Background:The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) offers biennial faecal occult blood testing (FOBt) followed by colonoscopy after positive results. Colorectal cancers (CRCs) registered with the Northern Colorectal Cancer Audit Group database were cross-referenced with the BCSP database to analyse their screening history.Methods:The CRCs in the screening population between April 2007 and March 2010 were identified and classified into four groups: control (diagnosed before first screening invite), screen-detected, interval (diagnosed between screening rounds after a negative FOBt), and non-uptake (declined screening). Patient demographics, tumour characteristics and survival were compared between groups.Results:In all, 511 out of 1336 (38.2%) CRCs were controls; 825 (61.8%) were in individuals invited for screening of which 322 (39.0%) were screen detected, 311 (37.7%) were in the non-uptake group, and 192 (23.3%) were interval cancers. Compared with the control and interval cancer group, the screen-detected group had a higher proportion of men (P=0.002, P=0.003 respectively), left colon tumours (P=0.007, P=0.003), and superior survival (both P<0.001). There was no difference in demographics, tumour location/stage, or survival between control and interval groups.Conclusion:The FOBt is better at detecting cancers in the left colon and in men. The significant numbers of interval cancers weren't found to have an improved outcome compared with the non-screened population.

Background:Colorectal cancers (CRCs) detected through the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) have been shown to have a more favourable outcome compared to non-screen-detected cancers. The aim was to identify whether this was solely due to the earlier stage shift of these cancers, or whether other factors were involved.Methods:A combination of a regional CRC registry (Northern Colorectal Cancer Audit Group) and the BCSP database were used to identify screen-detected and interval cancers (diagnosed after a negative faecal occult blood test, before the next screening round), diagnosed between April 2007 and March 2010, within the North East of England. For each Dukes' stage, patient demographics, tumour characteristics, and survival rates were compared between these two groups.Results:Overall, 322 screen-detected cancers were compared against 192 interval cancers. Screen-detected Dukes' C and D CRCs had a superior survival rate compared with interval cancers (P=0.014 and P=0.04, respectively). Cox proportional hazards regression showed that Dukes' stage, tumour location, and diagnostic group (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29–0.69, P<0.001 for screen-detected CRCs) were all found to have a significant impact on the survival of patients.Conclusions:The improved survival of screen-detected over interval cancers for stages C and D suggest that there may be a biological difference in the cancers in each group. Although lead-time bias may have a role, this may be related to a tumour's propensity to bleed and therefore may reflect detection through current screening tests.

In routine clinical practice, introduction of a simple, inexpensive, evidence-based "bundle" of measures is feasible and is associated with higher global ADR, driven by improvements amongst the poorest performing colonoscopists.

Background:We measured biomarkers of tumour growth and vascularity in interval and screen-detected colorectal cancers (CRCs) in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in order to determine whether rapid tumour growth might contribute to interval CRC (a CRC diagnosed between a negative guaiac stool test and the next scheduled screening episode).Methods:Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded sections from 71 CRCs (screen-detected 43, interval 28) underwent immunohistochemistry for CD31 and Ki-67, in order to measure the microvessel density (MVD) and proliferation index (PI), respectively, as well as microsatellite instability (MSI) testing.Results:Interval CRCs were larger (P=0.02) and were more likely to exhibit venous invasion (P=0.005) than screen-detected tumours. There was no significant difference in MVD or PI between interval and screen-detected CRCs. More interval CRCs displayed MSI-high (14%) compared with screen-detected tumours (5%). A significantly (P=0.005) higher proportion (51%) of screen-detected CRC resection specimens contained at least one polyp compared with interval CRC (18%) resections.Conclusions:We found no evidence of biological differences between interval and screen-detected CRCs, consistent with the low sensitivity of guaiac stool testing as the main driver of interval CRC. The contribution of synchronous adenomas to occult blood loss for screening requires further investigation.