RESUMEN
Background: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening. However, the colonoscopy participation rate in China is much lower than that in Europe and the United States. As only non-sedated colonoscopies are offered in colorectal cancer screening programs in China, the absence of sedation may contribute to this gap. Methods: To explore the effect of free and partially participant-paid sedated colonoscopy on improving colorectal screening participation, we conducted a cross-sectional study under the framework of the Cancer Screening Program in Urban China in Xuzhou from May 2017 to December 2020. The Quanshan district was set as the control group and provided free non-sedated colonoscopy, the Yunlong district was set as a partial cost coverage group and offered partially participant-paid sedated colonoscopy, and the Gulou district was set as the full cost coverage group and offered free sedation colonoscopies. Multivariate logistic regression was used for multivariate analysis of colonoscopy participation and colorectal lesion detection rates between the groups. Results: From May 2017 to May 2020, 81,358 participants were recruited and completed questionnaire, 7,868 subjects who met high-risk conditions for CRC were invited to undergo colonoscopy. The colonoscopy participation rates in the control group, partially cost coverage, and full cost coverage groups were 17.33% (594/3,428), 25.66% (542/2,112), and 34.41% (801/2,328), respectively. Subjects in the partial and full cost coverage groups had 1.66-fold (95% CI: 1.48-1.86) and 2.49-fold (95% CI: 2.23-2.76) increased rates compared with those in the control group. The adjusted PARs for the partially and the full cost coverage group was 9.08 (95% CI: 6.88-11.28) and 18.97 (95% CI: 16.51-21.42), respectively. The detection rates of CAN in the control, partial-cost coverage, and full-cost coverage groups were 3.54% (21/594), 2.95% (16/542), and 5.12% (41/801), respectively. There were no significant differences in the detection rates between the group. However, sedated colonoscopy increases costs. Conclusion: Sedated colonoscopy increased colonoscopy participation rates in both the partial and full cost-covered groups. A partial cost coverage strategy may be a good way to increase colorectal cancer participation rates and quickly establish a colorectal cancer screening strategy in underfunded areas.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world. Several studies suggest using the Asia-Pacific colorectal screening (APCS) score and its modified versions to select high-risk populations for early colonoscopy, but external validation remains rare, and which score should be selected for CRC screening in China is unclear. Validation of multiple scores in the same population might help to choose the best performing score. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study under the framework of Cancer Screening Program in Urban China, data from asymptomatic colorectal cancer screening in Xuzhou was used to validate the APCS score, the colorectal neoplasia predict (CNP) score, the Korean colorectal screening (KCS) score, the Modified APCS score and the 8-point risk score in predicting colorectal advanced neoplasia (CAN). RESULTS: 1804 subjects were included in the analysis and 112 CAN (6.21%) was detected. In each score, the detection rate of CAN was higher in the high-risk group than in the non-high-risk group (P < 0.05), and the RR (95%C.I.) ranged 2.20 (1.50-3.22) [8-point risk] to 4.00 (2.41-6.65) [Modified APCS]. The c-statistics (95%C.I.) of the scoring systems ranged from 0.58 (0.53-0.62) [8-point risk] to 0.65 (0.61-0.69) [KCS]. The sensitivity (95%C.I.) of these systems ranged from 31.25 (22.83-40.70) [8-point risk] to 84.82 (76.81-90.90) [Modified APCS], while the specificity (95%C.I.) ranged from 43.50 (41.12-45.90) [Modified APCS] to 83.81 (81.96-85.53) [8-point risk]. Using the APCS scoring system as a comparator, the net reclassification improvement (NRI) of each modified version ranged from - 10.34% (95%C.I.: - 22.63 to 1.95%) [8-point risk] to 4.79% (95%C.I.: - 1.50% to 11.08) [KCS]. The colonoscopy resource load (95%C.I.) ranged from 9 [1-3] [8-point risk] to 11 [3-5] [APCS and Modified APCS]. CONCLUSIONS: The APCS score and its modified versions have certain ability to predict the risk of advanced neoplasia and reduce the resource load. The modified APCS score and the KCS score seemed the preferable systems to classify high risk subjects based on its high RR, sensitivity and predictive ability in the selected population. Future research could focus on adding risk factors or combining with laboratory test results to improve the predictive power of the scoring system.
