Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Michael Bretthauer is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Michael Bretthauer.


BMJ | 2009

Risk of colorectal cancer seven years after flexible sigmoidoscopy screening: randomised controlled trial

Geir Hoff; Tom Grotmol; Eva Skovlund; Michael Bretthauer

Objective To determine the risk of colorectal cancer after screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting Population based screening in two areas in Norway—city of Oslo and Telemark county (urban and mixed urban and rural populations). Participants 55 736 men and women aged 55-64 years. Intervention Once only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening with or without a single round of faecal occult blood testing (n=13 823) compared with no screening (n=41 913). Main outcome measures Planned end points were cumulative incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer after 5, 10, and 15 years. This first report from the study presents cumulative incidence after 7 years of follow-up and hazard ratio for mortality after 6 years. Results No difference was found in the 7 year cumulative incidence of colorectal cancer between the screening and control groups (134.5 v 131.9 cases per 100 000 person years). In intention to screen analysis, a trend towards reduced colorectal cancer mortality was found (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 1.13, P=0.16). For attenders compared with controls, a statistically significant reduction in mortality was apparent for both total colorectal cancer (hazard ratio 0.41, 0.21 to 0.82, P=0.011) and rectosigmoidal cancer (0.24, 0.08 to 0.76, P=0.016). Conclusions A reduction in incidence of colorectal cancer with flexible sigmoidoscopy screening could not be shown after 7 years’ follow-up. Mortality from colorectal cancer was not significantly reduced in the screening group but seemed to be lower for attenders, with a reduction of 59% for any location of colorectal cancer and 76% for rectosigmoidal cancer in per protocol analysis, an analysis prone to selection bias. Trial registration Clinical trials NCT00119912.


Endoscopy | 2013

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

Cesare Hassan; Michael Bretthauer; Michal F. Kaminski; Marcin Polkowski; B. Rembacken; Brian P. Saunders; R. Benamouzig; Øyvind Holme; S. Green; T. Kuiper; R. Marmo; M. Omar; Lucio Petruzziello; Cristiano Spada; Angelo Zullo; Jean-Marc Dumonceau

BACKGROUND AND AIM This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the choice amongst regimens available for cleansing the colon in preparation for colonoscopy. METHODS This Guideline is based on a targeted literature search to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendation and the quality of evidence. RESULTS The main recommendations are as follows. (1) The ESGE recommends a low-fiber diet on the day preceding colonoscopy (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). (2) The ESGE recommends a split regimen of 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution (or a same-day regimen in the case of afternoon colonoscopy) for routine bowel preparation. A split regimen (or same-day regimen in the case of afternoon colonoscopy) of 2 L PEG plus ascorbate or of sodium picosulphate plus magnesium citrate may be valid alternatives, in particular for elective outpatient colonoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). In patients with renal failure, PEG is the only recommended bowel preparation. The delay between the last dose of bowel preparation and colonoscopy should be minimized and no longer than 4 hours (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). (3) The ESGE advises against the routine use of sodium phosphate for bowel preparation because of safety concerns (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).


Annals of Internal Medicine | 2012

Overdiagnosis of Invasive Breast Cancer Due to Mammography Screening: Results From the Norwegian Screening Program

Mette Kalager; Hans-Olov Adami; Michael Bretthauer; Rulla M. Tamimi

BACKGROUND Precise quantification of overdiagnosis of breast cancer (defined as the percentage of cases of cancer that would not have become clinically apparent in a womans lifetime without screening) due to mammography screening has been hampered by lack of valid comparison groups that identify incidence trends attributable to screening versus those due to temporal trends in incidence. OBJECTIVE To estimate the percentage of overdiagnosis of breast cancer attributable to mammography screening. DESIGN Comparison of invasive breast cancer incidence with and without screening. SETTING A nationwide mammography screening program in Norway (inviting women aged 50 to 69 years), gradually implemented from 1996 to 2005. PARTICIPANTS The Norwegian female population. MEASUREMENTS Concomitant incidence of invasive breast cancer from 1996 to 2005 in counties where the screening program was implemented compared with that in counties where the program was not yet implemented. To adjust for changes in temporal trends in breast cancer incidence, incidence rates during the preceding decade were also examined. The percentage of overdiagnosis was calculated by accounting for the expected decrease in incidence following cessation of screening after age 69 years (approach 1) and by comparing incidence in the current screening group with incidence among women 2 and 5 years older in the historical screening groups, accounting for average lead time (approach 2). RESULTS A total of 39,888 patients with invasive breast cancer were included, 7793 of whom were diagnosed after the screening program started. The estimated rate of overdiagnosis attributable to the program was 18% to 25% (P < 0.001) for approach 1 and 15% to 20% (P < 0.001) for approach 2. Thus, 15% to 25% of cases of cancer are overdiagnosed, translating to 6 to 10 women overdiagnosed for every 2500 women invited. LIMITATION The study was registry-based. CONCLUSION Mammography screening entails a substantial amount of overdiagnosis. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE Norwegian Research Council and Frontier Science.


JAMA | 2014

Effect of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening on Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality A Randomized Clinical Trial

Øyvind Holme; Magnus Løberg; Mette Kalager; Michael Bretthauer; Miguel A. Hernán; Eline Aas; Tor J. Eide; Eva Skovlund; Jörn Schneede; Kjell Magne Tveit; Geir Hoff

IMPORTANCE Colorectal cancer is a major health burden. Screening is recommended in many countries. OBJECTIVE To estimate the effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in a population-based trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial of 100,210 individuals aged 50 to 64 years, identified from the population of Oslo city and Telemark County, Norway. Screening was performed in 1999-2000 (55-64-year age group) and in 2001 (50-54-year age group), with follow-up ending December 31, 2011. Of those selected, 1415 were excluded due to prior colorectal cancer, emigration, or death, and 3 could not be traced in the population registry. INTERVENTIONS Participants randomized to the screening group were invited to undergo screening. Within the screening group, participants were randomized 1:1 to receive once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy or combination of once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood testing (FOBT). Participants with positive screening test results (cancer, adenoma, polyp ≥10 mm, or positive FOBT) were offered colonoscopy. The control group received no intervention. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. RESULTS A total of 98,792 participants were included in the intention-to-screen analyses, of whom 78,220 comprised the control group and 20,572 comprised the screening group (10,283 randomized to receive a flexible sigmoidoscopy and 10,289 to receive flexible sigmoidoscopy and FOBT). Adherence with screening was 63%. After a median of 10.9 years, 71 participants died of colorectal cancer in the screening group vs 330 in the control group (31.4 vs 43.1 deaths per 100,000 person-years; absolute rate difference, 11.7 [95% CI, 3.0-20.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.94]). Colorectal cancer was diagnosed in 253 participants in the screening group vs 1086 in the control group (112.6 vs 141.0 cases per 100,000 person-years; absolute rate difference, 28.4 [95% CI, 12.1-44.7]; HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.70-0.92]). Colorectal cancer incidence was reduced in both the 50- to 54-year age group (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.94) and the 55- to 64-year age group (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96). There was no difference between the flexible sigmoidoscopy only vs the flexible sigmoidoscopy and FOBT screening groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In Norway, once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening or flexible sigmoidoscopy and FOBT reduced colorectal cancer incidence and mortality on a population level compared with no screening. Screening was effective both in the 50- to 54-year and the 55- to 64-year age groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00119912.


Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology | 2003

The Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention (NORCCAP) screening study: baseline findings and implementations for clinical work-up in age groups 50-64 years.

G. Gondal; Tom Grotmol; B. Hofstad; Michael Bretthauer; Tor J. Eide; Geir Hoff

Background: Randomized controlled trials of sufficient power testing the long-term effect of screening for colorectal neoplasia only exist for faecal occult blood testing (FOBT). There is indirect evidence that flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) may have a greater yield. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic yield of screening with FS or a combination of FS and FOBT in an average-risk population in an urban and combined urban and rural population in Norway. Methods: 20,780 men and women (1:1), aged 50-64 years, were invited for once-only screening (FS only or a combination of FS and FOBT (1:1)) by randomization from the population registry. A positive FS was defined as a finding of any neoplasia or any polyp S 10 r mm. A positive FS or FOBT qualified for colonoscopy. Results: Overall attendance was 65%. Forty-one (0.3%) cases of CRC were detected. Any adenoma was found in 2208 (17%) participants and 545 (4.2%) had high-risk adenomas. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between the FS and the FS and FOBT group regarding CRC or high-risk adenoma. Work-up load comprised 2821 colonoscopies in 2524 (20%) screenees and 10% of screenees were recommended later colonoscopy surveillance. There were no severe complications at FS, but six perforations after therapeutic colonoscopy (1:336). Conclusions: The present study bodes well for future management of a national screening programme, provided that follow-up results reflect adequate proof of a net benefit. It is highly questionable whether the addition of once-only FOBT to FS will contribute to this effect.BACKGROUND Randomized controlled trials of sufficient power testing the long-term effect of screening for colorectal neoplasia only exist for faecal occult blood testing (FOBT). There is indirect evidence that flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) may have a greater yield. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic yield of screening with FS or a combination of FS and FOBT in an average-risk population in an urban and combined urban and rural population in Norway. METHODS 20,780 men and women (1:1), aged 50-64 years, were invited for once-only screening (FS only or a combination of FS and FOBT (1:1)) by randomization from the population registry. A positive FS was defined as a finding of any neoplasia or any polyp > or = 10 mm. A positive FS or FOBT qualified for colonoscopy. RESULTS Overall attendance was 65%. Forty-one (0.3%) cases of CRC were detected. Any adenoma was found in 2208 (17%) participants and 545 (4.2%) had high-risk adenomas. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between the FS and the FS and FOBT group regarding CRC or high-risk adenoma. Work-up load comprised 2821 colonoscopies in 2524 (20%) screenees and 10% of screenees were recommended later colonoscopy surveillance. There were no severe complications at FS, but six perforations after therapeutic colonoscopy (1:336). CONCLUSIONS The present study bodes well for future management of a national screening programme, provided that follow-up results reflect adequate proof of a net benefit. It is highly questionable whether the addition of once-only FOBT to FS will contribute to this effect.


