Cargando…

Effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in men and women and different age groups: pooled analysis of randomised trials

Objective To compare the effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer by patient sex and age. Design Pooled analysis of randomised trials (the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial (PLCO), the Italian Screening for Colon and Rectum trial (SCOR...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Holme, Øyvind, Schoen, Robert E, Senore, Carlo, Segnan, Nereo, Hoff, Geir, Løberg, Magnus, Bretthauer, Michael, Adami, Hans-Olov, Kalager, Mette
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5234564/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28087510
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6673
_version_ 1782495014905970688
author Holme, Øyvind
Schoen, Robert E
Senore, Carlo
Segnan, Nereo
Hoff, Geir
Løberg, Magnus
Bretthauer, Michael
Adami, Hans-Olov
Kalager, Mette
author_facet Holme, Øyvind
Schoen, Robert E
Senore, Carlo
Segnan, Nereo
Hoff, Geir
Løberg, Magnus
Bretthauer, Michael
Adami, Hans-Olov
Kalager, Mette
author_sort Holme, Øyvind
collection PubMed
description Objective To compare the effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer by patient sex and age. Design Pooled analysis of randomised trials (the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial (PLCO), the Italian Screening for Colon and Rectum trial (SCORE), and the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention trial (NORCCAP)). Data sources Aggregated data were pooled from each randomised trial on incidence of colorectal cancer and mortality stratified by sex, age at screening, and colon subsite (distal v proximal). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Invited individuals aged 55-74 (PLCO), 55-64 (SCORE), and 50-64 (NORCCAP). Individuals were randomised to receive flexible sigmoidoscopy screening once only (SCORE and NORCCAP) or twice (PLCO), or receive usual care (no intervention). Results 287 928 individuals were included in the pooled analysis; 115 139 randomised to screening and 172 789 to usual care. Compliance rates were 58%, 63%, and 87% in SCORE, NORCCAP, and PLCO, respectively. Median follow-up was 10.5 to 12.1 years. Screening reduced the incidence of colorectal cancer in men (relative risk 0.76; 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.83) and women (0.83; 0.75 to 0.92). No difference in the effect of screening was seen between men younger than 60 and those older than 60. Screening reduced the incidence of colorectal cancer in women younger than 60 (relative risk 0.71; 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.84), but not significantly in those aged 60 or older (0.90; 0.80 to 1.02). Colorectal cancer mortality was significantly reduced in both younger and older men, and in women younger than 60. Screening reduced colorectal cancer incidence to a similar extent in the distal colon in men and women, but there was no effect of screening in the proximal colon in older women with a significant interaction between sex and age group (P=0.04). Conclusion Flexible sigmoidoscopy is an effective tool for colorectal cancer screening in men and younger women. The benefit is smaller and not statistically significant for women aged over 60; alternative screening methods that more effectively detect proximal tumours should be considered for these women.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5234564
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52345642017-01-25 Effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in men and women and different age groups: pooled analysis of randomised trials Holme, Øyvind Schoen, Robert E Senore, Carlo Segnan, Nereo Hoff, Geir Løberg, Magnus Bretthauer, Michael Adami, Hans-Olov Kalager, Mette BMJ Research Objective To compare the effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer by patient sex and age. Design Pooled analysis of randomised trials (the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial (PLCO), the Italian Screening for Colon and Rectum trial (SCORE), and the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention trial (NORCCAP)). Data sources Aggregated data were pooled from each randomised trial on incidence of colorectal cancer and mortality stratified by sex, age at screening, and colon subsite (distal v proximal). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Invited individuals aged 55-74 (PLCO), 55-64 (SCORE), and 50-64 (NORCCAP). Individuals were randomised to receive flexible sigmoidoscopy screening once only (SCORE and NORCCAP) or twice (PLCO), or receive usual care (no intervention). Results 287 928 individuals were included in the pooled analysis; 115 139 randomised to screening and 172 789 to usual care. Compliance rates were 58%, 63%, and 87% in SCORE, NORCCAP, and PLCO, respectively. Median follow-up was 10.5 to 12.1 years. Screening reduced the incidence of colorectal cancer in men (relative risk 0.76; 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.83) and women (0.83; 0.75 to 0.92). No difference in the effect of screening was seen between men younger than 60 and those older than 60. Screening reduced the incidence of colorectal cancer in women younger than 60 (relative risk 0.71; 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.84), but not significantly in those aged 60 or older (0.90; 0.80 to 1.02). Colorectal cancer mortality was significantly reduced in both younger and older men, and in women younger than 60. Screening reduced colorectal cancer incidence to a similar extent in the distal colon in men and women, but there was no effect of screening in the proximal colon in older women with a significant interaction between sex and age group (P=0.04). Conclusion Flexible sigmoidoscopy is an effective tool for colorectal cancer screening in men and younger women. The benefit is smaller and not statistically significant for women aged over 60; alternative screening methods that more effectively detect proximal tumours should be considered for these women. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2017-01-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5234564/ /pubmed/28087510 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6673 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.
spellingShingle Research
Holme, Øyvind
Schoen, Robert E
Senore, Carlo
Segnan, Nereo
Hoff, Geir
Løberg, Magnus
Bretthauer, Michael
Adami, Hans-Olov
Kalager, Mette
Effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in men and women and different age groups: pooled analysis of randomised trials
title Effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in men and women and different age groups: pooled analysis of randomised trials
title_full Effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in men and women and different age groups: pooled analysis of randomised trials
title_fullStr Effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in men and women and different age groups: pooled analysis of randomised trials
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in men and women and different age groups: pooled analysis of randomised trials
title_short Effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in men and women and different age groups: pooled analysis of randomised trials
title_sort effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in men and women and different age groups: pooled analysis of randomised trials
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5234564/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28087510
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6673
work_keys_str_mv AT holmeøyvind effectivenessofflexiblesigmoidoscopyscreeninginmenandwomenanddifferentagegroupspooledanalysisofrandomisedtrials
AT schoenroberte effectivenessofflexiblesigmoidoscopyscreeninginmenandwomenanddifferentagegroupspooledanalysisofrandomisedtrials
AT senorecarlo effectivenessofflexiblesigmoidoscopyscreeninginmenandwomenanddifferentagegroupspooledanalysisofrandomisedtrials
AT segnannereo effectivenessofflexiblesigmoidoscopyscreeninginmenandwomenanddifferentagegroupspooledanalysisofrandomisedtrials
AT hoffgeir effectivenessofflexiblesigmoidoscopyscreeninginmenandwomenanddifferentagegroupspooledanalysisofrandomisedtrials
AT løbergmagnus effectivenessofflexiblesigmoidoscopyscreeninginmenandwomenanddifferentagegroupspooledanalysisofrandomisedtrials
AT bretthauermichael effectivenessofflexiblesigmoidoscopyscreeninginmenandwomenanddifferentagegroupspooledanalysisofrandomisedtrials
AT adamihansolov effectivenessofflexiblesigmoidoscopyscreeninginmenandwomenanddifferentagegroupspooledanalysisofrandomisedtrials
AT kalagermette effectivenessofflexiblesigmoidoscopyscreeninginmenandwomenanddifferentagegroupspooledanalysisofrandomisedtrials