Gemma Vart

Comparing participation rates between immunochemical and guaiac faecal occult blood tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Biennial screening with faecal occult blood tests (FOBts) has been found to reduce colorectal cancer mortality. Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are superior to guaiac faecal occult blood tests (G-FOBts) due to their improved sensitivity and specificity. However the effectiveness of a screening programme depends highly on participation rates. The aim of this study was to review studies comparing guaiac faecal occult blood tests and faecal immunochemical tests, in terms of participation rates. METHODS We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library (2000-September 2011) to identify randomised control trials comparing guaiac faecal occult blood test with faecal immunochemical test participation rates. One author screened the titles and abstracts, and performed data extraction which was then checked by the other authors. Risk of bias in the included studies was also assessed. RESULTS Seven studies met the eligibility criteria and were entered into a meta-analysis. Participation rates were significantly higher for individuals offered faecal immunochemical tests compared to those offered a guaiac faecal occult blood test (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.09-1.33). Potential factors that could have influenced participation were discussed. CONCLUSIONS Colorectal cancer screening programmes currently using guaiac faecal occult blood tests could improve participation rates by converting to faecal immunochemical tests. More research examining the acceptability of faecal immunochemical tests, from a patient perspective, is warranted.

Effects of evidence-based strategies to reduce the socioeconomic gradient of uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): four cluster-randomised controlled trials

Summary Background Uptake in the national colorectal cancer screening programme in England varies by socioeconomic status. We assessed four interventions aimed at reducing this gradient, with the intention of improving the health benefits of screening. Methods All people eligible for screening (men and women aged 60–74 years) across England were included in four cluster-randomised trials. Randomisation was based on day of invitation. Each trial compared the standard information with the standard information plus the following supplementary interventions: trial 1 (November, 2012), a supplementary leaflet summarising the gist of the key information; trial 2 (March, 2012), a supplementary narrative leaflet describing peoples stories; trial 3 (June, 2013), general practice endorsement of the programme on the invitation letter; and trial 4 (July–August, 2013) an enhanced reminder letter with a banner that reiterated the screening offer. Socioeconomic status was defined by the Index of Multiple Deprivation score for each home address. The primary outcome was the socioeconomic status gradient in uptake across deprivation quintiles. This study is registered, number ISRCTN74121020. Findings As all four trials were embedded in the screening programme, loss to follow-up was minimal (less than 0·5%). Trials 1 (n=163 525) and 2 (n=150 417) showed no effects on the socioeconomic gradient of uptake or overall uptake. Trial 3 (n=265 434) showed no effect on the socioeconomic gradient but was associated with increased overall uptake (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·07, 95% CI 1·04–1·10, p<0·0001). In trial 4 (n=168 480) a significant interaction was seen with socioeconomic status gradient (p=0·005), with a stronger effect in the most deprived quintile (adjusted OR 1·11, 95% CI 1·04–1·20, p=0·003) than in the least deprived (1·00, 0·94–1·06, p=0·98). Overall uptake was also increased (1·07, 1·03–1·11, p=0·001). Interpretation Of four evidence-based interventions, the enhanced reminder letter reduced the socioeconomic gradient in screening uptake, but further reducing inequalities in screening uptake through written materials alone will be challenging. Funding National Institute for Health Research.

Impact of general practice endorsement on the social gradient in uptake in bowel cancer screening

Background:There is a socioeconomic gradient in the uptake of screening in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP), potentially leading to inequalities in outcomes. We tested whether endorsement of bowel cancer screening by an individual’s general practice (GP endorsement; GPE) reduced this gradient.Methods:A cluster-randomised controlled trial. Over 20 days, individuals eligible for screening in England from 6480 participating general practices were randomly allocated to receive a GP-endorsed or the standard invitation letter. The primary outcome was the proportion of people adequately screened and its variation by quintile of Index of Multiple Deprivation.Results:We enrolled 265 434 individuals. Uptake was 58.2% in the intervention arm and 57.5% in the control arm. After adjusting for age, sex, hub and screening episode, GPE increased the overall odds of uptake (OR=1.07, 95% CI 1.04–1.10), but did not affect its socioeconomic gradient. We estimated that implementing GPE could result in up to 165 more people with high or intermediate risk colorectal adenomas and 61 cancers detected, and a small one-off cost to modify the standard invitation (£78 000).Conclusions:Although GPE did not improve its socioeconomic gradient, it offers a low-cost approach to enhancing overall screening uptake within the NHS BCSP.

