Cost-effectiveness of HPV-based cervical screening based on first year results in the Netherlands: a modelling study.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to compare the cost-effectiveness of the old cytology programme with the new high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) screening programme, using performance indicators from the new Dutch hrHPV screening programme. DESIGN: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: The Netherlands. POPULATION: Dutch 30-year-old unvaccinated females followed up lifelong. METHODS: We updated the microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) model using the most recent epidemiological and screening data from the Netherlands. We simulated both screening programmes, using the screening behaviour and costs observed in each programme. Sensitivity analyses were performed on screening behaviour, utility losses and discount rates. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates, number of screening tests and repeat tests, colposcopy referrals by lesion grade, costs from a societal perspective, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The new Dutch cervical cancer screening programme decreased the cervical cancer mortality by 4% and the incidence by 1% compared with the old programme. Colposcopy referrals of women without cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, increased by 172%, but 13% more QALYs were still achieved. Total costs were reduced by 21%, mainly due to fewer screening tests. Per QALY gained, the hrHPV programme cost 46% less (€12,225) than the cytology programme (€22,678), and hrHPV-based screening remained more cost-effective in all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The hrHPV-based screening programme was found to be more effective and cost-effective than the cytology programme. Alternatives for the current triage strategy should be considered to lower the number of unnecessary referrals. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: First results after implementation confirm that HPV screening is more cost-effective than cytology screening.

Comparing trends in esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence and lifestyle factors between the United States, Spain, and the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in the western world has been rapidly increasing. The trends in obesity and other lifestyle-associated factors have been hypothesized to be important drivers of this increase. We tested this hypothesis by comparing changes in these factors with changes in EAC incidence over time between three western countries. METHODS: Data on EAC incidence trends were abstracted from the SEER-9 registry (1975-2009) for the United States, from multiple cancer registries (1980-2004) in Spain, and from Eindhoven Cancer Registry in the Netherlands (1974-2010). In addition, we collected trend data on obesity, smoking, and alcohol consumption. The trend data were analyzed using log-linear regression. RESULTS: In 1980, the EAC incidence was similar among the three countries ((0.46-0.63) per 100,000). EAC incidence increased in all, with the largest increase observed in the Netherlands, followed by the United States and Spain (estimated annual percentage of change=9.7%, 7.4%, 4.3%, respectively). However, this pattern was not observed in lifestyle factors associated with EAC. With regards to obesity, the United States clearly has had the highest prevalence rates both in the past and in the present. For alcohol, the highest consumption rates are seen in Spain. Smoking showed a reverse trend compared with EAC among all three countries in the last 20 years. CONCLUSIONS: International trends in EAC incidence do not match corresponding trends in lifestyle-associated factors including obesity. Our findings suggest that factors other than obesity must be the important drivers for the increase in EAC incidence.

Predictors of HPV vaccination uptake: a longitudinal study among parents.

To assess among parents longitudinal predictors of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination uptake for their daughters, random samples of parents were identified via municipal services and sent baseline questionnaires in June 2009 and follow-up questionnaires in November 2011 after their uptake decision. Hierarchical logistic regression analysis was used to assess whether demographic characteristics, and affective and social cognitive factors, predicted uptake at follow-up. Response rates of the baseline and follow-up questionnaire were 29.8% (1762/5918) and 74.3% (793/1067), respectively. Uptake was predicted by a later (2011) versus earlier (2010) decision about uptake as HPV vaccination implementation [odds ratio (OR) 2.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-5.52], anticipated regret about no uptake (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.08-1.89) and intention (OR 2.61; 95% CI 1.47-4.61). There was an interaction between ambivalence and attitude (OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.14-2.47); parents with a positive attitude and a high ambivalence toward vaccination were more likely to have their daughter vaccinated than parents with a positive attitude and a low ambivalence. An informed choice about uptake (5/7 correct items) was made by 44%. In conclusion, uptake was predicted by intention, a later (2011) versus earlier (2010) decision and by anticipated regret about no uptake. Decisions regarding new vaccines are difficult to make, we recommend a well-balanced implementation process.

Risk factors for false positive and for false negative test results in screening with fecal occult blood testing.

