scholarly journals Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a microsimulation modelling study

BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l5383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maaike Buskermolen ◽  
Dayna R Cenin ◽  
Lise M Helsingen ◽  
Gordon Guyatt ◽  
Per Olav Vandvik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Cancer Incidence ◽  
Cancer Mortality ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Risk ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Incidence ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Mortality

Abstract Objective To estimate benefits and harms of different colorectal cancer screening strategies, stratified by (baseline) 15-year colorectal cancer risk. Design Microsimulation modelling study using MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis-Colon (MISCAN-Colon). Setting A parallel guideline committee ( BMJ Rapid Recommendations) defined the time frame and screening interventions, including selection of outcome measures. Population Norwegian men and women aged 50-79 years with varying 15-year colorectal cancer risk (1-7%). Comparisons Four screening strategies were compared with no screening: biennial or annual faecal immunochemical test (FIT) or single sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy at 100% adherence. Main outcome measures Colorectal cancer mortality and incidence, burdens, and harms over 15 years of follow-up. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results Over 15 years of follow-up, screening individuals aged 50-79 at 3% risk of colorectal cancer with annual FIT or single colonoscopy reduced colorectal cancer mortality by 6 per 1000 individuals. Single sigmoidoscopy and biennial FIT reduced it by 5 per 1000 individuals. Colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and annual FIT reduced colorectal cancer incidence by 10, 8, and 4 per 1000 individuals, respectively. The estimated incidence reduction for biennial FIT was 1 per 1000 individuals. Serious harms were estimated to be between 3 per 1000 (biennial FIT) and 5 per 1000 individuals (colonoscopy); harms increased with older age. The absolute benefits of screening increased with increasing colorectal cancer risk, while harms were less affected by baseline risk. Results were sensitive to the setting defined by the guideline panel. Because of uncertainty associated with modelling assumptions, we applied a GRADE rating of low certainty evidence to all estimates. Conclusions Over a 15 year period, all screening strategies may reduce colorectal cancer mortality to a similar extent. Colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy may also reduce colorectal cancer incidence, while FIT shows a smaller incidence reduction. Harms are rare and of similar magnitude for all screening strategies.

scholarly journals Colorectal cancer screening with faecal testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e032773 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henriette C Jodal ◽  
Lise M Helsingen ◽  
Joseph C Anderson ◽  
Lyubov Lytvyn ◽  
Per Olav Vandvik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cancer Incidence ◽  
Cancer Mortality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Incidence And Mortality ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Incidence ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Mortality

ObjectiveEvaluate effectiveness, harms and burdens of faecal blood testing, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer over 15 years.DesignWe performed an update of a Cochrane systematic review, and performed network meta-analysis comparing randomised trials evaluating colorectal cancer screening with guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) (annual, biennial), faecal immunochemical test (FIT) (annual, biennial), sigmoidoscopy (once-only) or colonoscopy (once-only) in a healthy population, aged 50–79 years. We conducted subgroup analysis on sex. Follow-up >5 years was required for analysis of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.Results12 randomised trials proved eligible. Compared with no-screening, we found high certainty evidence for sigmoidoscopy screening slightly reducing colorectal cancer incidence (relative risk (RR) 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI 0.70 to 0.83) and mortality (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80), while gFOBT screening had little or no difference on colorectal cancer incidence, but slightly reduced colorectal cancer mortality (annual: RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86, biennial: RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.82 to 0.93). No screening test reduced mortality nor incidence by more than six per 1000 screened over 15 years. Sigmoidoscopy had a greater effect in men, for both colorectal cancer incidence (women: RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.81 to 0.92, men: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.79), and mortality (women: RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.96, men: RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.75) (moderate certainty).ConclusionsIn a 15-year perspective, sigmoidoscopy reduces colorectal cancer incidence, while sigmoidoscopy, annual and biennial gFOBT all reduce colorectal cancer mortality. Sigmoidoscopy may reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality more in men than in women.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018093401.

