Article Text

PDF
PWE-009 Ethnic profiling in colorectal cancer screening – results from a multicentre study on faecal occult blood testing screening for colorectal cancer in the united kingdom
  1. AT George1,2,3,
  2. S Aggarwal3,
  3. S Dharmavaram3,
  4. A Menon3,
  5. M Dube3,
  6. M Vogler4,
  7. A Field4
  1. 1General Surgery, QMC University Hospital NHS Trust, Nottingham
  2. 2General Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital NHS Trust, Derby
  3. 3General Surgery, Sherwood Forest NHS Trust, Mansfield
  4. 4Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (Eastern Hub), QMC University Hospital NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK

Abstract

Introduction To compare white british(WB)and ethnic minority groups(EMG)(Asian/African/Caribbean and other coloured groups)in the uptake and outcomes of the national faecal occult blood testing(FOBT)screening. Ethnicity data on FOBT screening is not available as this information is not normally collected.

Method: Methods National Bowel Cancer Audit Programme data from three centres,for all colorectal cancers(CRC)in the screening age group(60–74 years)over a 2 year period(August 2011–2013)were linked for their Faecal Occult Blood Testing(FOBT)screening status(BCSP database/Eastern Hub).Ethnicity/Patient/tumour demographics and survival for Interval cancers(IC-screening patients developing cancers within 2 years of a negative FOB test)screen-detected cancers and cancers in those who declined the screening programme were analysed.All three centres were in incident rounds of screening.Tumours at and beyond splenic flexure were considered left-sided.

Results The region studied had the highest distribution of ethnic groups outside of London(2011 census:10% (Derby),15%(Nottingham),16%(Mansfield)).

516 CRC were diagnosed in this region in the said time-period. WB population formed majority of these patients( 122 (96%) IC;208 (91%)cancers in the declined screening group;151 (94%)screen-detected cancers).CRC in the EMG formed 4 (3%)of IC,5 (2%) of declined screening group and 2 (1%)of screen-detected caners respectively.

The demographic profile of WB and the EMG were comparable(Male:female;302:179(WB)vrs8:4(EMG);p=0.583 ,X2= 4.69;mean age at diagnosis;67 years(WB):67 years(EMG);p=0.990,X2=0.0;age under 70 years;380(WB):9(EMG);p=0.494,X2=1.40)

The tumour profile and survival of WB and EMG were comparable(Right-sided:Left-sided;341:140(WB)vrs6:5(EMG);p=0.255,X2=7.77;Duke’s Staging A and B:C and D ;229:246(WB)vrs4:5(EMG);p=0.565,X2=0.33;survival ;380(WB):8(EMG);p=0.767,X2=0.532).

Conclusion This is the first report of ethnic profiling in FOBT screening. Our findings highlight a high degree of non-engagement of the EMG with the national FOBT process. With rapidly increasing proportions of ethnic groups nationally,we highlight the importance in ensuring that these socially diverse communities are not segregated from mainstream FOBT screening.

Disclosure of Interest None Declared

  • None

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.