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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Weller, D, Coleman, D, Robertson, R, Butler, P, Melia, J, Campbell, C, Parker, R, Patnick, J, Moss, S
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