Lieke Hol

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 ⩾10 mm; adenoma with ⩾25% villous component or high grade dysplasia; serrated adenoma; ⩾3 adenomas; ⩾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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a quantitative immunochemical test for colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND & AIMS Two European randomized trials (N = 30,000) compared guaiac fecal occult blood testing with quantitative fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and showed better attendance rates and test characteristics for FIT. We aimed to identify the most cost-effective FIT cutoff level for referral to colonoscopy based on data from these trials and allowing for differences in screening ages. METHODS We used the validated MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN)-Colon microsimulation model to estimate costs and effects of different screening strategies for FIT cutoff levels of 50, 75, 100, 150, and 200 ng/mL hemoglobin. For each cutoff level, screening strategies were assessed with various age ranges and screening intervals. We assumed sufficient colonoscopy capacity for all strategies. RESULTS At all cost levels, FIT screening was most effective with the 50 ng/mL cutoff level. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of biennial screening between ages 55 and 75 years using FIT at 50 ng/mL, for example, was 3900 euro per life year gained. Annual screening had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 14,900 euro per life year gained, in combination with a wider age range (between ages 45 and 80 years). In the sensitivity analysis, 50 ng/mL remained the preferred cutoff level. CONCLUSIONS FIT screening is more cost-effective at a cutoff level of 50 ng/mL than at higher cutoff levels. This supports the recommendation to use FIT at a cutoff level of 50 ng/mL, which is considerably lower than the values used in current practice.

Diagnostic Yield Improves With Collection of 2 Samples in Fecal Immunochemical Test Screening Without Affecting Attendance

BACKGROUND & AIMS The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is superior to the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test in detecting neoplasia. There are not much data on the optimal number of FITs to perform. We conducted a population-based trial to determine attendance and diagnostic yield of 1- and 2-sample FIT screening. METHODS The study included 2 randomly selected groups of subjects aged 50-74 years (1-sample FIT, n=5007; 2-sample FIT, n=3197). The 2-sample group was instructed to collect fecal samples on 2 consecutive days. Subjects were referred for colonoscopy when at least 1 sample tested positive (≥50 ng hemoglobin/mL). RESULTS Attendance was 61.5% in the 1-sample group (2979 of 4845; 95% confidence interval, 60.1%-62.9%) and 61.3% in the 2-sample group (1875 of 3061; 95% confidence interval, 59.6%-63.0%; P=.84). In the 1-sample group 8.1% tested positive, and in the 2-sample group 12.8% had at least 1 positive test outcome and 5.0% had 2 positive test outcomes (P<.05). When the mean from both test results in the 2-sample group was used, 10.1% had a positive test outcome (P<.05). The detection rates for advanced neoplasia were 3.1% in the 1-sample group, 4.1% in the 2-sample group with at least 1 positive test outcome, 2.5% when both test results were positive, and 3.7% among subjects with the mean from both test results being positive. CONCLUSIONS There is no difference in attendance for subjects offered 1- or 2-sample FIT screening. The results allow for the development of efficient FIT screening strategies that can be adapted for local colonoscopy capacities, rather than varying the cut-off value in a 1-sample strategy.

Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment

Background:Guidelines underline the role of individual preferences in the selection of a screening test, as insufficient evidence is available to recommend one screening test over another. We conducted a study to determine the preferences of individuals and to predict uptake for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes using various screening tests.Methods:A discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire was distributed among naive subjects, yet to be screened, and previously screened subjects, aged 50–75 years. Subjects were asked to choose between scenarios on the basis of faecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), total colonoscopy (TC) with various test-specific screening intervals and mortality reductions, and no screening (opt-out).Results:In total, 489 out of 1498 (33%) screening-naïve subjects (52% male; mean age±s.d. 61±7 years) and 545 out of 769 (71%) previously screened subjects (52% male; mean age±s.d. 61±6 years) returned the questionnaire. The type of screening test, screening interval, and risk reduction of CRC-related mortality influenced subjects’ preferences (all P<0.05). Screening-naive and previously screened subjects equally preferred 5-yearly FS and 10-yearly TC (P=0.24; P=0.11), but favoured both strategies to annual FOBT screening (all P-values <0.001) if, based on the literature, realistic risk reduction of CRC-related mortality was applied. Screening-naive and previously screened subjects were willing to undergo a 10-yearly TC instead of a 5-yearly FS to obtain an additional risk reduction of CRC-related mortality of 45% (P<0.001).Conclusion:These data provide insight into the extent by which interval and risk reduction of CRC-related mortality affect preferences for CRC screening tests. Assuming realistic test characteristics, subjects in the target population preferred endoscopic screening over FOBT screening, partly, due to the more favourable risk reduction of CRC-related mortality by endoscopy screening. Increasing the knowledge of potential screenees regarding risk reduction by different screening strategies is, therefore, warranted to prevent unrealistic expectations and to optimise informed choice.

Attendance and Yield Over Three Rounds of Population-Based Fecal Immunochemical Test Screening

OBJECTIVES:Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) requires timely successive rounds for an optimal preventive effect. However, data on attendance and trend in yield over multiple rounds of FIT screening are limited. We therefore conducted a consecutive third round of FIT screening in a population-based CRC screening trial.METHODS:Average-risk subjects aged 50–74 years were approached for three rounds of 1-sample FIT (OC-sensor) screening. Subjects with a hemoglobin level ≥50 ng/ml (≥10 μg Hb/g) feces were referred for colonoscopy. Subjects with a positive FIT in previous rounds were not re-invited for FIT screening.RESULTS:In the first round, 7,501 subjects were invited. The participation rate was 62.6% in the first round, 63.2% in the second round, and 68.3% in the third round (P<0.001). In total, 73% (5,241/7,229) of all eligible subjects participated in at least one of three rounds. The positivity rate was significantly higher in the first (8.4%) round compared with the second (6.0%) and third (5.7%) screening rounds (P<0.001). The detection rate of advanced neoplasia (AN) declined from the first round to subsequent rounds (round 1: 3.3%; round 2: 1.9%; and round 3: 1.3%; P<0.001). The positive predictive value for AN was 40.7% in the first screening round, 33.2% in the second screening round, and 24.0% in the third screening round (P<0.001).CONCLUSIONS:Repeated biennial FIT screening is acceptable with increased participation in successive screening rounds, and >70% of all eligible subjects participating at least once over three rounds. The decline in screen-detected AN over three screening rounds is compatible with a decreased prevalence of AN as a result of repeated FIT screening. These findings provide strong evidence for the effectiveness of FIT screening and stress the importance of ongoing research over multiple screening rounds.

Fecal Occult Blood Testing When Colonoscopy Capacity is Limited

BACKGROUND Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) can be adapted to a limited colonoscopy capacity by narrowing the age range or extending the screening interval, by using a more specific test or hemoglobin cutoff level for referral to colonoscopy, and by restricting surveillance colonoscopy. Which of these options is most clinically effective and cost-effective has yet to be established. METHODS We used the validated MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate the number of colonoscopies, costs, and health effects of different screening strategies using guaiac FOBT or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) at various hemoglobin cutoff levels between 50 and 200 ng hemoglobin per mL, different surveillance strategies, and various age ranges. We optimized the allocation of a limited number of colonoscopies on the basis of incremental cost-effectiveness. RESULTS When colonoscopy capacity was unlimited, the optimal screening strategy was to administer an annual FIT with a 50 ng/mL hemoglobin cutoff level in individuals aged 45-80 years and to offer colonoscopy surveillance to all individuals with adenomas. When colonoscopy capacity was decreasing, the optimal screening adaptation was to first increase the FIT hemoglobin cutoff value to 200 ng hemoglobin per mL and narrow the age range to 50-75 years, to restrict colonoscopy surveillance, and finally to further decrease the number of screening rounds. FIT screening was always more cost-effective compared with guaiac FOBT. Doubling colonoscopy capacity increased the benefits of FIT screening up to 100%. CONCLUSIONS FIT should be used at higher hemoglobin cutoff levels when colonoscopy capacity is limited compared with unlimited and is more effective in terms of health outcomes and cost compared with guaiac FOBT at all colonoscopy capacity levels. Increasing the colonoscopy capacity substantially increases the health benefits of FIT screening.

Using CT colonography as a triage technique after a positive faecal occult blood test in colorectal cancer screening

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of CT colonography (CTC) as a triage technique in faecal occult blood test (FOBT)-positive screening participants. Methods: Consecutive guaiac (G-FOBT) and immunochemical (I-FOBT) FOBT-positive patients scheduled for colonoscopy underwent CTC with iodine tagging bowel preparation. Each CTC was read independently by two experienced observers. Per patient sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were calculated based on double reading with different CTC cut-off lesion sizes using segmental unblinded colonoscopy as the reference standard. The acceptability of the technique to patients was evaluated with questionnaires. Results: 302 FOBT-positive patients were included (54 G-FOBT and 248 I-FOBT). 22 FOBT-positive patients (7%) had a colorectal carcinoma and 211 (70%) had a lesion ⩾6 mm. Participants considered colonoscopy more burdensome than CTC (p<0.05). Using a 6 mm CTC size cut-off, per patient sensitivity for CTC was 91% (95% CI 85% to 91%) and specificity was 69% (95% CI 60% to 89%) for the detection of colonoscopy lesions ⩾6 mm. The PPV of CTC was 87% (95% CI 80% to 93%) and NPV 77% (95% CI 69% to 85%). Using CTC as a triage technique in 100 FOBT-positive patients would mean that colonoscopy could be prevented in 28 patients while missing ⩾10 mm lesions in 2 patients. Conclusion: CTC with limited bowel preparation has reasonable predictive values in an FOBT-positive population and a higher acceptability to patients than colonoscopy. However, due to the high prevalence of clinically relevant lesions in FOBT-positive patients, CTC is unlikely to be an efficient triage technique in a first round FOBT population screening programme.

Screening for colorectal cancer: Comparison of perceived test burden of guaiac-based faecal occult blood test, faecal immunochemical test and flexible sigmoidoscopy

BACKGROUND Perceived burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is an important determinant of participation in subsequent screening rounds and therefore crucial for the effectiveness of a screening programme. This study determined differences in perceived burden and willingness to return for a second screening round among participants of a randomised population-based trial comparing a guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBT), a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening. METHODS A representative sample of the Dutch population (aged 50-74years) was randomised to be invited for gFOBT, FIT and FS screening. A random sample of participants of each group was asked to complete a questionnaire about test burden and willingness to return for CRC screening. RESULTS In total 402/481 (84%) gFOBT, 530/659 (80%) FIT and 852/1124 (76%) FS screenees returned the questionnaire. The test was reported as burdensome by 2.5% of gFOBT, 1.4% of FIT and 12.9% of FS screenees (comparing gFOBT versus FIT p=0.05; versus FS p<0.001). In total 94.1% of gFOBT, 94.0% of FIT and 83.8% of FS screenees were willing to attend successive screening rounds (comparing gFOBT versus FIT p=0.84; versus FS p<0.001). Women reported more burden during FS screening than men (18.2% versus 7.7%; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS FIT slightly outperforms gFOBT with a lower level of reported discomfort and overall burden. Both FOBTs are better accepted than FS screening. All three tests have a high level of acceptance, which may affect uptake of subsequent screening rounds and should be taken into consideration before implementing a CRC screening programme.

Are Fecal Immunochemical Test Characteristics Influenced by Sample Return Time? A Population-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial

OBJECTIVES:Fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) are preferred over guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing as colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tool. However, hemoglobin (Hb) degradation over time may influence FIT outcome. We therefore evaluated the effect of sample return time on FIT performance characteristics in a population-based CRC screening trial.METHODS:A representative random sample of the Dutch population (n=17,677), aged 50–74 years, was invited for FIT screening (OC-Sensor Micro; cutoff ≥ 50 ng Hb/ml). Sample return time was defined as the interval in days between fecal sampling and FIT laboratory delivery. Moreover, a random sample of positive FITs were selected to be stored at room temperature and re-tested every 3–4 days.RESULTS:In total, 8,958 screenees fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The mean sample return time was 3 days (± 3). Overall, 792 screenees (8.8%) had a positive test. Between the sample return time groups, the positivity rate (PR) varied between 7.7 and 9.0%. No statistically significant associations were found between PR or detection rate (DR) and the different sample return time groups (P value=0.84 and 0.76, respectively). For the laboratory experiment, 71 positive FITs were stored at room temperature and re-tested with standard intervals. The mean daily fecal Hb decrease was 5.88% per day (95% confidence interval 4.78–6.96%). None of the positive FITs became negative before 10 days after fecal sampling.CONCLUSIONS:This population-based CRC screening trial demonstrates that both the PR and DR of FITs do not decrease with prolonged sample return times up to 10 days. This means that a delay in sending the FIT back to the laboratory, of up to at least 1 week, does not necessitate repeat sampling in case of a negative test result. These data support the use of FIT-based screening as a reliable tool for nationwide CRC screening programs.