为什么大多数结直肠癌是在筛查之外被诊断出来的?英国肠道筛查项目数据的回顾性分析。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Journal of Medical Screening Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1177/09691413221100969
Robert Stephen Kerrison, Andrew Prentice, Sarah Marshall, Christian von Wagner
{"title":"为什么大多数结直肠癌是在筛查之外被诊断出来的?英国肠道筛查项目数据的回顾性分析。","authors":"Robert Stephen Kerrison,&nbsp;Andrew Prentice,&nbsp;Sarah Marshall,&nbsp;Christian von Wagner","doi":"10.1177/09691413221100969","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Despite several interventions to increase participation in England, most colorectal cancers (CRCs) are diagnosed outside of the screening programme. The aims of this study were to better understand why most CRCs are diagnosed externally, the extent to which this is due to suboptimal uptake of screening, and the extent to which it is due to other factors, such as false-negative test results.</p><p><strong>Setting / methods: </strong>We performed a clinical audit of 1011 patients diagnosed with CRC at St Mark's Hospital (Harrow, UK) between January 2017 and December 2020. Data on the diagnostic pathway and screening history of individuals were extracted from the bowel cancer screening system and assessed using descriptive statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>446/1011 (44.1%) patients diagnosed with CRC were eligible for screening at the time of diagnosis. Of these, only 115/446 (25.8%) were diagnosed through screening. Among those diagnosed via non-screening pathways, 210/331 (63.4%) had never taken part in screening, 31/331 (9.4%) had taken part but were not up to date, and 89/331 (26.9%) had taken part and were up-to-date (of these, 82/89 [92.2%] had received a normal or weak positive test result, and 5/89 [5.6%] had received a positive result and declined colonoscopy).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Nearly two-thirds of screening eligible patients diagnosed through a non-screening pathway had never taken part in screening. This represents the single largest source of inefficiency within the screening programme, followed by missed findings and inconsistent participation. Given the improved outcomes associated with screen-detected cancers, there is a strong public health mandate to encourage participation.</p>","PeriodicalId":51089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Screening","volume":"29 4","pages":"224-230"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9574422/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why are most colorectal cancers diagnosed outside of screening? A retrospective analysis of data from the English bowel screening programme.\",\"authors\":\"Robert Stephen Kerrison,&nbsp;Andrew Prentice,&nbsp;Sarah Marshall,&nbsp;Christian von Wagner\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09691413221100969\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Despite several interventions to increase participation in England, most colorectal cancers (CRCs) are diagnosed outside of the screening programme. The aims of this study were to better understand why most CRCs are diagnosed externally, the extent to which this is due to suboptimal uptake of screening, and the extent to which it is due to other factors, such as false-negative test results.</p><p><strong>Setting / methods: </strong>We performed a clinical audit of 1011 patients diagnosed with CRC at St Mark's Hospital (Harrow, UK) between January 2017 and December 2020. Data on the diagnostic pathway and screening history of individuals were extracted from the bowel cancer screening system and assessed using descriptive statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>446/1011 (44.1%) patients diagnosed with CRC were eligible for screening at the time of diagnosis. Of these, only 115/446 (25.8%) were diagnosed through screening. Among those diagnosed via non-screening pathways, 210/331 (63.4%) had never taken part in screening, 31/331 (9.4%) had taken part but were not up to date, and 89/331 (26.9%) had taken part and were up-to-date (of these, 82/89 [92.2%] had received a normal or weak positive test result, and 5/89 [5.6%] had received a positive result and declined colonoscopy).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Nearly two-thirds of screening eligible patients diagnosed through a non-screening pathway had never taken part in screening. This represents the single largest source of inefficiency within the screening programme, followed by missed findings and inconsistent participation. Given the improved outcomes associated with screen-detected cancers, there is a strong public health mandate to encourage participation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51089,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Screening\",\"volume\":\"29 4\",\"pages\":\"224-230\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9574422/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Screening\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413221100969\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Screening","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413221100969","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:尽管有一些干预措施来增加英国的参与,但大多数结直肠癌(crc)是在筛查计划之外被诊断出来的。本研究的目的是为了更好地理解为什么大多数crc是外部诊断的,这在多大程度上是由于筛查的不理想吸收,以及在多大程度上是由于其他因素,如假阴性检测结果。背景/方法:我们对2017年1月至2020年12月在St Mark's Hospital (Harrow, UK)诊断为CRC的1011例患者进行了临床审计。从肠癌筛查系统中提取个人的诊断途径和筛查史数据,并使用描述性统计进行评估。结果:446/1011例(44.1%)诊断为结直肠癌的患者在诊断时符合筛查条件。其中,只有115/446(25.8%)通过筛查得到诊断。在通过非筛查途径诊断的患者中,210/331(63.4%)从未参加过筛查,31/331(9.4%)参加过筛查但未更新,89/331(26.9%)参加过筛查并更新(其中82/89(92.2%)的检查结果正常或弱阳性,5/89(5.6%)的检查结果为阳性并拒绝结肠镜检查)。结论:近三分之二通过非筛查途径诊断的符合筛查条件的患者从未参加过筛查。这是筛查方案效率低下的最大单一来源,其次是遗漏的发现和不一致的参与。鉴于筛查检测到的癌症的预后有所改善,鼓励参与的公共卫生任务十分重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Why are most colorectal cancers diagnosed outside of screening? A retrospective analysis of data from the English bowel screening programme.

Objective: Despite several interventions to increase participation in England, most colorectal cancers (CRCs) are diagnosed outside of the screening programme. The aims of this study were to better understand why most CRCs are diagnosed externally, the extent to which this is due to suboptimal uptake of screening, and the extent to which it is due to other factors, such as false-negative test results.

Setting / methods: We performed a clinical audit of 1011 patients diagnosed with CRC at St Mark's Hospital (Harrow, UK) between January 2017 and December 2020. Data on the diagnostic pathway and screening history of individuals were extracted from the bowel cancer screening system and assessed using descriptive statistics.

Results: 446/1011 (44.1%) patients diagnosed with CRC were eligible for screening at the time of diagnosis. Of these, only 115/446 (25.8%) were diagnosed through screening. Among those diagnosed via non-screening pathways, 210/331 (63.4%) had never taken part in screening, 31/331 (9.4%) had taken part but were not up to date, and 89/331 (26.9%) had taken part and were up-to-date (of these, 82/89 [92.2%] had received a normal or weak positive test result, and 5/89 [5.6%] had received a positive result and declined colonoscopy).

Conclusion: Nearly two-thirds of screening eligible patients diagnosed through a non-screening pathway had never taken part in screening. This represents the single largest source of inefficiency within the screening programme, followed by missed findings and inconsistent participation. Given the improved outcomes associated with screen-detected cancers, there is a strong public health mandate to encourage participation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Screening
Journal of Medical Screening 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
40
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Screening, a fully peer reviewed journal, is concerned with all aspects of medical screening, particularly the publication of research that advances screening theory and practice. The journal aims to increase awareness of the principles of screening (quantitative and statistical aspects), screening techniques and procedures and methodologies from all specialties. An essential subscription for physicians, clinicians and academics with an interest in screening, epidemiology and public health.
期刊最新文献
Age-specific differences in tumour characteristics between screen-detected and non-screen-detected breast cancers in women aged 40-74 at diagnosis in Sweden from 2008 to 2017. Association between time to colonoscopy after positive fecal testing and colorectal cancer outcomes in Alberta, Canada. Cancer screening programs in Japan: Progress and challenges. Strong association between reduction of late-stage cancers and reduction of cancer-specific mortality in meta-regression of randomized screening trials across multiple cancer types. Factors associated with private or public breast cancer screening attendance in Queensland, Australia: A retrospective cross-sectional study.
×
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