Differences in the risk of a false negative or a false positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) across subgroups may affect optimal screening strategies. We evaluate whether subgroups are at increased risk of a false positive or a false negative FIT result, whether such variability in risk is related to differences in FIT sensitivity and specificity or to differences in prior CRC risk. Randomly selected, asymptomatic individuals were invited to undergo colonoscopy. Participants were asked to undergo one sample FIT and to complete a risk questionnaire. We identified patient characteristics associated with a false negative and false positive FIT results using logistic regression. We focused on statistically significant differences as well as on variables influencing the false positive or negative risk for which the odds ratio exceeded 1.25. Of the 1,426 screening participants, 1,112 (78%) completed FIT and the questionnaire; 101 (9.1%) had advanced neoplasia. 102 Individuals were FIT positive, 65 (64%) had a false negative FIT result and 66 (65%) a false positive FIT result. Participants at higher age and smokers had a significantly higher risk of a false negative FIT result. Males were at increased risk of a false positive result, so were smokers and regular NSAID users. FIT sensitivity was lower in females. Specificity was lower for males, smokers and regular NSAID users. FIT sensitivity was lower in women. FIT specificity was lower in males, smokers and regular NSAID users. Our results can be used for further evidence based individualization of screening strategies.

Time requirements and health effects of participation in colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy or computed tomography colonography in a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Time limitations and unwanted health effects may act as barriers to participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The aim of the study was to measure the time requirements and health effects of colonoscopy and computed tomography colonography (CTC) screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective diary study in a consecutive sample within a randomized controlled CRC screening trial, comparing primary colonoscopy and CTC screening for average-risk individuals aged 50 - 74 years. The diary ended when all screening-related complaints had passed. RESULTS: The diary was returned by 75 % (241/322) of colonoscopy and 75 % (127/170) of CTC screenees. The median interval between leaving home and returning from the examination was longer for colonoscopy (4 hours and 18 minutes [4:18], interquartile range [IQR] 3:30 - 5:00) than for CTC (2:30 hours, IQR 2:06 - 3:00; P < 0.001). Similarly, the time to return to routine activities was longer after colonoscopy (3:54 hours, IQR 1:48 - 15:00) than after CTC (1:36 hours, IQR 0:54 - 4:42). The duration of screening-related symptoms after the examination was shorter for colonoscopy (11:00 hours, IQR 2:54 - 20:00) than for CTC (22:00 hours; IQR 5:30 - 47:00; P < 0.001). Abdominal complaints were reported more frequently after CTC. Anxiety, pain, and quality of life worsened during the screening process, with no differences between the two examinations. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with colonoscopy, CTC screening required less time and allowed screenees to return to their daily activities more quickly. In contrast, CTC was associated with a twofold longer duration of screening-related symptoms. Feelings of anxiety, pain, and quality of life scores were similar during colonoscopy and CTC screening. These results should be incorporated into cost-effectiveness analyses of CRC screening techniques.

Unit costs in population-based colorectal cancer screening using CT colonography performed in university hospitals in The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: Computed tomography (CT) colonography cost assumptions so far ranged from 346 to 594 per procedure, based on clinical CT reimbursement rates. The aim of our study was to estimate the costs in a screening situation. METHODS: Data were collected within an invitational population-based CRC screening trial (n = 2,920, age 50-75 years) with a dedicated CT-screening setting. Unit costs were calculated per action, per invitee and per participant (depending on adherence) and per individual with detected advanced neoplasia. Sensitivity analyses were performed, and alternative scenarios were considered. RESULTS: Of the invitees, 47.2 % were reminded, 38.8 % scheduled for an intake, 37.2 % scheduled for CT colonography, 33.6 % underwent CT colonography and 1.1 % needed a re-examination. Lesions ≥ 10 mm were detected in 2.9 % of the invitees. Invitation costs were Euro 5.57. Costs per CT colonography (intake to results) were Euro 144.00. Extra costs of communication of positive results were Euro 9.00. Average costs of invitational-based CT colonography screening were Euro 56.97 per invitee, Euro 169.40 per participant and Euro 2,772.51 per individual with detected advanced neoplasia. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch costs of CT-screening were substantially lower than the cost assumptions that were used in published cost-effectiveness analyses on CT colonography screening. This finding indicates that previous cost-effectiveness analyses should be updated, at least for the Dutch situation.

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.

Immunochemical fecal occult blood testing is equally sensitive for proximal and distal advanced neoplasia.

OBJECTIVE: Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is increasingly used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We aimed to estimate its diagnostic accuracy in invitational population screening measured against colonoscopy. METHODS: Participants (50-75 years) in an invitational primary colonoscopy screening program were asked to complete one sample FIT before colonoscopy. We estimated FIT sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values in detecting CRC and advanced neoplasia (carcinomas and advanced adenomas) for cutoff levels of 50 (FIT50), 75 (FIT75), and 100 (FIT100) ng hemoglobin (Hb)/ml, corresponding with, respectively, 10, 15 and 20 µg Hb/g feces. RESULTS: A total of 1,256 participants underwent a FIT and screening colonoscopy. Advanced neoplasia was detected by colonoscopy in 119 (9%), 8 (0.6%) of them had CRC. At FIT50, 121 (10%) had a positive test result; 45 (37%) had advanced neoplasia and 7 (6%) had CRC. A total of 74 of 1,135 FIT50 negatives (7%) had advanced neoplasia including 1 (0.1%) CRC. FIT50 had a sensitivity of 38% (95% confidence interval (CI): 29-47) for advanced neoplasia and 88% (95% CI: 37-99) for CRC at a specificity of 93% (95% CI: 92-95) and 91% (95% CI: 89-92), respectively. The positive and negative predictive values for FIT50 were 6% (95% CI: 3-12) and almost 100% (95% CI: 99-100) for CRC, and 37% (95% CI: 29-46) and 93% (95% CI: 92-95) for advanced neoplasia. The sensitivity and specificity of FIT75 for advanced neoplasia were 33% (95% CI: 25-42) and 96% (95% CI: 94-97). At FIT100, 71 screenees (6%) had a positive test result. The sensitivity and specificity of FIT100 were for advanced neoplasia 31% (95% CI: 23-40) and 97% (95% CI: 96-98), and for CRC 75% (95% CI: 36-96) and 95% (95% CI: 93-96). The area under curve for detecting advanced neoplasia was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.64-0.76). FIT had a similar sensitivity for proximal and distal advanced neoplasia at cutoffs of 50 (38% vs. 37%; P=0.99), 75 (33% vs. 31%; P=0.85) and 100 (33% vs. 29%; P=0.68) ng Hb/ml. DISCUSSION: Nine out of ten screening participants with CRC and four out of ten with advanced neoplasia will be detected using one single FIT at low cutoff. Sensitivity in detecting proximal and distal advanced neoplasia is comparable.

The NordICC Study: rationale and design of a randomized trial on colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: While colonoscopy screening is widely used in several European countries and the United States, there are no randomized trials to quantify its benefits. The Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) is a multinational, randomized controlled trial aiming at investigating the effect of colonoscopy screening on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. This paper describes the rationale and design of the NordICC trial. STUDY DESIGN: Men and women aged 55 to 64 years are drawn from the population registries in the participating countries and randomly assigned to either once-only colonoscopy screening with removal of all detected lesions, or no screening (standard of care in the trial regions). All individuals are followed for 15 years after inclusion using dedicated national registries. The primary end points of the trial are cumulative CRC-specific death and CRC incidence during 15 years of follow-up. POWER ANALYSIS: We hypothesize a 50 % CRC mortality-reducing efficacy of the colonoscopy intervention and predict 50 % compliance, yielding a 25 % mortality reduction among those invited to screening. For 90 % power and a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, using a 2:1 randomization, 45 600 individuals will be randomized to control, and 22 800 individuals to the colonoscopy group. Interim analyses of the effect of colonoscopy on CRC incidence and mortality will be performed at 10-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The aim of the NordICC trial is to quantify the effectiveness of population-based colonoscopy screening. This will allow development of evidence-based guidelines for CRC screening in the general population.

Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: cytology versus human papillomavirus DNA testing.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the most cost-effective screening programme for cervical cancer. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective. SETTING: The Netherlands. POPULATION: Dutch women who have not been invited for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. METHODS: We calibrated the microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) model to Dutch epidemiological data. We used this model to consider nine screening strategies that use: (i) cytological testing with cytology triage for borderline/mildly abnormal smears; (ii) HPV testing with cytology triage for HPV-positive smears; or (iii) cytological testing with HPV triage for borderline/mildly abnormal smears. For each strategy, we varied the number of screening rounds, the time interval, the age of the first screening, and the type of cytological testing (conventional or liquid-based cytology). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs from a societal perspective. RESULTS: Under the base-case assumptions, primary HPV testing with cytology triage is the most cost-effective strategy. Using cost-effectiveness thresholds of € 20,000 and € 50,000 per QALY gained yields optimal screening programmes with three and seven screening rounds, respectively. The results are sensitive to several uncertain model inputs, most importantly the costs of the HPV test. For women aged 32 years or younger, primary cytology screening is more cost-effective than primary HPV testing. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the interval between screening rounds and changing the primary test from cytology to HPV testing can improve the effectiveness and decrease the costs of cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands.

Having a Pap smear, quality of life before and after cervical screening: a questionnaire study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) impact of cervical cancer screening in women with normal test results. DESIGN: Questionnaire study. SETTING: Maastricht, the Netherlands. POPULATION: A cohort of 789 women were followed from screening invitation until after the receipt of screening results. A female age-matched reference group (n=567) was included. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to the home address of the women before screening, after screening, and again with the screening results. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Generic HRQoL (SF-12, EQ-5D), generic anxiety (STAI-6), screen-specific anxiety (PCQ), and potential symptoms and feelings related to the smear-taking procedure. RESULTS: A total of 60% of screening participants completed questionnaire 1(n=924): 803 of these women granted permission to access their files; 789 of these 803 women had normal test results (Pap 1), and were included in the analyses. Generic HRQoL (SF-12, EQ-5D) and anxiety (STAI-6) scores were similar in the study and reference groups. Before screening, after screening, and also after the receipt of test results, screening participants reported less screen-specific anxiety (PCQ, P<0.001) than the reference group (n=567), with differences indicating clinical relevance. 19% of screening participants were bothered by feelings of shame, pain, inconvenience, or nervousness during smear taking, and 8 and 5% of women experienced lower abdominal pain, vaginal bleeding, discharge, or urinary problems for 2-3 and 4-7 days, respectively, following the Pap smear. CONCLUSION: The reduced levels of screen-specific anxiety in screening participants, possibly indicating reassurance, are worthwhile addressing in more depth. We conclude that although considerable numbers of women reported unpleasant effects, there were no adverse HRQoL consequences of cervical screening in women with normal test results.

Advance notification letters increase adherence in colorectal cancer screening: a population-based randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: The population benefit of screening depends not only on the effectiveness of the test, but also on adherence, which, for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains low. An advance notification letter may increase adherence, however, no population-based randomized trials have been conducted to provide evidence of this. METHOD: In 2008, a representative sample of the Dutch population (aged 50-74 years) was randomized. All 2493 invitees in group A were sent an advance notification letter, followed two weeks later by a standard invitation. The 2507 invitees in group B only received the standard invitation. Non-respondents in both groups were sent a reminder 6 weeks after the invitation. RESULTS: The advance notification letters resulted in a significantly higher adherence (64.4% versus 61.1%, p-value 0.019). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed no significant interactions between group and age, sex, or socio-economic status. Cost analysis showed that the incremental cost per additional detected advanced neoplasia due to sending an advance notification letter was € 957. CONCLUSION: This population-based randomized trial demonstrates that sending an advance notification letter significantly increases adherence by 3.3%. The incremental cost per additional detected advanced neoplasia is acceptable. We therefore recommend that such letters are incorporated within the standard CRC-screening invitation process.

Screening for colorectal cancer: randomised trial comparing guaiac-based and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is widely accepted, but there is no consensus on the preferred strategy. We conducted a randomised trial comparing participation and detection rates (DR) per screenee of guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBT), immunochemical FOBT (FIT), and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) for CRC screening. METHODS: A representative sample of the Dutch population (n = 15 011), aged 50-74 years, was 1:1:1 randomised prior to invitation to one of the three screening strategies. Colonoscopy was indicated for screenees with a positive gFOBT or FIT, and for those in whom FS revealed a polyp with a diameter > or = 10 mm; adenoma with > or = 25% villous component or high grade dysplasia; serrated adenoma; > or = 3 adenomas; > or = 20 hyperplastic polyps; or CRC. RESULTS: The participation rate was 49.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 48.1 to 50.9%) for gFOBT, 61.5% (CI, 60.1 to 62.9%) for FIT and 32.4% (CI, 31.1 to 33.7%) for FS screening. gFOBT was positive in 2.8%, FIT in 4.8% and FS in 10.2%. The DR of advanced neoplasia was significantly higher in the FIT (2.4%; OR, 2.0; CI, 1.3 to 3.1) and the FS arm (8.0%; OR, 7.0; CI, 4.6 to 10.7) than the gFOBT arm (1.1%). FS demonstrated a higher diagnostic yield of advanced neoplasia per 100 invitees (2.4; CI, 2.0 to 2.8) than gFOBT (0.6; CI, 0.4 to 0.8) or FIT (1.5; CI, 1.2 to 1.9) screening. CONCLUSION: This randomised population-based CRC-screening trial demonstrated superior participation and detection rates for FIT compared to gFOBT screening. FIT screening should therefore be strongly preferred over gFOBT screening. FS screening demonstrated a higher diagnostic yield per 100 invitees than both FOBTs.

The impact of healthcare costs in the last year of life and in all life years gained on the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening.

It is under debate whether healthcare costs related to death and in life years gained (LysG) due to life saving interventions should be included in economic evaluations. We estimated the impact of including these costs on cost-effectiveness of cancer screening. We obtained health insurance, home care, nursing homes, and mortality data for 2.1 million inhabitants in the Netherlands in 1998-1999. Costs related to death were approximated by the healthcare costs in the last year of life (LastYL), by cause and age of death. Costs in LYsG were estimated by calculating the healthcare costs in any life year. We calculated the change in cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) if unrelated healthcare costs in the LastYL or in LYsG would be included. Costs in the LastYL were on average 33% higher for persons dying from cancer than from any cause. Including costs in LysG increased the CER by 4040 euro in women, and by 4100 euro in men. Of these, 660 euro in women, and 890 euro in men, were costs in the LastYL. Including unrelated healthcare costs in the LastYL or in LYsG will change the comparative cost-effectiveness of healthcare programmes. The CERs of cancer screening programmes will clearly increase, with approximately 4000 euro. However, because of the favourable CER's, including unrelated healthcare costs will in general have limited policy implications.

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.

Human papillomavirus DNA testing for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Tests for the DNA of high-risk types of human papillomavirus (HPV) have a higher sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) than does cytological testing, but the necessity of such testing in cervical screening has been debated. Our aim was to determine whether the effectiveness of cervical screening improves when HPV DNA testing is implemented. METHODS: Women aged 29-56 years who were participating in the regular cervical screening programme in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to combined cytological and HPV DNA testing or to conventional cytological testing only. After 5 years, combined cytological and HPV DNA testing were done in both groups. The primary outcome measure was the number of CIN3+ lesions detected. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN20781131. FINDINGS: 8575 women in the intervention group and 8580 in the control group were recruited, followed up for sufficient time (> or =6.5 years), and met eligibility criteria for our analyses. More CIN3+ lesions were detected at baseline in the intervention group than in the control group (68/8575 vs 40/8580, 70% increase, 95% CI 15-151; p=0.007). The number of CIN3+ lesions detected in the subsequent round was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (24/8413 vs 54/8456, 55% decrease, 95% CI 28-72; p=0.001). The number of CIN3+ lesions over the two rounds did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: The implementation of HPV DNA testing in cervical screening leads to earlier detection of CIN3+ lesions. Earlier detection of such lesions could permit an extension of the screening interval.

Population screening for colorectal cancer: faeces, endoscopes or X-rays?

Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is a common cancer and the second most common cause of death. The therapeutic costs for this disease will continue to rise due to an increasing incidence and the introduction of new chemotherapeutic modalities. Colorectal carcinoma is preceded by precursor lesions, which can be used as a target for early detection and therapy. Biennial population screening with faecal occult blood tests (FOBT) lowers CRC mortality with 14-18%. Five year screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy is a cost-effective alternative, which yields a higher preventive effect when similar participation rates are achieved. Screening colonoscopy has the advantage of examination of the complete colon but disadvantages are the high participant burden and the higher demand for endoscopic personnel and endoscopy units. Future screening modalities like faecal DNA markers and CT colonography are promising but need further improvement. In Europe, faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy are currently the most suitable screening modalities for colorectal cancer screening.

[The 1996 revision of the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme: increased coverage, fewer repeat smears and less opportunistic screening]. / Herziening bevolkingsonderzoek op baarmoederhalskanker 1996: hogere dekkingsgraad, minder herhalingsuitstrijkjes en minder opportunistische screening.

OBJECTIVE: Comparison of the indicators of effectiveness and efficiency of the Dutch national cervical cancerscreening programme in 2003 and 1994, the last year before implementation of important changes in the medical and organisational guidelines. DESIGN: Descriptive. METHOD: Data on all Pap smears made in 1994 and 2003 were retrieved from the Pathologic Anatomical National Automated Archive (PALGA), together with the matching cytological and histological follow-up until April 2004. In order to calculate the 5-year coverage, the number of women that had had a smear taken was placed in the numerator and divided by the number of women that had been invited for the screening programme during those 5 years. RESULTS: The 5-year coverage in the age range 30-64 years increased from 69 in 1994 to 77% in 2003. The percentage of smears resulting in a recommendation for a repeat smear decreased from 10 to 2. The percentage of timely compliance with recommendations for a repeat smear increased from 47 to 86, while that of smears with an immediate referral recommendation remained the same (about go). There was a sharp decrease in screening outside of the target-age range and screening with too short an interval. As a consequence, despite the higher coverage, the total number of smears decreased. CONCLUSION: The changes in the Dutch cervical cancerscreening programme in 1996 with regard to participation, the number of and compliance with recommendations for repeat smears, and screening activity outside of the target group were accompanied by significant improvements in agreement with the goals of the revision. The potential consequences for the effectiveness of the screening programme (reduction of cervical cancer mortality) will become apparent in the years to come.

Endoscopic colorectal cancer screening: a cost-saving analysis.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive analyses have shown that screening for cancer usually induces net costs. In this study, the possible costs and savings of endoscopic colorectal cancer screening are explored to investigate whether the induced savings may compensate for the costs of screening. METHODS: A simulation model for evaluation of colorectal cancer screening, MISCAN-COLON, is used to predict costs and savings for the U.S. population, assuming that screening is performed during a period of 30 years. Plausible baseline parameter values of epidemiology, natural history, screening test characteristics, and unit costs are based on available data and expert opinion. Important parameters are varied to extreme but plausible values. RESULTS: Given the expert opinion-based assumptions, a program based on every 5-year sigmoidoscopy screenings could result in a net savings of direct health care costs due to prevention of cancer treatment costs that compensate for the costs of screening, diagnostic follow-up, and surveillance. This result persists when costs and health effects are discounted at 3%. The "break-even" point, the time required before savings exceed costs, is 35 years for a screening program that terminates after 30 years and 44 years for a screening program that continues on indefinitely. However, net savings increase or turn into net costs when alternative assumptions about natural history of colorectal cancer, costs of screening, surveillance, and diagnostics are considered. CONCLUSIONS: Given the present, limited knowledge of the disease process of colorectal cancer, test characteristics, and costs, it may well be that the induced savings by endoscopic colorectal cancer screening completely compensate for the costs.

Colorectal cancer risk after colonoscopic polypectomy: a population-based study and literature search.

Adenoma patients are considered to be at an elevated risk for colorectal cancer, even after their adenomas have been removed. The aim of this study was to estimate the colorectal cancer risk after colonoscopic polypectomy compared with age- and gender-matched general population controls. Colorectal cancer incidence was studied in 553 consecutive patients without cancer whose adenomas were colonoscopically removed in the endoscopy department of a general hospital. The colorectal cancer relative risk in these patients was 0.9 (0.3-2.0). A literature search was performed to identify all published studies on relative colorectal cancer risk after polypectomy. The relative risk estimates in seven other studies ranged from 0.2 (0.1-0.6) to 1.3 (0.6-2.3). The difference can, be explained partially by the inclusion or exclusion of patients with large sessile polyps and other factors. Our review shows that colorectal cancer risk after colonoscopic polypectomy does not exceed the risk in the general population.