You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 59, Issue 01
  • Screening for colorectal cancer: randomised trial comparing guaiac-based and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Colon cancer
Screening for colorectal cancer: randomised trial comparing guaiac-based and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy
  1. L Hol1,
  2. M E van Leerdam1,
  3. M van Ballegooijen2,
  4. A J van Vuuren1,
  5. H van Dekken3,
  6. J C I Y Reijerink4,
  7. A C M van der Togt5,
  8. J D F Habbema2,
  9. E J Kuipers1,6
  1. 1
    Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  2. 2
    Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  3. 3
    Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  4. 4
    Cancer Screening Organisation for Southwest Netherlands, Vlaardingen, The Netherlands
  5. 5
    Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  6. 6
    Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Dr L Hol, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, ‘s-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands; l.hol.1{at}erasmusmc.nl

Abstract

Background: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is widely accepted, but there is no consensus on the preferred strategy. We conducted a randomised trial comparing participation and detection rates (DR) per screenee of guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBT), immunochemical FOBT (FIT), and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) for CRC screening.

Methods: A representative sample of the Dutch population (n = 15 011), aged 50–74 years, was 1:1:1 randomised prior to invitation to one of the three screening strategies. Colonoscopy was indicated for screenees with a positive gFOBT or FIT, and for those in whom FS revealed a polyp with a diameter ⩾10 mm; adenoma with ⩾25% villous component or high grade dysplasia; serrated adenoma; ⩾3 adenomas; ⩾20 hyperplastic polyps; or CRC.

Results: The participation rate was 49.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 48.1 to 50.9%) for gFOBT, 61.5% (CI, 60.1 to 62.9%) for FIT and 32.4% (CI, 31.1 to 33.7%) for FS screening. gFOBT was positive in 2.8%, FIT in 4.8% and FS in 10.2%. The DR of advanced neoplasia was significantly higher in the FIT (2.4%; OR, 2.0; CI, 1.3 to 3.1) and the FS arm (8.0%; OR, 7.0; CI, 4.6 to 10.7) than the gFOBT arm (1.1%). FS demonstrated a higher diagnostic yield of advanced neoplasia per 100 invitees (2.4; CI, 2.0 to 2.8) than gFOBT (0.6; CI, 0.4 to 0.8) or FIT (1.5; CI, 1.2 to 1.9) screening.

Conclusion: This randomised population-based CRC-screening trial demonstrated superior participation and detection rates for FIT compared to gFOBT screening. FIT screening should therefore be strongly preferred over gFOBT screening. FS screening demonstrated a higher diagnostic yield per 100 invitees than both FOBTs.

https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2009.177089

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.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding This trial was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society (EMCR 2006-3673), the Dutch Ministry of Health, Health Care Prevention Program–Implementation (ZonMw 2006-5877), Olympus Medical Systems Europe GmbH, Hamburg, Germany and Eiken Chemical Co., Tokyo, Japan.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Ethics approval The study was approved by the Dutch Ministry of Health (2006/02WBO). The approval included the pre-randomisation design. The study letters and information brochures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Erasmus MC (MEC-2005-264).

    • Study organisation

      EJ Kuipers, JDH Habbema and M van Ballegooijen conceived the idea for the study; EJ Kuipers, JDH Habbema, M van Ballegooijen and ME van Leerdam designed the protocol; EJ Kuipers and JDH Habbema supervised the execution of the study; L Hol performed the retrieval of the population sample and the randomisation in collaboration with Tenalea, Amsterdam; JCIY Reijerink was responsible for the retrieval of the target population from the municipal registries and all mailings; AJ van Vuuren was responsible for the analyses of the FOBTs; ME van Leerdam was responsible for the endoscopy programme; H van Dekken evaluated all pathology samples of the sigmoidoscopies. JCIY Reijerink, ME van Leerdam and L Hol were responsible for the database design; L Hol was responsible for data entry; ACM van der Togt coordinated the daily process. L Hol drafted the report; L Hol and C Looman performed the statistical analyses; all the collaborators listed above were given an opportunity to comment on the paper.

      Trial steering committee

      L Hol, ME van Leerdam, M van Ballegooijen, AJ van Vuuren, JCIY Reijerink, ACM van der Togt, JDF Habbema and EJ Kuipers.

      Trial advisory board

      JW Coebergh, A Cats and IMA Joung.

    • Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles