Ines Kralj-Hans

Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide and has a high mortality rate. We tested the hypothesis that only one flexible sigmoidoscopy screening between 55 and 64 years of age can substantially reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. METHODS This randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 14 UK centres. 170 432 eligible men and women, who had indicated on a previous questionnaire that they would accept an invitation for screening, were randomly allocated to the intervention group (offered flexible sigmoidoscopy screening) or the control group (not contacted). Randomisation by sequential number generation was done centrally in blocks of 12, with stratification by trial centre, general practice, and household type. The primary outcomes were the incidence of colorectal cancer, including prevalent cases detected at screening, and mortality from colorectal cancer. Analyses were intention to treat and per protocol. The trial is registered, number ISRCTN28352761. FINDINGS 113 195 people were assigned to the control group and 57 237 to the intervention group, of whom 112 939 and 57 099, respectively, were included in the final analyses. 40 674 (71%) people underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy. During screening and median follow-up of 11.2 years (IQR 10.7-11.9), 2524 participants were diagnosed with colorectal cancer (1818 in control group vs 706 in intervention group) and 20 543 died (13 768 vs 6775; 727 certified from colorectal cancer [538 vs 189]). In intention-to-treat analyses, colorectal cancer incidence in the intervention group was reduced by 23% (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.84) and mortality by 31% (0.69, 0.59-0.82). In per-protocol analyses, adjusting for self-selection bias in the intervention group, incidence of colorectal cancer in people attending screening was reduced by 33% (0.67, 0.60-0.76) and mortality by 43% (0.57, 0.45-0.72). Incidence of distal colorectal cancer (rectum and sigmoid colon) was reduced by 50% (0.50, 0.42-0.59; secondary outcome). The numbers needed to be screened to prevent one colorectal cancer diagnosis or death, by the end of the study period, were 191 (95% CI 145-277) and 489 (343-852), respectively. INTERPRETATION Flexible sigmoidoscopy is a safe and practical test and, when offered only once between ages 55 and 64 years, confers a substantial and longlasting benefit. FUNDING Medical Research Council, National Health Service R&D, Cancer Research UK, KeyMed.

Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND Colonoscopy is the gold-standard test for investigation of symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer; computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is an alternative, less invasive test. However, additional investigation after CTC is needed to confirm suspected colonic lesions, and this is an important factor in establishing the feasibility of CTC as an alternative to colonoscopy. We aimed to compare rates of additional colonic investigation after CTC or colonoscopy for detection of colorectal cancer or large (≥10 mm) polyps in symptomatic patients in clinical practice. METHODS This pragmatic multicentre randomised trial recruited patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer from 21 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were aged 55 years or older and regarded by their referring clinician as suitable for colonoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to colonoscopy or CTC by computer-generated random numbers, in blocks of six, stratified by trial centre and sex. We analysed the primary outcome-the rate of additional colonic investigation-by intention to treat. The trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 95152621. FINDINGS 1610 patients were randomly assigned to receive either colonoscopy (n=1072) or CTC (n=538). 30 patients withdrew consent, leaving for analysis 1047 assigned to colonoscopy and 533 assigned to CTC. 160 (30.0%) patients in the CTC group had additional colonic investigation compared with 86 (8.2%) in the colonoscopy group (relative risk 3.65, 95% CI 2.87-4.65; p<0.0001). Almost half the referrals after CTC were for small (<10 mm) polyps or clinical uncertainty, with low predictive value for large polyps or cancer. Detection rates of colorectal cancer or large polyps in the trial cohort were 11% for both procedures. CTC missed 1 of 29 colorectal cancers and colonoscopy missed none (of 55). Serious adverse events were rare. INTERPRETATION Guidelines are needed to reduce the referral rate after CTC. For most patients, however, CTC provides a similarly sensitive, less invasive alternative to colonoscopy. FUNDING NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme, Cancer Research UK, EPSRC Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare, and NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care.

Computed tomographic colonography versus barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND Barium enema (BE) is widely available for diagnosis of colorectal cancer despite concerns about its accuracy and acceptability. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) might be a more sensitive and acceptable alternative. We aimed to compare CTC and BE for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients in clinical practice. METHODS This pragmatic multicentre randomised trial recruited patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer from 21 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were aged 55 years or older and regarded by their referring clinician as suitable for radiological investigation of the colon. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to BE or CTC by computer-generated random numbers, in blocks of six, stratified by trial centre and sex. We analysed the primary outcome-diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large (≥10 mm) polyps-by intention to treat. The trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 95152621. FINDINGS 3838 patients were randomly assigned to receive either BE (n=2553) or CTC (n=1285). 34 patients withdrew consent, leaving for analysis 2527 assigned to BE and 1277 assigned to CTC. The detection rate of colorectal cancer or large polyps was significantly higher in patients assigned to CTC than in those assigned to BE (93 [7.3%] of 1277 vs 141 [5.6%] of 2527, relative risk 1.31, 95% CI 1.01-1.68; p=0.0390). CTC missed three of 45 colorectal cancers and BE missed 12 of 85. The rate of additional colonic investigation was higher after CTC than after BE (283 [23.5%] of 1206 CTC patients had additional investigation vs 422 [18.3%] of 2300 BE patients; p=0.0003), due mainly to a higher polyp detection rate. Serious adverse events were rare. INTERPRETATION CTC is a more sensitive test than BE. Our results suggest that CTC should be the preferred radiological test for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer. FUNDING NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme, Cancer Research UK, EPSRC Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare, and NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care.

Prolonged biologically active colonic tissue levels of curcumin achieved after oral administration--a clinical pilot study including assessment of patient acceptability.

Curcumin, the main constituent of turmeric, is suspected to possess cancer chemopreventive properties. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters have been reported, but few data exist describing whether methodologies are suitably robust for curcuminoid detection in colonic biopsy specimens. Information on the acceptability of prolonged administration of daily curcumin is not available. This is of vital importance to implement chemoprevention strategies. This study aimed to quantify levels of curcuminoids in colorectal mucosa of patients undergoing colorectal endoscopy or surgical resection and to obtain information on the acceptability and compliance with daily curcumin. Curcumin C3 complex (2.35 g) was administered to patients once daily for 14 days before endoscopic biopsy or colonic resection. Safety and tolerance were monitored. Analysis of curcuminoids in plasma, urine, and colonic mucosa was conducted by ultraperformance liquid chromatography (UPLC)-UV with characterization by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS-MS). Twenty-four of 26 patients commencing curcumin completed the course. Six patients reported mild gastrointestinal adverse events. Curcuminoids were detectable in nine of 24 plasma samples, 24 of 24 urine samples, and in the colonic mucosa of all 23 biopsied participants. Mean tissue levels were 48.4 μg/g (127.8 nmol/g) of parent curcuminoids. The major conjugate, curcumin glucuronide, was detectable in 29 of 35 biopsies. High levels of topical curcumin persisted in the mucosa for up to 40 hours postadministration. Sixteen participants (67%) stated that they would take curcumin long-term should it be of proven benefit. In summary, pharmacologically active levels of curcumin were recovered from colonic mucosa. The regimen used here seems safe, and patients support its use in long-term trials. Cancer Prev Res; 6(2); 119–28. ©2012 AACR.

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.

Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Uptake in a Population-based Pilot Programme:

Objective The aim of this study was is to examine uptake of population-based, flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening delivered by nurses in a socioeconomically and ethnically diverse area of London, England. Methods All adults aged 58 and 59 years registered at 34 general practices in North London (n = 2260) were mailed an invitation to attend FS screening at the local hospital. Results In total, 45% (1024/2260) accepted the invitation and attended, 5% (114/2260) accepted the invitation but failed to attend, 5% (111/2260) accepted the invitation but were unable to attend within the time-frame of the pilot study, 7% (165/2260) declined the offer, 27% (602/2260) did not respond, and 11% (244/2260) were ineligible or did not receive the invitation. Among those eligible to be screened, the uptake rate was 51% (1024/2016). Uptake did not differ by gender, but people living in the most affluent quintile of areas had a substantially higher uptake rate (63%) than those living in the most deprived quintile (38%). Conclusion Uptake of FS screening delivered as a population-based programme was over 50% among the eligible population in a socioeconomically and ethnically diverse area of London. Disparities in uptake should be addressed to avoid exacerbating health inequalities.

