50.4%, significantly higher than with a mail recall (38.1%; RR:1.33; 95%CI 1.01-1.76) or with a face-to-face counselling with the GP (30.8%; RR:1.45;95%CI 1.14-1.87). CONCLUSION: Compliance with an initial invitation for a TC by mail and by phone was similar. A personal meeting with a specialist screening practitioner was associated with the highest compliance among non-compliers with initial invitations, while the involvement of GPs in this particular activity seemed less effective.