Effectiveness of colonoscopy, immune fecal occult blood testing, and risk-graded screening strategies in colorectal cancer screening

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery Pub Date : 2024-07-27 DOI:10.4240/wjgs.v16.i7.2270
Ming Xu, Jing-Yi Yang, Tao Meng
{"title":"Effectiveness of colonoscopy, immune fecal occult blood testing, and risk-graded screening strategies in colorectal cancer screening","authors":"Ming Xu, Jing-Yi Yang, Tao Meng","doi":"10.4240/wjgs.v16.i7.2270","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\n Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignant tumors, and early screening is crucial to improving the survival rate of patients. The combination of colonoscopy and immune fecal occult blood detection has garnered significant attention as a novel method for CRC screening. Colonoscopy and fecal occult blood tests, when combined, can improve screening accuracy and early detection rates, thereby facilitating early intervention and treatment. However, certain risks and costs accompany it, making the establishment of a risk classification model crucial for accurate classification and management of screened subjects.\n AIM\n To evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of colonoscopy, immune fecal occult blood test (FIT), and risk-graded screening strategies in CRC screening.\n METHODS\n Based on the randomized controlled trial of CRC screening in the population conducted by our hospital May 2020 to May 2023, participants who met the requirements were randomly assigned to a colonoscopy group, an FIT group, or a graded screening group at a ratio of 1:2:2 (after risk assessment, the high-risk group received colonoscopy, the low-risk group received an FIT test, and the FIT-positive group received colonoscopy). The three groups received CRC screening with different protocols, among which the colonoscopy group only received baseline screening, and the FIT group and the graded screening group received annual follow-up screening based on baseline screening. The primary outcome was the detection rate of advanced tumors, including CRC and advanced adenoma. The population participation rate, advanced tumor detection rate, and colonoscopy load of the three screening programs were compared.\n RESULTS\n A total of 19373 subjects who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled, including 8082 males (41.7%) and 11291 females (58.3%). The mean age was 60.05 ± 6.5 years. Among them, 3883 patients were enrolled in the colonoscopy group, 7793 in the FIT group, and 7697 in the graded screening group. Two rounds of follow-up screening were completed in the FIT group and the graded screening group. The graded screening group (89.2%) and the colonoscopy group (42.3%) had the lowest overall screening participation rates, while the FIT group had the highest (99.3%). The results of the intentional analysis showed that the detection rate of advanced tumors in the colonoscopy group was greater than that of the FIT group [2.76% vs 2.17%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.65, P = 0.037]. There was no significant difference in the detection rate of advanced tumors between the colonoscopy group and the graded screening group (2.76% vs 2.35%, OR = 1.9, 95%CI: 0.93-1.51, P = 0.156), as well as between the graded screening group and the FIT group (2.35% vs 2.17%, OR = 1.09%, 95%CI: 0.88-1.34, P = 0.440). The number of colonoscopy examinations required for each patient with advanced tumors was used as an index to evaluate the colonoscopy load during population screening. The graded screening group had the highest colonoscopy load (15.4 times), followed by the colonoscopy group (10.2 times), and the FIT group had the lowest (7.8 times).\n CONCLUSION\n A hierarchical screening strategy based on CRC risk assessment is feasible for screening for CRC in the population. It can be used as an effective supplement to traditional colonoscopy and FIT screening programs.","PeriodicalId":23759,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v16.i7.2270","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignant tumors, and early screening is crucial to improving the survival rate of patients. The combination of colonoscopy and immune fecal occult blood detection has garnered significant attention as a novel method for CRC screening. Colonoscopy and fecal occult blood tests, when combined, can improve screening accuracy and early detection rates, thereby facilitating early intervention and treatment. However, certain risks and costs accompany it, making the establishment of a risk classification model crucial for accurate classification and management of screened subjects. AIM To evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of colonoscopy, immune fecal occult blood test (FIT), and risk-graded screening strategies in CRC screening. METHODS Based on the randomized controlled trial of CRC screening in the population conducted by our hospital May 2020 to May 2023, participants who met the requirements were randomly assigned to a colonoscopy group, an FIT group, or a graded screening group at a ratio of 1:2:2 (after risk assessment, the high-risk group received colonoscopy, the low-risk group received an FIT test, and the FIT-positive group received colonoscopy). The three groups received CRC screening with different protocols, among which the colonoscopy group only received baseline screening, and the FIT group and the graded screening group received annual follow-up screening based on baseline screening. The primary outcome was the detection rate of advanced tumors, including CRC and advanced adenoma. The population participation rate, advanced tumor detection rate, and colonoscopy load of the three screening programs were compared. RESULTS A total of 19373 subjects who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled, including 8082 males (41.7%) and 11291 females (58.3%). The mean age was 60.05 ± 6.5 years. Among them, 3883 patients were enrolled in the colonoscopy group, 7793 in the FIT group, and 7697 in the graded screening group. Two rounds of follow-up screening were completed in the FIT group and the graded screening group. The graded screening group (89.2%) and the colonoscopy group (42.3%) had the lowest overall screening participation rates, while the FIT group had the highest (99.3%). The results of the intentional analysis showed that the detection rate of advanced tumors in the colonoscopy group was greater than that of the FIT group [2.76% vs 2.17%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.65, P = 0.037]. There was no significant difference in the detection rate of advanced tumors between the colonoscopy group and the graded screening group (2.76% vs 2.35%, OR = 1.9, 95%CI: 0.93-1.51, P = 0.156), as well as between the graded screening group and the FIT group (2.35% vs 2.17%, OR = 1.09%, 95%CI: 0.88-1.34, P = 0.440). The number of colonoscopy examinations required for each patient with advanced tumors was used as an index to evaluate the colonoscopy load during population screening. The graded screening group had the highest colonoscopy load (15.4 times), followed by the colonoscopy group (10.2 times), and the FIT group had the lowest (7.8 times). CONCLUSION A hierarchical screening strategy based on CRC risk assessment is feasible for screening for CRC in the population. It can be used as an effective supplement to traditional colonoscopy and FIT screening programs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
结肠镜检查、免疫粪便潜血检测和风险分级筛查策略在结直肠癌筛查中的效果
背景 大肠癌(CRC)是最常见的恶性肿瘤之一,早期筛查对提高患者生存率至关重要。结肠镜检查和免疫大便潜血检测的结合作为一种新型的 CRC 筛查方法受到了广泛关注。结肠镜检查和粪便潜血检测相结合,可以提高筛查的准确性和早期发现率,从而有利于早期干预和治疗。但同时也存在一定的风险和成本,因此建立风险分类模型对于准确分类和管理筛查对象至关重要。目的 评估结肠镜检查、免疫粪便潜血试验(FIT)和风险分级筛查策略在 CRC 筛查中的可行性和有效性。方法 根据我院 2020 年 5 月至 2023 年 5 月开展的人群 CRC 筛查随机对照试验,将符合要求的参与者按 1:2:2 的比例随机分配到结肠镜组、FIT 组或分级筛查组(风险评估后,高风险组接受结肠镜检查,低风险组接受 FIT 检测,FIT 阳性组接受结肠镜检查)。三组接受不同方案的 CRC 筛查,其中结肠镜检查组只接受基线筛查,FIT 组和分级筛查组在基线筛查的基础上接受年度随访筛查。主要结果是晚期肿瘤(包括 CRC 和晚期腺瘤)的检出率。比较了三种筛查方案的人群参与率、晚期肿瘤检出率和结肠镜检查负荷。结果 共有 19373 名符合纳入和排除标准的受试者参加了筛查,其中男性 8082 人(41.7%),女性 11291 人(58.3%)。平均年龄为 60.05±6.5 岁。其中,结肠镜检查组有 3883 名患者,FIT 组有 7793 名患者,分级筛查组有 7697 名患者。FIT 组和分级筛查组完成了两轮随访筛查。分级筛查组(89.2%)和结肠镜检查组(42.3%)的总体筛查参与率最低,而 FIT 组最高(99.3%)。意向性分析结果显示,结肠镜检查组的晚期肿瘤检出率高于 FIT 组[2.76% vs 2.17%,几率比(OR)= 1.30,95% 置信区间(CI):1.01-1.65,P = 0.037]。结肠镜检查组与分级筛查组(2.76% vs 2.35%,OR = 1.9,95%CI:0.93-1.51,P = 0.156)以及分级筛查组与 FIT 组(2.35% vs 2.17%,OR = 1.09%,95%CI:0.88-1.34,P = 0.440)的晚期肿瘤检出率无明显差异。每名晚期肿瘤患者所需的结肠镜检查次数被用作评估人群筛查中结肠镜检查负荷的指标。分级筛查组的结肠镜检查负荷最高(15.4 次),其次是结肠镜检查组(10.2 次),FIT 组最低(7.8 次)。结论 基于 CRC 风险评估的分级筛查策略在人群中进行 CRC 筛查是可行的。它可以作为传统结肠镜检查和 FIT 筛查项目的有效补充。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
5.00%
发文量
111
期刊最新文献
Efficacy and safety of B-ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of primary liver cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopic clipping of gastrojejunostomy leakage following Whipple procedure: A case report. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: The road is open for almighty biliopancreatic endoscopists! Enhancing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt procedure efficiency with digital subtraction angiography image overlay technology in esophagogastric variceal bleeding. Establishment and evaluation of prediction model of recurrence after laparoscopic choledocholithotomy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1