Randomised trials of flexible sigmoidoscopy

Bretthauer’s editorial contains two incorrect statements about the outcomes of the UK flexible sigmoidoscopy trial (UKFSST).1 2 Firstly, the subtitle, “Flexible sigmoidoscopy shows promise, but randomised trial data are needed,” is misleading because UKFSST is a randomised controlled trial. It involved 170 000 people and reduced the mortality of colorectal cancer by 43% and incidence by 33% in screening attenders. Secondly, the absolute …

Adenoma surveillance and colorectal cancer incidence: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study.

Summary Background Removal of adenomas reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality; however, the benefit of surveillance colonoscopy on colorectal cancer risk remains unclear. We examined heterogeneity in colorectal cancer incidence in intermediate-risk patients and the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer incidence. Methods We did this retrospective, multicentre, cohort study using routine lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and pathology data from patients who, after baseline colonoscopy and polypectomy, were diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas mostly (>99%) between Jan 1, 1990, and Dec 31, 2010, at 17 hospitals in the UK. These patients are currently offered surveillance colonoscopy at intervals of 3 years. Patients were followed up through to Dec 31, 2014.We assessed the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer incidence using Cox regression with adjustment for patient, procedural, and polyp characteristics. We defined lower-risk and higher-risk subgroups on the basis of polyp and procedural characteristics identified as colorectal cancer risk factors. We estimated colorectal cancer incidence and standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) using as standard the general population of England in 2007. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN15213649. Findings 253 798 patients who underwent colonic endoscopy were identified, of whom 11 944 with intermediate-risk adenomas were included in this analysis. After a median follow-up of 7·9 years (IQR 5·6–11·1), 210 colorectal cancers were diagnosed. 5019 (42%) patients did not attend surveillance and 6925 (58%) attended one or more surveillance visits. Compared to no surveillance, one or two surveillance visits were associated with a significant reduction in colorectal cancer incidence rate (adjusted hazard ratio 0·57, 95% CI 0·40–0·80 for one visit; 0·51, 0·31–0·84 for two visits). Without surveillance, colorectal cancer incidence in patients with a suboptimal quality colonoscopy, proximal polyps, or a high-grade or large adenoma (≥20 mm) at baseline (8865 [74%] patients) was significantly higher than in the general population (SIR 1·30, 95% CI 1·06–1·57). By contrast, in patients without these features, colorectal cancer incidence was lower than that of the general population (SIR 0·51, 95% CI 0·29–0·84). Interpretation Colonoscopy surveillance benefits most patients with intermediate-risk adenomas. However, some patients are already at low risk after baseline colonoscopy and the value of surveillance for them is unclear. Funding National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment, Cancer Research UK.

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 psychological impact of being offered surveillance colonoscopy following attendance at colorectal screening using flexible sigmoidoscopy

Objectives To examine the psychological impact of being assigned to colonoscopic surveillance following detection of adenomatous polyps at flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening. Setting Participants invited for screening in 12 of the 14 study centres in the UK FS Trial. Methods A postal survey following FS screening assessed bowel cancer worry, psychological distress, generalized anxiety, bowel symptoms, general practitioner (GP) visits, positive emotional consequences of screening, and reassurance among people with no polyps (n = 26,573), lower-risk polyps removed at FS (n = 7401) and higher-risk polyps who underwent colonoscopy and were either assigned to colonoscopic surveillance (n = 1543) or discharged (n = 183). A sub-sample (n = 6389) also completed a questionnaire prior to screening attendance that measured bowel cancer worry, generalized anxiety, bowel symptoms and GP visits, making it possible to examine longitudinal changes in this group. Results People offered surveillance reported lower psychological distress and anxiety than those with either no polyps or lower-risk polyps. The surveillance group also reported more positive emotional benefits of screening than the other outcome groups. Post-screening bowel cancer worry and bowel symptoms were higher in people assigned to surveillance, but both declined over time, reaching levels observed in either one or both of the other two groups found to have polyps, suggesting these results were a consequence of polyp detection rather than surveillance per se. Few differences were observed between the group assigned surveillance and the group discharged following colonoscopy. Conclusion The results of the current study are broadly reassuring and indicate that referral for colonoscopic surveillance is not associated with adverse psychological consequences.