scholarly journals Yogurt consumption and colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 112 (6) ◽  
pp. 1566-1575
Author(s):  
Karin B Michels ◽  
Walter C Willett ◽  
Rita Vaidya ◽  
Xuehong Zhang ◽  
Edward Giovannucci
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Cancer Incidence ◽  
Proximal Colon ◽  
Health Study ◽  
Follow Up Study ◽  
Incidence And Mortality ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Incidence ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Mortality

ABSTRACT Background Yogurt is a commonly consumed fermented food. Regular yogurt consumption may contribute to a favorable gut microbiome and gut health, but few epidemiologic studies have considered the relation between regular yogurt consumption and the incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer. Objectives We used data from 2 large, prospective cohort studies, the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, to examine the role of yogurt consumption on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Methods During 32 years of follow-up in 83,054 women (mean age at baseline, 45.7 years) and 26 years of follow-up in 43,269 men (mean age at baseline, 52.3 years), we documented a total of 2666 newly diagnosed cases of colorectal cancer in these cohorts. We modeled yogurt consumption at baseline and cumulatively updated it throughout follow-up. Results: Baseline yogurt consumption was associated with a reduced risk of colon cancer in age-adjusted analyses (P for trend < 0.001). Associations remained statistically significant after adjusting for potential confounders, including calcium and fiber intake (P for trend = 0.03), and were restricted to proximal colon cancer. The consumption of 1 + servings per week of yogurt at baseline, compared to no yogurt consumption, was associated with a multivariable HR of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.70–0.99; P trend = 0.04) for the proximal colon cancer incidence. Latency analyses suggested that the most important window of opportunity for regular yogurt consumption to prevent colorectal cancer was 16–20 years in the past. When yogurt consumption was cumulatively updated, associations attenuated and were no longer significant. No statistically significant inverse trend was observed between yogurt consumption and the colorectal cancer mortality. Conclusions In these large cohorts, the frequency of yogurt consumption was associated with a reduced risk of proximal colon cancer with a long latency period. No significant inverse trend was observed for colorectal cancer mortality.

The impact of cumulative colorectal cancer screening delays: A simulation study

2021 ◽  
pp. 096914132110451
Author(s):  
Carolyn M. Rutter ◽  
John M. Inadomi ◽  
Christopher E. Maerzluft
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cancer Incidence ◽  
Fecal Immunochemical Test ◽  
Surveillance Colonoscopy ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Immunochemical Test ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Incidence ◽  
Screening Effectiveness

Objective Annual fecal immunochemical tests can reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. However, screening is a multi-step process and most patients do not perfectly adhere to guideline-recommended screening schedules. Our objective was to compare the reduction in colorectal cancer incidence and life-years gained based on US guideline-concordant fecal immunochemical test screening to scenarios with a range of delays. Method The Colorectal Cancer Simulated Population model for Incidence and Natural history (CRC-SPIN) microsimulation model was used to estimate the effect of systematic departures from fecal immunochemical test screening guidelines on lifetime screening benefit. Results The combined effect of consistent modest delays in screening initiation (1 year), repeated fecal immunochemical test screening (3 months), and receipt of follow-up or surveillance colonoscopy (3 months) resulted in up to 1.3 additional colorectal cancer cases per 10,000, 0.4 additional late-stage colorectal cancer cases per 10,000 and 154.7 fewer life-years gained per 10,000. A 5-year delay in screening initiation had a larger impact on screening effectiveness than consistent small delays in repeated fecal immunochemical test screening or receipt of follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal fecal immunochemical test. The combined effect of consistent large delays in screening initiation (5 years), repeated fecal immunochemical test screening (6 months), and receipt of follow-up or surveillance colonoscopy (6 months) resulted in up to 3.7 additional colorectal cancer cases per 10,000, 1.5 additional late-stage colorectal cancer cases per 10,000 and 612.3 fewer life-years gained per 10,000. Conclusions Systematic delays across the screening process can result in meaningful reductions in colorectal cancer screening effectiveness, especially for longer delays. Screening delays could drive differences in colorectal cancer incidence across patient groups with differential access to screening.

scholarly journals Estrogen Plus Progestin and Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (32) ◽  
pp. 3983-3990 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S. Simon ◽  
Rowan T. Chlebowski ◽  
Jean Wactawski-Wende ◽  
Karen C. Johnson ◽  
Andrew Muskovitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Hormone Therapy ◽  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Cancer Incidence ◽  
Therapy Group ◽  
Estrogen Plus Progestin ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Incidence ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Mortality

Purpose During the intervention phase in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) clinical trial, use of estrogen plus progestin reduced the colorectal cancer diagnosis rate, but the cancers were found at a substantially higher stage. To assess the clinical relevance of the findings, analyses of the influence of combined hormone therapy on colorectal cancer incidence and colorectal cancer mortality were conducted after extended follow-up. Patients and Methods The WHI study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial involving 16,608 postmenopausal women with an intact uterus who were randomly assigned to daily 0.625 mg conjugated equine estrogen plus 2.5 mg medroxyprogesterone acetate (n = 8,506) or matching placebo (n = 8,102). Colorectal cancer diagnosis rates and colorectal cancer mortality were assessed. Results After a mean of 5.6 years (standard deviation [SD], 1.03 years) of intervention and 11.6 years (SD, 3.1 years) of total follow-up, fewer colorectal cancers were diagnosed in the combined hormone therapy group compared with the placebo group (diagnoses/year, 0.12% v 0.16%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.94; P = .014). Bowel screening examinations were comparable between groups throughout. Cancers in the combined hormone therapy group more commonly had positive lymph nodes (50.5% v 28.6%; P < .001) and were at higher stage (regional or distant, 68.8% v 51.4%; P = .003). Although not statistically significant, there was a higher number of colorectal cancer deaths in the combined hormone therapy group (37 v 27 deaths; 0.04% v 0.03%; HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.78 to 2.11; P = .320). Conclusion The findings, suggestive of diagnostic delay, do not support a clinically meaningful benefit for combined hormone therapy on colorectal cancer.

scholarly journals Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a clinical practice guideline

BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l5515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lise M Helsingen ◽  
Per Olav Vandvik ◽  
Henriette C Jodal ◽  
Thomas Agoritsas ◽  
Lyubov Lytvyn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Cancer Incidence ◽  
Individual Risk ◽  
Optimal Care ◽  
Weak Recommendation ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Screening Trials

AbstractClinical questionRecent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: “Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?”Current practiceNumerous guidelines recommend screening, but vary on recommended test, age and screening frequency. This guideline looks at the evidence and makes recommendations on screening for four screening options: faecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy.RecommendationsThese recommendations apply to adults aged 50-79 years with no prior screening, no symptoms of colorectal cancer, and a life expectancy of at least 15 years. For individuals with an estimated 15-year colorectal cancer risk below 3%, we suggest no screening (weak recommendation). For individuals with an estimated 15-year risk above 3%, we suggest screening with one of the four screening options: FIT every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy (weak recommendation). With our guidance we publish the linked research, a graphic of the absolute harms and benefits, a clear description of how we reached our value judgments, and linked decision aids.How this guideline was createdA guideline panel including patients, clinicians, content experts and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. A linked systematic review of colorectal cancer screening trials and microsimulation modelling were performed to inform the panel of 15-year screening benefits and harms. The panel also reviewed each screening option’s practical issues and burdens. Based on their own experience, the panel estimated the magnitude of benefit typical members of the population would value to opt for screening and used the benefit thresholds to inform their recommendations.The evidenceOverall there was substantial uncertainty (low certainty evidence) regarding the 15-year benefits, burdens and harms of screening. Best estimates suggested that all four screening options resulted in similar colorectal cancer mortality reductions. FIT every two years may have little or no effect on cancer incidence over 15 years, while FIT every year, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy may reduce cancer incidence, although for FIT the incidence reduction is small compared with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Screening related serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events are rare. The magnitude of the benefits is dependent on the individual risk, while harms and burdens are less strongly associated with cancer risk.Understanding the recommendationBased on benefits, harms, and burdens of screening, the panel inferred that most informed individuals with a 15-year risk of colorectal cancer of 3% or higher are likely to choose screening, and most individuals with a risk of below 3% are likely to decline screening. Given varying values and preferences, optimal care will require shared decision making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document