Gut | 2002

NORCCAP (Norwegian colorectal cancer prevention): a randomised trial to assess the safety and efficacy of carbon dioxide versus air insufflation in colonoscopy

Michael Bretthauer; Espen Thiis-Evensen; Gert Huppertz-Hauss; L. Gisselsson; Tom Grotmol; Eva Skovlund; Geir Hoff

Background: To eliminate the risk of combustion during electrosurgical procedures and to reduce patient discomfort, carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation has been recommended during colonoscopy. However, air insufflation is still the standard method, perhaps due to the lack of suitable equipment and shortage of randomised studies. Aims: This randomised controlled trial was conducted to assess patient tolerance and safety when using CO2 insufflation during colonoscopy. Patients: Over an eight month period a successive series of patients referred for a baseline colonoscopy due to findings in a flexible sigmoidoscopy screening trial were randomly assigned to the use of either air or CO2 insufflation during colonoscopy. Methods: End tidal CO2 (ETCO2), a non-invasive parameter of arterial pCO2, was registered before and repeatedly during and after the examination. The patients experience of pain during and after the examination was registered using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Sedation was not used routinely. Results: CO2 insufflation was used in 121 patients (51%) and air in 119 patients (49%). The groups were similar in age, sex, and caecal intubation rate. No rise in ETCO2 was registered. There were statistically significant differences in VAS scores between the groups with less pain reported when using CO2. Conclusions: This randomised study of unsedated patients shows that CO2 insufflation is safe during colonoscopy with no rise in ETCO2 level. CO2 was found to be superior to air in terms of pain experienced after the examination.


Endoscopy | 2011

Single- vs. double-balloon enteroscopy in small-bowel diagnostics: a randomized multicenter trial

Dirk Domagk; Peter Mensink; Huseyin Aktas; Philipp Lenz; Tobias Meister; Andreas Luegering; Hansjörg Ullerich; Lars Aabakken; Achim Heinecke; Wolfram Domschke; Ernst J. Kuipers; Michael Bretthauer

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS Double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) is the first choice endoscopic technique for small-bowel visualization. However, preparation and handling of the double-balloon enteroscope is complex. Recently, a single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) system has been introduced as being a simplified, less-complex balloon-assisted enteroscopy system. PATIENTS AND METHODS This study was a randomized international multicenter trial comparing two balloon-assisted enteroscopy systems: DBE vs. SBE. Consecutive patients referred for balloon-assisted enteroscopy were randomized to either DBE or SBE. Patients were blinded with regard to the type of instrument used. The primary study outcome was oral insertion depth. Secondary outcomes included complete small-bowel visualization, anal insertion depth, patient discomfort, and adverse events. Patient discomfort during and after the procedure was scored using a visual analog scale. RESULTS A total of 130 patients were included over 12 months: 65 with DBE and 65 with the SBE technique. Patient and procedure characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Mean oral intubation depth was 253 cm with DBE and 258 cm with SBE, showing noninferiority of SBE vs. DBE. Complete visualization of the small bowel was achieved in 18 % and 11 % of procedures in the DBE and SBE groups, respectively. Mean anal intubation depth was 107 cm in the DBE group and 118 cm in the SBE group. Diagnostic yield and mean pain scores during and after the procedures were similar in the two groups. No adverse events were observed during or after the examinations. CONCLUSIONS This head-to-head comparison study shows that DBE and SBE have a comparable performance and diagnostic yield for evaluation of the small bowel.


Endoscopy | 2012

The NordICC Study: rationale and design of a randomized trial on colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer.

M. F. Kaminski; Michael Bretthauer; Ann G. Zauber; E. J. Kuipers; Hans-Olov Adami; M. van Ballegooijen; Jaroslaw Regula; M E van Leerdam; T. Stefansson; Lars Påhlman; Evelien Dekker; Miguel A. Hernán; Kjetil Garborg; Geir Hoff

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM While colonoscopy screening is widely used in several European countries and the United States, there are no randomized trials to quantify its benefits. The Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) is a multinational, randomized controlled trial aiming at investigating the effect of colonoscopy screening on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. This paper describes the rationale and design of the NordICC trial. STUDY DESIGN Men and women aged 55 to 64 years are drawn from the population registries in the participating countries and randomly assigned to either once-only colonoscopy screening with removal of all detected lesions, or no screening (standard of care in the trial regions). All individuals are followed for 15 years after inclusion using dedicated national registries. The primary end points of the trial are cumulative CRC-specific death and CRC incidence during 15 years of follow-up. POWER ANALYSIS: We hypothesize a 50 % CRC mortality-reducing efficacy of the colonoscopy intervention and predict 50 % compliance, yielding a 25 % mortality reduction among those invited to screening. For 90 % power and a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, using a 2:1 randomization, 45 600 individuals will be randomized to control, and 22 800 individuals to the colonoscopy group. Interim analyses of the effect of colonoscopy on CRC incidence and mortality will be performed at 10-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS The aim of the NordICC trial is to quantify the effectiveness of population-based colonoscopy screening. This will allow development of evidence-based guidelines for CRC screening in the general population.


Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology | 2013

Colorectal cancer screening—optimizing current strategies and new directions

Ernst J. Kuipers; Thomas Rösch; Michael Bretthauer

The first evidence that screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) could effectively reduce mortality dates back 20 years. However, actual population screening has, in many countries, halted at the level of individual testing and discussions on differences between screening tests. With a wealth of new evidence from various community-based studies looking at test uptake, screening-programme organization and the importance of quality assurance, population screening for CRC is now moving into a new realm, promising better results in terms of reducing CRC-specific morbidity and mortality. Such a shift in the paradigm requires a change from opportunistic, individual testing towards organized population screening with comprehensive monitoring and full-programme quality assurance. To achieve this, a combination of factors—including test characteristics, uptake, screenee autonomy, costs and capacity—must be considered. Thus, evidence from randomized trials comparing different tests must be supplemented by studies of acceptance and uptake to obtain the full picture of the effectiveness (in terms of morbidity, mortality and cost) the different strategies have. In this Review, we discuss a range of screening modalities and describe the factors to be considered to achieve a truly effective population CRC screening programme.


The New England Journal of Medicine | 2014

Long-Term Colorectal-Cancer Mortality after Adenoma Removal

Magnus Løberg; Mette Kalager; Øyvind Holme; Geir Hoff; Hans-Olov Adami; Michael Bretthauer

BACKGROUND Although colonoscopic surveillance of patients after removal of adenomas is widely promoted, little is known about colorectal-cancer mortality among these patients. METHODS Using the linkage of the Cancer Registry and the Cause of Death Registry of Norway, we estimated colorectal-cancer mortality among patients who had undergone removal of colorectal adenomas during the period from 1993 through 2007. Patients were followed through 2011. We calculated standardized incidence-based mortality ratios (SMRs) using rates for the Norwegian population at large for comparison. Norwegian guidelines recommended colonoscopy after 10 years for patients with high-risk adenomas (adenomas with high-grade dysplasia, a villous component, or a size ≥10 mm) and after 5 years for patients with three or more adenomas; no surveillance was recommended for patients with low-risk adenomas. Polyp size and exact number were not available in the registry. We defined high-risk adenomas as multiple adenomas and adenomas with a villous component or high-grade dysplasia. RESULTS We identified 40,826 patients who had had colorectal adenomas removed. During a median follow-up of 7.7 years (maximum, 19.0), 1273 patients were given a diagnosis of colorectal cancer. A total of 398 deaths from colorectal cancer were expected and 383 were observed, for an SMR of 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.06) among patients who had had adenomas removed. Colorectal-cancer mortality was increased among patients with high-risk adenomas (expected deaths, 209; observed deaths, 242; SMR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.31), but it was reduced among patients with low-risk adenomas (expected deaths, 189; observed deaths, 141; SMR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.88). CONCLUSIONS After a median of 7.7 years of follow-up, colorectal-cancer mortality was lower among patients who had had low-risk adenomas removed and moderately higher among those who had had high-risk adenomas removed, as compared with the general population. (Funded by the Norwegian Cancer Society and others.).

Collaboration


Dive into the Michael Bretthauer's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Lars Aabakken

Oslo University Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge