Cargando…
The UK colorectal cancer screening pilot: results of the second round of screening in England
An evaluation of the second round of faecal occult blood (FOB) screening in the English site of the UK Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot (comprising the Bowel Cancer Screening Pilot based in Rugby, general practices in four Primary Care Trusts, and their associated hospitals) was carried out. A tota...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2007
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2360273/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18026197 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604089 |
_version_ | 1782153007975104512 |
---|---|
author | Weller, D Coleman, D Robertson, R Butler, P Melia, J Campbell, C Parker, R Patnick, J Moss, S |
author_facet | Weller, D Coleman, D Robertson, R Butler, P Melia, J Campbell, C Parker, R Patnick, J Moss, S |
author_sort | Weller, D |
collection | PubMed |
description | An evaluation of the second round of faecal occult blood (FOB) screening in the English site of the UK Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot (comprising the Bowel Cancer Screening Pilot based in Rugby, general practices in four Primary Care Trusts, and their associated hospitals) was carried out. A total of 127 746 men and women aged 50–69 and registered in participating general practices were invited to participate. In all, 15.9% were new invitees not included in the previous round. A total of 52.1% of invitees returned a screening kit. Uptake varied with gender, age, and level of deprivation; was lower than in the first round (51.9 vs 58.5% P<0.0001), but was high (81.1%) in those who had participated in the first round with a negative result. Test positivity was 1.77%, significantly higher than in the first round, and the detection rate of neoplasia similar (5.67 per 1000), resulting in a lower positive predictive value. The sensitivity of FOBt in the first round was estimated as 57.7–64.4%. There was a significant impact on workload, particularly on endoscopy services. The cancer detection rate (0.94 per 1000) was lower than in the first round. Effort will be required to minimise inequalities in uptake, and to ensure adequate capacity of endoscopy services. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2360273 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2007 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-23602732009-09-10 The UK colorectal cancer screening pilot: results of the second round of screening in England Weller, D Coleman, D Robertson, R Butler, P Melia, J Campbell, C Parker, R Patnick, J Moss, S Br J Cancer Clinical Study An evaluation of the second round of faecal occult blood (FOB) screening in the English site of the UK Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot (comprising the Bowel Cancer Screening Pilot based in Rugby, general practices in four Primary Care Trusts, and their associated hospitals) was carried out. A total of 127 746 men and women aged 50–69 and registered in participating general practices were invited to participate. In all, 15.9% were new invitees not included in the previous round. A total of 52.1% of invitees returned a screening kit. Uptake varied with gender, age, and level of deprivation; was lower than in the first round (51.9 vs 58.5% P<0.0001), but was high (81.1%) in those who had participated in the first round with a negative result. Test positivity was 1.77%, significantly higher than in the first round, and the detection rate of neoplasia similar (5.67 per 1000), resulting in a lower positive predictive value. The sensitivity of FOBt in the first round was estimated as 57.7–64.4%. There was a significant impact on workload, particularly on endoscopy services. The cancer detection rate (0.94 per 1000) was lower than in the first round. Effort will be required to minimise inequalities in uptake, and to ensure adequate capacity of endoscopy services. Nature Publishing Group 2007-12-17 2007-11-20 /pmc/articles/PMC2360273/ /pubmed/18026197 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604089 Text en Copyright © 2007 Cancer Research UK https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Study Weller, D Coleman, D Robertson, R Butler, P Melia, J Campbell, C Parker, R Patnick, J Moss, S The UK colorectal cancer screening pilot: results of the second round of screening in England |
title | The UK colorectal cancer screening pilot: results of the second round of screening in England |
title_full | The UK colorectal cancer screening pilot: results of the second round of screening in England |
title_fullStr | The UK colorectal cancer screening pilot: results of the second round of screening in England |
title_full_unstemmed | The UK colorectal cancer screening pilot: results of the second round of screening in England |
title_short | The UK colorectal cancer screening pilot: results of the second round of screening in England |
title_sort | uk colorectal cancer screening pilot: results of the second round of screening in england |
topic | Clinical Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2360273/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18026197 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604089 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wellerd theukcolorectalcancerscreeningpilotresultsofthesecondroundofscreeninginengland AT colemand theukcolorectalcancerscreeningpilotresultsofthesecondroundofscreeninginengland AT robertsonr theukcolorectalcancerscreeningpilotresultsofthesecondroundofscreeninginengland AT butlerp theukcolorectalcancerscreeningpilotresultsofthesecondroundofscreeninginengland AT meliaj theukcolorectalcancerscreeningpilotresultsofthesecondroundofscreeninginengland AT campbellc theukcolorectalcancerscreeningpilotresultsofthesecondroundofscreeninginengland AT parkerr theukcolorectalcancerscreeningpilotresultsofthesecondroundofscreeninginengland AT patnickj theukcolorectalcancerscreeningpilotresultsofthesecondroundofscreeninginengland AT mosss theukcolorectalcancerscreeningpilotresultsofthesecondroundofscreeninginengland AT wellerd ukcolorectalcancerscreeningpilotresultsofthesecondroundofscreeninginengland AT colemand ukcolorectalcancerscreeningpilotresultsofthesecondroundofscreeninginengland AT robertsonr ukcolorectalcancerscreeningpilotresultsofthesecondroundofscreeninginengland AT butlerp ukcolorectalcancerscreeningpilotresultsofthesecondroundofscreeninginengland AT meliaj ukcolorectalcancerscreeningpilotresultsofthesecondroundofscreeninginengland AT campbellc ukcolorectalcancerscreeningpilotresultsofthesecondroundofscreeninginengland AT parkerr ukcolorectalcancerscreeningpilotresultsofthesecondroundofscreeninginengland AT patnickj ukcolorectalcancerscreeningpilotresultsofthesecondroundofscreeninginengland AT mosss ukcolorectalcancerscreeningpilotresultsofthesecondroundofscreeninginengland |