The impact of media coverage of the Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Trial on English colorectal screening uptake

Objective To assess the impact of media coverage of the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Trial on colorectal screening uptake in England. Setting In April 2010, publication of the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy (FS) Trial results generated considerable media interest in both FS and colorectal cancer (CRC) generally. Methods We used routinely collected data from the south of England (excluding London) to analyse return of faecal occult blood test (FOBt) kits within 28 days of the invitation (early uptake) among 60–69 year olds, before (T1, n = 31,229), around the time of (T2, n = 39,571), and one month after (T3, n = 33,430) the FS publicity. Results FOBt uptake over the whole period was 58.2%, with 38.4% of the kits returned within 28 days (early uptake). Across the three time periods, early uptake was 35.8% at T1, 39.4% at T2, and 39.7% at T3. Multivariate regression controlling for age, gender and socioeconomic status confirmed that uptake was higher if people received the FOBt kit around the time of the media coverage (T2: odds ratio [OR] = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.13–1.20), or one month after (T3: OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.15–1.22) than before (T1). Sub-group analyses demonstrated that the impact was stronger among previous non-responders than among first-time invitees or previous responders (P < 0.001). Conclusion Media coverage of the FS Trial appeared to have a small but positive impact on FOBt screening uptake, especially among people who had previously abstained from screening.

Patient attitudes towards faecal immunochemical testing for haemoglobin as an alternative to colonoscopic surveillance of groups at increased risk of colorectal cancer

Objectives To examine attitudes towards an annual faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin (FIT) versus three-yearly colonoscopic surveillance of individuals at intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Setting A London hospital. Methods Five semi-structured discussion groups were conducted with 28 adults (aged 60–74, 61% female) with different levels of CRC risk and experience of colonoscopy or colonoscopic surveillance. Information was presented sequentially using a step-by-step discussion guide. Results were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results When evaluating FIT in the context of a surveillance programme, all respondents readily made comparisons with related tests that they had been exposed to previously. Those with no experience of surveillance were enthusiastic about an annual FIT to replace three-yearly colonoscopy, because they felt that the higher testing frequency could improve detection of advanced lesions. Those with experience of colonoscopic surveillance did not perceive FIT to be as accurate as colonoscopy, and therefore either preferred colonoscopy on its own or wanted an annual FIT in addition to three-yearly colonoscopy. Conclusions FIT may be well-received as an additional method of surveillance for new patients at intermediate risk of CRC. More research is required to better understand potential barriers associated with FIT surveillance for patients with experience of colonoscopic surveillance.

Reducing the Social Gradient in Uptake of the NHS Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme Using a Narrative-Based Information Leaflet: A Cluster-Randomised Trial

Objective. To test the effectiveness of adding a narrative leaflet to the current information material delivered by the NHS English colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme on reducing socioeconomic inequalities in uptake. Participants. 150,417 adults (59–74 years) routinely invited to complete the guaiac Faecal Occult Blood test (gFOBt) in March 2013. Design. A cluster randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN74121020) to compare uptake between two arms. The control arm received the standard NHS CRC screening information material (SI) and the intervention arm received the standard information plus a supplementary narrative leaflet, which had previously been shown to increase screening intentions (SI + N). Between group comparisons were made for uptake overall and across socioeconomic status (SES). Results. Uptake was 57.7% and did not differ significantly between the two trial arms (SI: 58.5%; SI + N: 56.7%; odds ratio = 0.93; 95% confidence interval: 0.81–1.06; p = 0.27). There was no interaction between group and SES quintile (p = 0.44). Conclusions. Adding a narrative leaflet to existing information materials does not reduce the SES gradient in uptake. Despite the benefits of using a pragmatic trial design, the need to add to, rather than replace, existing information may have limited the true value of an evidence-based intervention on behaviour.

A national cluster-randomised controlled trial to examine the effect of enhanced reminders on the socioeconomic gradient in uptake in bowel cancer screening

Background:The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England offers biennial guaiac faecal occult blood testing (gFOBt). There is a socioeconomic gradient in participation and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups have worse colorectal cancer survival than more advantaged groups. We compared the effectiveness and cost of an enhanced reminder letter with the usual reminder letter on overall uptake of gFOBt and the socioeconomic gradient in uptake.Methods:We enhanced the usual reminder by including a heading ‘A reminder to you’ and a short paragraph restating the offer of screening in simple language. We undertook a cluster-randomised trial of all 168 480 individuals who were due to receive a reminder over 20 days in 2013. Randomisation was based on the day of invitation. Blinding of individuals was not possible, but the possibility of bias was minimal owing to the lack of direct contact with participants. The enhanced reminder was sent to 78 067 individuals and 90 413 received the usual reminder. The primary outcome was the proportion of people adequately screened and its variation by quintile of Index of Multiple Deprivation. Data were analysed by logistic regression with conservative variance estimates to take account of cluster randomisation.Results:There was a small but statistically significant (P=0.001) increase in participation with the enhanced reminder (25.8% vs 25.1%). There was significant (P=0.005) heterogeneity of the effect by socioeconomic status with an 11% increase in the odds of participation in the most deprived quintile (from 13.3 to 14.1%) and no increase in the least deprived. We estimated that implementing the enhanced reminder nationally could result in up to 80 more people with high or intermediate risk colorectal adenomas and up to 30 more cancers detected each year if it were implemented nationally. The intervention incurred a small one-off cost of £78 000 to modify the reminder letter.Conclusions:The enhanced reminder increases overall uptake and reduces the socioeconomic gradient in bowel cancer screening participation at little additional cost.