Cargando…

Comparison of screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme

BACKGROUND: The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) offers biennial faecal occult blood testing (FOBt) followed by colonoscopy after positive results. Colorectal cancers (CRCs) registered with the Northern Colorectal Cancer Audit Group database were cross-referenced with the BCSP database to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gill, M D, Bramble, M G, Rees, C J, Lee, T J W, Bradburn, D M, Mills, S J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3405230/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22782347
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.305
_version_ 1782239102085627904
author Gill, M D
Bramble, M G
Rees, C J
Lee, T J W
Bradburn, D M
Mills, S J
author_facet Gill, M D
Bramble, M G
Rees, C J
Lee, T J W
Bradburn, D M
Mills, S J
author_sort Gill, M D
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) offers biennial faecal occult blood testing (FOBt) followed by colonoscopy after positive results. Colorectal cancers (CRCs) registered with the Northern Colorectal Cancer Audit Group database were cross-referenced with the BCSP database to analyse their screening history. METHODS: The CRCs in the screening population between April 2007 and March 2010 were identified and classified into four groups: control (diagnosed before first screening invite), screen-detected, interval (diagnosed between screening rounds after a negative FOBt), and non-uptake (declined screening). Patient demographics, tumour characteristics and survival were compared between groups. RESULTS: In all, 511 out of 1336 (38.2%) CRCs were controls; 825 (61.8%) were in individuals invited for screening of which 322 (39.0%) were screen detected, 311 (37.7%) were in the non-uptake group, and 192 (23.3%) were interval cancers. Compared with the control and interval cancer group, the screen-detected group had a higher proportion of men (P=0.002, P=0.003 respectively), left colon tumours (P=0.007, P=0.003), and superior survival (both P<0.001). There was no difference in demographics, tumour location/stage, or survival between control and interval groups. CONCLUSION: The FOBt is better at detecting cancers in the left colon and in men. The significant numbers of interval cancers weren’t found to have an improved outcome compared with the non-screened population.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3405230
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34052302013-07-24 Comparison of screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Gill, M D Bramble, M G Rees, C J Lee, T J W Bradburn, D M Mills, S J Br J Cancer Clinical Study BACKGROUND: The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) offers biennial faecal occult blood testing (FOBt) followed by colonoscopy after positive results. Colorectal cancers (CRCs) registered with the Northern Colorectal Cancer Audit Group database were cross-referenced with the BCSP database to analyse their screening history. METHODS: The CRCs in the screening population between April 2007 and March 2010 were identified and classified into four groups: control (diagnosed before first screening invite), screen-detected, interval (diagnosed between screening rounds after a negative FOBt), and non-uptake (declined screening). Patient demographics, tumour characteristics and survival were compared between groups. RESULTS: In all, 511 out of 1336 (38.2%) CRCs were controls; 825 (61.8%) were in individuals invited for screening of which 322 (39.0%) were screen detected, 311 (37.7%) were in the non-uptake group, and 192 (23.3%) were interval cancers. Compared with the control and interval cancer group, the screen-detected group had a higher proportion of men (P=0.002, P=0.003 respectively), left colon tumours (P=0.007, P=0.003), and superior survival (both P<0.001). There was no difference in demographics, tumour location/stage, or survival between control and interval groups. CONCLUSION: The FOBt is better at detecting cancers in the left colon and in men. The significant numbers of interval cancers weren’t found to have an improved outcome compared with the non-screened population. Nature Publishing Group 2012-07-24 2012-07-10 /pmc/articles/PMC3405230/ /pubmed/22782347 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.305 Text en Copyright © 2012 Cancer Research UK https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Gill, M D
Bramble, M G
Rees, C J
Lee, T J W
Bradburn, D M
Mills, S J
Comparison of screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme
title Comparison of screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme
title_full Comparison of screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme
title_fullStr Comparison of screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme
title_short Comparison of screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme
title_sort comparison of screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers in the bowel cancer screening programme
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3405230/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22782347
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.305
work_keys_str_mv AT gillmd comparisonofscreendetectedandintervalcolorectalcancersinthebowelcancerscreeningprogramme
AT bramblemg comparisonofscreendetectedandintervalcolorectalcancersinthebowelcancerscreeningprogramme
AT reescj comparisonofscreendetectedandintervalcolorectalcancersinthebowelcancerscreeningprogramme
AT leetjw comparisonofscreendetectedandintervalcolorectalcancersinthebowelcancerscreeningprogramme
AT bradburndm comparisonofscreendetectedandintervalcolorectalcancersinthebowelcancerscreeningprogramme
AT millssj comparisonofscreendetectedandintervalcolorectalcancersinthebowelcancerscreeningprogramme