Effectiveness of Colonoscopy Screening vs Sigmoidoscopy Screening in Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Randomized clinical screening trials have shown that sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has largely replaced sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening, but long-term results from randomized trials on colonoscopy screening are still lacking. Objective: To estimate the additional screening benefit of colonoscopy compared with sigmoidoscopy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness simulation study pooled data on 358 204 men and women randomly assigned to sigmoidoscopy screening or usual care in 4 randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials conducted in Norway, Italy, the US, and UK with inclusion periods in the years 1993 to 2001. The primary analysis of the study was conducted from January 19 to December 30, 2021. Intervention: Invitation to endoscopic screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality. Using pooled 15-year follow-up data, colonoscopy screening effectiveness was estimated assuming that the efficacy of colonoscopy in the proximal colon was similar to that observed in the distal colon in the sigmoidoscopy screening trials. The simulation model was validated using data from Norwegian participants in a colonoscopy screening trial. Results: This analysis included 358 204 individuals (181 971 women [51%]) aged 55 to 64 years at inclusion with a median follow-up time ranging from 15 to 17 years. Compared with usual care, colonoscopy prevented an estimated 50 (95% CI, 42-58) CRC cases per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 30% incidence reduction (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.75]), and prevented an estimated 15 (95% CI, 11-19) CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 32% mortality reduction (rate ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61-0.76]). The additional benefit of colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy was 12 (95% CI, 10-14) fewer CRC cases and 4 (95% CI, 3-5) fewer CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to percentage point reductions of 6.9 (95% CI, 6.0-7.9) for CRC incidence and 7.6 (95% CI, 5.7-9.6) for CRC mortality. The number needed to switch from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy screening was 560 (95% CI, 486-661) to prevent 1 CRC case and 1611 (95% CI, 1275-2188) to prevent 1 CRC death. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this comparative effectiveness study assessing long-term follow-up after CRC screening suggest that there was an additional preventive effect on CRC incidence and mortality associated with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening, but the additional preventive effect was less than what was achieved by introducing sigmoidoscopy screening where no screening existed. The results probably represent the upper limit of what may be achieved with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening.

Risk Prediction of Metachronous Colorectal Cancer from Molecular Features of Adenomas: A Nested Case-Control Study.

Current morphologic features defining advanced adenomas (size ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia or ≥25% villous component) cannot optimally distinguish individuals at high risk or low risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (me-CRC), which may result in suboptimal surveillance. Certain DNA copy-number alterations (CNAs) are associated with adenoma-to-carcinoma progression. We aimed to evaluate whether these molecular features can better predict an individual's risk of me-CRC than the morphologic advanced adenoma features.In this nested case-control study, 529 individuals with a single adenoma at first colonoscopy were selected from a Norwegian adenoma cohort. DNA copy-number profiles were determined, by low-coverage whole-genome sequencing. Prevalence of CNAs in advanced and non-advanced adenomas and its association (OR) with me-CRC was assessed. For the latter, cases (with me-CRC) were matched to controls (without me-CRC) on follow-up, age and sex.CNAs associated with adenoma-to-carcinoma progression were observed in 85/267 (32%) of advanced adenomas and in 27/262 (10%) of non-advanced adenomas. me-CRC was statistically significantly associated, also after adjustment for other variables, with age at baseline [OR, 1.14; 95% confidence interval CI), 1.03-1.26; P = 0.012], advanced adenomas (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.50-4.01; P < 0.001) and with the presence of ≥3 DNA copy-number losses (OR, 1.90; 95% CI. 1.02-3.54; P = 0.043).Molecularly-defined high-risk adenomas were associated with me-CRC, but the association of advanced adenoma with me-CRC was stronger. SIGNIFICANCE: Identifying new biomarkers may improve prediction of me-CRC for individuals with adenomas and optimize surveillance intervals to reduce risk of colorectal cancer and reduce oversurveillance of patients with low risk of colorectal cancer. Use of DNA CNAs alone does not improve prediction of me-CRC. Further research to improve risk classification is required.

Følger Helsedirektoratets retningslinjer internasjonale standarder for troverdighet?

BACKGROUND: The Norwegian Directorate of Health produces national clinical guidelines for the health service, and the development of guidelines must follow international standards for trustworthy clinical practice. We investigated whether the standards are being adhered to. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We used the National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent Adherence to Trustworthy Standards Instrument (NEATS) as the scoring tool and assessed a randomly selected chapter from national clinical guidelines that were published or updated during the period 2013 to January 2022. NEATS has 15 domain items; three are assessed with the response alternatives Yes/No/Not known, and twelve are assessed on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, where 1 corresponds to very low trustworthiness and 5 to very high trustworthiness. The assessments were made individually by two authors. Inter-rater reliability was assessed with exact or close reliability, and Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: We included 60 relevant guidelines. For nine of the twelve NEATS domain items assessed using the Likert scale, there was very low or low adherence to standards for trustworthy clinical guidelines (median score 1 or 2). The domain items with the lowest score (median score 1) were 'The study selection', 'Description of the studies and the results', 'Rating the strength of recommendations' and 'External review'. The domain item with the highest score was 'Specific and unambiguous articulation of recommendations' (median score 4). INTERPRETATION: The majority of the national clinical guidelines had low adherence to the standards for trustworthy clinical guidelines assessed using the NEATS scoring tool.

Estimated Lifetime Gained With Cancer Screening Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Cancer screening tests are promoted to save life by increasing longevity, but it is unknown whether people will live longer with commonly used cancer screening tests. Objective: To estimate lifetime gained with cancer screening. Data Sources: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized clinical trials with more than 9 years of follow-up reporting all-cause mortality and estimated lifetime gained for 6 commonly used cancer screening tests, comparing screening with no screening. The analysis included the general population. MEDLINE and the Cochrane library databases were searched, and the last search was performed October 12, 2022. Study Selection: Mammography screening for breast cancer; colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) for colorectal cancer; computed tomography screening for lung cancer in smokers and former smokers; or prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Searches and selection criteria followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data were independently extracted by a single observer, and pooled analysis of clinical trials was used for analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Life-years gained by screening was calculated as the difference in observed lifetime in the screening vs the no screening groups and computed absolute lifetime gained in days with 95% CIs for each screening test from meta-analyses or single randomized clinical trials. Results: In total, 2 111 958 individuals enrolled in randomized clinical trials comparing screening with no screening using 6 different tests were eligible. Median follow-up was 10 years for computed tomography, prostate-specific antigen testing, and colonoscopy; 13 years for mammography; and 15 years for sigmoidoscopy and FOBT. The only screening test with a significant lifetime gain was sigmoidoscopy (110 days; 95% CI, 0-274 days). There was no significant difference following mammography (0 days: 95% CI, -190 to 237 days), prostate cancer screening (37 days; 95% CI, -37 to 73 days), colonoscopy (37 days; 95% CI, -146 to 146 days), FOBT screening every year or every other year (0 days; 95% CI, -70.7 to 70.7 days), and lung cancer screening (107 days; 95% CI, -286 days to 430 days). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that current evidence does not substantiate the claim that common cancer screening tests save lives by extending lifetime, except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy.

The Future of Cancer Screening-Guided Without Conflicts of Interest.

This Viewpoint discusses the benefits and harms of cancer screening tests in the context of various stakeholders.

A Comparison of Risk Classification Systems of Colorectal Adenomas: A Case-Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Because post-polypectomy surveillance uses a growing proportion of colonoscopy capacity, more targeted surveillance is warranted. We therefore compared surveillance burden and cancer detection using 3 different adenoma classification systems. METHODS: In a case-cohort study among individuals who had adenomas removed between 1993 and 2007, we included 675 individuals with colorectal cancer (cases) diagnosed a median of 5.6 years after adenoma removal and 906 randomly selected individuals (subcohort). We compared colorectal cancer incidence among high- and low-risk individuals defined according to the traditional (high-risk: diameter ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, villous growth pattern, or 3 or more adenomas), European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) 2020 (high-risk: diameter ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, or 5 or more adenomas), and novel (high-risk: diameter ≥20 mm or high-grade dysplasia) classification systems. For the different classification systems, we calculated the number of individuals recommended frequent surveillance colonoscopy and estimated number of delayed cancer diagnoses. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty individuals with adenomas (52.7%) were high risk based on the traditional classification, 369 (45.2%) were high risk based on the ESGE 2020 classification, and 220 (27.0%) were high risk based on the novel classification. Using the traditional, ESGE 2020, and novel classifications, the colorectal cancer incidences per 100,000 person-years were 479, 552, and 690 among high-risk individuals, and 123, 124, and 179 among low-risk individuals, respectively. Compared with the traditional classification, the number of individuals who needed frequent surveillance was reduced by 13.9% and 44.2%, respectively, and 1 (3.4%) and 7 (24.1%) cancer diagnoses were delayed using the ESGE 2020 and novel classifications. CONCLUSIONS: Using the ESGE 2020 and novel risk classifications will substantially reduce resources needed for colonoscopy surveillance after adenoma removal.

Risk of malignant lymphomas in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). DESIGN: We undertook a two-country population cohort study with all patients diagnosed with IBD in Norway and Sweden from 1987 and 1993 through 2015 and 2016, respectively, and analysed the risk of NHL and HL. In Sweden, we also analysed prescriptions of thiopurines and anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α therapy from 2005. We calculated standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) with 95% CIs using the general populations as reference. RESULTS: Among 131 492 patients with IBD with a medium follow-up of 9.6 years, we identified 369 cases of NHL and 44 cases of HL. The SIR of NHL was 1.3 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.5) in ulcerative colitis and 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.7) in Crohn's disease. We found no compelling heterogeneity in analyses stratified by patient characteristics. We found a similar pattern and magnitude of excess risks for HL. At 10 years, cumulative incidence was 0.26% (95% CI 0.23% to 0.30%) and 0.06% (95% CI 0.04% to 0.08%) for NHL and HL, respectively. Higher excess risks were found among patients with NHL with concomitant primary sclerosing cholangitis (SIR 3.4; 95% CI 2.1 to 5.2) and in those prescribed thiopurines alone (SIR 2.8; 95% CI 1.4 to 5.7) or with anti-TNF-α agents (SIR 5.7; 95% CI 2.7 to 11.9). CONCLUSION: Patients with IBD have a statistically significant increased risk of malignant lymphomas compared with the general population, but the absolute risk remains low.

A pilot study of implementation of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) in Norway.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for obesity but is invasive and associated with serious complications. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a less invasive weight loss procedure to reduce the stomach volume by full-thickness sutures. ESG has been adopted in many countries, but implementation at Scandinavian centres has not yet been documented. We performed a clinical pilot trial at a Norwegian centre with the primary objective to assess the feasibility of the ESG procedure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included the first 10 patients treated with ESG at a Norwegian centre in a single-arm pilot study. The eligibility criteria were either a body mass index (BMI) of 40-49.9 kg/m2, BMI 35-39.9 kg/m2 and at least one obesity-related comorbidity, or BMI 30-34.9 kg/m2 and type 2 diabetes. Patient follow-up resembled the scheme used for bariatric surgery at the center, including dietary plans and outpatient visits. RESULTS: All procedures were technically successful except for one patient who had adhesions between the stomach and anterior abdominal wall, related to a prior hernia repair, resulting in less-than-intended stomach volume reduction. Mean total body weight loss (TBWL) after 26 and 52 weeks was 12.2% (95% CI 8.1-16.2) and 9.1% (95% CI 3.3 - 15.0). One patient experienced a minor suture-induced diaphragmatic injury, which was successfully managed conservatively. CONCLUSIONS: This first Scandinavian clinical trial of ESG, documenting the implementation of the procedure at a Norwegian center, demonstrated acceptable feasibility and safety, with large variations in individual weight loss during the 52-week follow-up period.

Measuring broad-spectrum antibiotic use in hospitals with established versus new indicators. / Måling av bruk av bredspektrede antibiotika i sykehus med etablerte og nye indikatorer.

BACKGROUND: The target of a 30 % reduction in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics in hospitals from 2012 to 2020 was not achieved, measured using the standard indicator of defined daily doses (DDD) per 100 bed days. We wished to investigate the reliability of the standard indicator and of selected alternative indicators for antibiotic use, and to determine the actual reduction in use. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We included ten DDD-based indicators with adjustment for combinations of activity marker, admission category (inpatient vs. all admissions), and case mix, and evaluated these according to how each indicator correlated with antibiotic resistance in a self-developed model. We then calculated use of broad-spectrum antibiotics in hospitals for the period 2012-20 with indicators deemed valid, and compared these indicators with regard to change in use and ranking of hospitals according to use. We used consumption rate (DDD per 1000 inhabitants per day) as an activity-neutral reference indicator (national and regional). RESULTS: All the indicators for antibiotic use showed a strong correlation with resistance. For five indicators the correlation was statistically significant. Of these, the indicator that combined adjustment for the total number of admitted patients and case mix accorded best with the consumption rate (35.6 %). The same indicator also showed the largest reduction in use (29.3 %) and gave the most hospitals that achieved a reduction of at least 30 % (13 of 22). INTERPRETATION: Combined adjustment for number of admitted patients and case mix represents a new, robust indicator for antibiotic use that is suitable for hospitals at all levels. The indicator can be used in parallel with the consumption rate, and consideration should be given to introducing the latter as the new standard indicator at national and regional level.

Speedometer for withdrawal time monitoring during colonoscopy: a clinical implementation trial.

OBJECTIVES: Meticulous inspection of the mucosa during colonoscopy, represents a lengthier withdrawal time, but has been shown to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR). We investigated if artificial intelligence-aided speed monitoring can improve suboptimal withdrawal time. METHODS: We evaluated the implementation of a computer-aided speed monitoring device during colonoscopy at a large academic endoscopy center. After informed consent, patients ≥18 years undergoing colonoscopy between 5 March and 29 April 2021 were examined without the use of the speedometer, and with the speedometer between 29 April and 30 June 2021. All colonoscopies were recorded, and withdrawal time was assessed based on the recordings in a blinded fashion. We compared mean withdrawal time, percentage of withdrawal time ≥6 min, and ADR with and without the speedometer. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-six patients in each group were eligible for analyses. Mean withdrawal time was 9 min and 6.6 s (95% CI: 8 min and 34.8 s to 9 min and 39 s) without the use of the speedometer, and 9 min and 9 s (95% CI: 8 min and 45 s to 9 min and 33.6 s) with the speedometer; difference 2.3 s (95% CI: -42.3-37.7, p = 0.91). The ADRs were 45.2% (95% CI: 37.6-52.8) without the speedometer as compared to 45.8% (95% CI: 38.2-53.4) with the speedometer (p = 0.91). The proportion of colonoscopies with withdrawal time ≥6 min without the speedometer was 85.5% (95% CI: 80.2-90.9) versus 86.7% (95% CI: 81.6-91.9) with the speedometer (p = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Use of speed monitoring during withdrawal did not increase withdrawal time or ADR in colonoscopy. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04710251.

Rates of repeated colonoscopies to clean the colon from low-risk and high-risk adenomas: results from the EPoS trials.

OBJECTIVE: High-quality colonoscopy (adequate bowel preparation, whole-colon visualisation and removal of all neoplastic polyps) is a prerequisite to start polyp surveillance, and is ideally achieved in one colonoscopy. In a large multinational polyp surveillance trial, we aimed to investigate clinical practice variation in number of colonoscopies needed to enrol patients with low-risk and high-risk adenomas in polyp surveillance. DESIGN: We retrieved data of all patients with low-risk adenomas (one or two tubular adenomas <10 mm with low-grade dysplasia) and high-risk adenomas (3-10 adenomas, ≥1 adenoma ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia or villous components) in the European Polyp Surveillance trials fulfilling certain logistic and methodologic criteria. We analysed variations in number of colonoscopies needed to achieve high-quality colonoscopy and enter polyp surveillance by endoscopy centre, and by endoscopists who enrolled ≥30 patients. RESULTS: The study comprised 15 581 patients from 38 endoscopy centres in five European countries; 6794 patients had low-risk and 8787 had high-risk adenomas. 961 patients (6.2%, 95% CI 5.8% to 6.6%) underwent two or more colonoscopies before surveillance began; 101 (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2% to 1.8%) in the low-risk group and 860 (9.8%, 95% CI 9.2% to 10.4%) in the high-risk group. Main reasons were poor bowel preparation (21.3%) or incomplete colonoscopy/polypectomy (14.4%) or planned second procedure (27.8%). Need of repeat colonoscopy varied between study centres ranging from 0% to 11.8% in low-risk adenoma patients and from 0% to 63.9% in high-risk adenoma patients. On the second colonoscopy, the two most common reasons for a repeat (third) colonoscopy were piecemeal resection (26.5%) and unspecified reason (23.9%). CONCLUSION: There is considerable practice variation in the number of colonoscopies performed to achieve complete polyp removal, indicating need for targeted quality improvement to reduce patient burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02319928.

Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Colonoscopy Surveillance After Polyp Removal: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools aimed at improving polyp detection have been shown to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. However, it is unknown how increased polyp detection rates by AI affect the burden of patient surveillance after polyp removal. METHODS: We conducted a pooled analysis of 9 randomized controlled trials (5 in China, 2 in Italy, 1 in Japan, and 1 in the United States) comparing colonoscopy with or without AI detection aids. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients recommended to undergo intensive surveillance (ie, 3-year interval). We analyzed intervals for AI and non-AI colonoscopies for the U.S. and European recommendations separately. We estimated proportions by calculating relative risks using the Mantel-Haenszel method. RESULTS: A total of 5796 patients (51% male, mean 53 years of age) were included; 2894 underwent AI-assisted colonoscopy and 2902 non-AI colonoscopy. When following U.S. guidelines, the proportion of patients recommended intensive surveillance increased from 8.4% (95% CI, 7.4%-9.5%) in the non-AI group to 11.3% (95% CI, 10.2%-12.6%) in the AI group (absolute difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 1.4%-4.4%]; risk ratio, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.57]). When following European guidelines, it increased from 6.1% (95% CI, 5.3%-7.0%) to 7.4% (95% CI, 6.5%-8.4%) (absolute difference, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.01%-2.6%]; risk ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.01-1.47]). CONCLUSIONS: The use of AI during colonoscopy increased the proportion of patients requiring intensive colonoscopy surveillance by approximately 35% in the United States and 20% in Europe (absolute increases of 2.9% and 1.3%, respectively). While this may contribute to improved cancer prevention, it significantly adds patient burden and healthcare costs.

Impact of time between faecal immunochemical tests in colorectal cancer screening on screening results: A natural experiment.

Repeated rounds of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for occult blood is a common method for screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the time interval between FIT rounds is not thoroughly investigated. In a CRC screening trial in South-Eastern Norway, individuals were invited for biennial FIT between 2012 and 2019. The positivity threshold was >15 mcg haemoglobin/g faeces (mcg/g). Due to organizational challenges, the interval between screening rounds randomly varied between 1.5 and 3.5 years, forming a natural experiment. We investigated the detection rate of CRC and advanced neoplasia (AN: CRC or advanced adenoma) at the subsequent round (FIT2 ), according to the faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb) at the initial screening round (FIT1 ), and time between the two screening rounds. 18 522 individuals with negative FIT1 who attended FIT2 were included in this study. 245 AN were detected at FIT2 , of which 34 were CRC. The CRC detection rate at FIT2 for participants with FIT1  = 0 mcg/g was 0.09% while it was 0.28% for participant with 0 > FIT1 ≤ 15 mcg/g; odds ratio (OR) 3.22, 95% CI 1.49-6.95. For each 3 months' increment between FITs, the OR for detecting CRC was 1.33 (95% CI 0.98-1.79), while the OR was 1.13 (1.02-1.26) for AN. Individuals with FIT1 -value of 0 mcg/g, had a lower AN detection rate compared with participants with 0 > FIT1 ≤ 15 mcg/g, irrespective of time between tests. Although CRC and AN detection rates increase with increasing time interval between FITs, individuals with undetectable f-Hb at first screen have substantially lower risk of CRC at the next screening round compared with individuals with detectable f-Hb.

Reply to: Letter to the Editor regarding "Covid-19 transmission in fitness centers in Norway-a randomized trial".

In this correspondence we respond to critique of our randomized trial of Covid-19 transmission in fitness centers. The trial was performed in Norway during May and June 2020.

Effect of Colonoscopy Screening on Risks of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death.

BACKGROUND: Although colonoscopy is widely used as a screening test to detect colorectal cancer, its effect on the risks of colorectal cancer and related death is unclear. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic, randomized trial involving presumptively healthy men and women 55 to 64 years of age drawn from population registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio either to receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (the invited group) or to receive no invitation or screening (the usual-care group). The primary end points were the risks of colorectal cancer and related death, and the secondary end point was death from any cause. RESULTS: Follow-up data were available for 84,585 participants in Poland, Norway, and Sweden - 28,220 in the invited group, 11,843 of whom (42.0%) underwent screening, and 56,365 in the usual-care group. A total of 15 participants had major bleeding after polyp removal. No perforations or screening-related deaths occurred within 30 days after colonoscopy. During a median follow-up of 10 years, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group as compared with 622 cases in the usual-care group. In intention-to-screen analyses, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was 0.98% in the invited group and 1.20% in the usual-care group, a risk reduction of 18% (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 0.93). The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.16). The number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer was 455 (95% CI, 270 to 1429). The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.04). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among participants who were invited to undergo screening colonoscopy than among those who were assigned to no screening. (Funded by the Research Council of Norway and others; NordICC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00883792.).