Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Evaluate effectiveness, harms and burdens of faecal blood testing, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer over 15 years. DESIGN:We 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. RESULTS:12 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). CONCLUSIONS:In 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 NUMBER:CRD42018093401.

SUBMITTER: Jodal HC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6797379 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Jodal Henriette C HC Helsingen Lise M LM Anderson Joseph C JC Lytvyn Lyubov L Vandvik Per Olav PO Emilsson Louise L

BMJ open 20191002 10

<h4>Objective</h4>Evaluate effectiveness, harms and burdens of faecal blood testing, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer over 15 years.<h4>Design</h4>We 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- ...[more]

PMID: 31578199

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:IntroductionPhysical harm from Colorectal Cancer Screening tends to be inadequately measured and reported in clinical trials. Also, studies of ongoing Colorectal Cancer Screening programs have found more frequent and severe physical harm from screening procedures, e.g., bleeding and perforation, than reported in previous trials. Therefore, the objectives of the study were to systematically review the evidence on the risk of bleeding and perforation in Colorectal Cancer Screening.DesignSystematic review with descriptive statistics and random-effects meta-analyses.MethodsWe systematically searched five databases for studies investigating physical harms related to Colorectal Cancer Screening. We assessed the internal and the external validity using the ROBINS-I tool and the GRADE approach. Harm estimates was calculated using mixed Poisson regression models in random-effect meta-analyses.ResultsWe included 89 studies. Reporting and measurement of harms was inadequate in most studies. In effect, the risk of bias was critical in 97.3% and serious in 98.3% of studies. All GRADE ratings were very low. Based on severe findings with not-critical risk of bias and 30 days follow-up, the risk of bleedings per 100,000 people screened were 8 [2;24] for sigmoidoscopy, 229 [129;408] for colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test, 68 [39;118] for once-only colonoscopy, and 698 [443;1045] for colonoscopy following any screening tests. The risk of perforations was 88 [56;138] for colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test and 53 [25;112] for once-only colonoscopy. There were no findings within the subcategory severe perforation with long-term follow-up for colonoscopy following any screening tests and sigmoidoscopy.DiscussionHarm estimates varied widely across studies, reporting and measurement of harms was mostly inadequate, and the risk of bias and GRADE ratings were very poor, collectively leading to underestimation of harm. In effect, we consider our estimates of perforation and bleeding as conservative, highlighting the need for better reporting and measurement in future studies.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42017058844.

Project description:ImportanceRandomized clinical screening trials have shown that sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has largely replaced sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening, but long-term results from randomized trials on colonoscopy screening are still lacking.ObjectiveTo estimate the additional screening benefit of colonoscopy compared with sigmoidoscopy.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness simulation study pooled data on 358 204 men and women randomly assigned to sigmoidoscopy screening or usual care in 4 randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials conducted in Norway, Italy, the US, and UK with inclusion periods in the years 1993 to 2001. The primary analysis of the study was conducted from January 19 to December 30, 2021.InterventionInvitation to endoscopic screening.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality. Using pooled 15-year follow-up data, colonoscopy screening effectiveness was estimated assuming that the efficacy of colonoscopy in the proximal colon was similar to that observed in the distal colon in the sigmoidoscopy screening trials. The simulation model was validated using data from Norwegian participants in a colonoscopy screening trial.ResultsThis analysis included 358 204 individuals (181 971 women [51%]) aged 55 to 64 years at inclusion with a median follow-up time ranging from 15 to 17 years. Compared with usual care, colonoscopy prevented an estimated 50 (95% CI, 42-58) CRC cases per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 30% incidence reduction (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.75]), and prevented an estimated 15 (95% CI, 11-19) CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 32% mortality reduction (rate ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61-0.76]). The additional benefit of colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy was 12 (95% CI, 10-14) fewer CRC cases and 4 (95% CI, 3-5) fewer CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to percentage point reductions of 6.9 (95% CI, 6.0-7.9) for CRC incidence and 7.6 (95% CI, 5.7-9.6) for CRC mortality. The number needed to switch from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy screening was 560 (95% CI, 486-661) to prevent 1 CRC case and 1611 (95% CI, 1275-2188) to prevent 1 CRC death.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this comparative effectiveness study assessing long-term follow-up after CRC screening suggest that there was an additional preventive effect on CRC incidence and mortality associated with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening, but the additional preventive effect was less than what was achieved by introducing sigmoidoscopy screening where no screening existed. The results probably represent the upper limit of what may be achieved with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening.

Project description:ObjectivesTo review, summarise, and compare the evidence for effectiveness of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy in the prevention of colorectal cancer occurrence and deaths.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Two investigators independently extracted characteristics and results of identified studies and performed standardised quality ratings.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials and observational studies in English on the impact of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in the general population at average risk.ResultsFor screening sigmoidoscopy, four randomised controlled trials and 10 observational studies were identified that consistently found a major reduction in distal but not proximal colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Summary estimates of reduction in distal colorectal cancer incidence and mortality were 31% (95% confidence intervals 26% to 37%) and 46% (33% to 57%) in intention to screen analysis, 42% (29% to 53%) and 61% (27% to 79%) in per protocol analysis of randomised controlled trials, and 64% (50% to 74%) and 66% (38% to 81%) in observational studies. For screening colonoscopy, evidence was restricted to six observational studies, the results of which suggest tentatively an even stronger reduction in distal colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, along with a significant reduction in mortality from cancer of the proximal colon. Indirect comparisons of results of observational studies on screening sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy suggest a 40% to 60% lower risk of incident colorectal cancer and death from colorectal cancer after screening colonoscopy even though this incremental risk reduction was statistically significant for deaths from cancer of the proximal colon only.ConclusionsCompelling and consistent evidence from randomised controlled trials and observational studies suggests that screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy prevent most deaths from distal colorectal cancer. Observational studies suggest that colonoscopy compared with flexible sigmoidoscopy decreases mortality from cancer of the proximal colon. This added value should be examined in further research and weighed against the higher costs, discomfort, complication rates, capacities needed, and possible differences in compliance.

Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate overdiagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) for screening with sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood testing (FOBT).DesignSimulation study using data from randomised trials.SettingPrimary screening, UK, Norway PARTICIPANTS: 152 850 individuals from the Nottingham trial and 98 678 individuals from the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention (NORCCAP) trial.InterventionCRC screening.Outcome measureWe estimated overdiagnosis using long-term data from two randomised trials: the Nottingham trial comparing FOBT screening every other year to no-screening, and the NORCCAP trial comparing once-only sigmoidoscopy screening to no-screening. To estimate the natural growth of adenomas to CRC, we used the following microsimulation models: (i) the Microsimulation Screening Analysis; (ii) the CRC Simulated Population model for Incidence and Natural history; (iii) the Simulation Model of Colorectal Cancer; (iv) a model derived by the German Cancer Research Center. We defined overdiagnosed cancers as the difference between the observed number of CRCs in the no-screening arm and the expected number of cancers in screening arm (sum of observed and prevented by adenoma removal). The amount of overdiagnosis is defined as the number of overdiagnosed cancers over the number of cancers observed in the no-screening arm.ResultsOverdiagnosis estimates were highly dependent on model assumptions. For FOBT screening with 2354 cancers observed in control arm, four out of five models predicted overdiagnosis, range 2.0% (2400 cancers expected in screening) to 7.6% (2533 cancers expected in screening). For sigmoidoscopy screening with 452 cancers observed in control arm, all models predicted overdiagnosis, range 25.2% (566 cancers expected in screening) to 128.1% (1031 cancers expected in screening).ConclusionsThe amount of overdiagnosis estimated based on the microsimulation models varied substantially. Microsimulation models may not give reliable estimates of the preventive effect of adenoma removal, and should be used with caution to inform guidelines.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets