Objective: International guidelines and local practices for colorectal cancer screening suggest an important role for several different screening tests, and for consumer choice. We aimed to determine whether choice of test improved participation in screening. Design: A randomised comparative study offering one of six screening strategies: faecal occult blood testing (FOBT), FOBT and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), computed tomography colonography (CTC), colonoscopy, or one of two groups offered a choice of these strategies (one of which was sent an FOBT kit with the letter of invitation, while the other was required to request an FOBT kit by telephone if that was the test chosen). Setting and participants: 1679 people aged 50–54 or 65–69 years, randomly selected from the electoral roll in metropolitan Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Main outcome measures: Participation, yield of advanced colorectal neoplasia (CRN), acceptability and safety. Results: 346 (20.6%) were excluded from screening, mostly for a recent examination (165), symptoms (72) or personal or family history of colorectal neoplasia or cancer (83). 278 of the 1333 eligible (20.9%; 95% CI, 18.7%–23.1%) participated in screening. Participation was similar by age and sex, but lower in Perth than Adelaide (17.1% v 24.2%; P = 0.01). Participation by screening group was: FOBT, 27.4%; FOBT/FS, 13.7% (P < 0.001 compared with FOBT); CTC, 16.3% (P = 0.005); colonoscopy, 17.8% (P = 0.02); or a choice of test 18.6% (“with FOBT kit”; P = 0.03) or 22.7% (“without FOBT kit”; P = 0.3). Yield of advanced CRN was higher in participants screened by colonoscopy than FOBT (7.9% v 0.8%; P = 0.02). All tests were well accepted and no serious complications arose from screening. Conclusion: A choice of screening test did not improve participation. Participation by FOBT was higher than by other tests. Yield of advanced colorectal neoplasia on an intention‐to‐screen basis, determined by test sensitivity and participation, is likely to be a critical determinant of the effectiveness of screening strategies.

InSure is as sensitive and specific as FlexSure OBT for faecal haemoglobin. The novel stool-sampling method of InSure allows discrimination between normals and classes of neoplasia, and is highly preferred. The brush-sampling faecal immunochemical test InSure should now be evaluated in a screening population.

Our study aimed to assess the diagnostic utility of magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) compared to capsule endoscopy (CE) for the detection of small bowel polyps in patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS); with findings verified by balloon enteroscopy (BE). Adult patients were prospectively recruited across two tertiary centres and underwent MRE followed by CE, with a subsequent BE performed in patients with significant (≥10 mm) polyps. The primary endpoint was the total number of significant (≥10 mm) small bowel polyps detected. The number of patients with at least one significant polyp, correlation with BE findings, and patients' preferences were secondary endpoints. A total of 20 patients (7 male; mean age 34.9 years) underwent both investigations. The number of polyps ≥10 mm detected by CE was greater than by MRE (47 vs 14 polyps, P = 0.02). The number of patients with at least one significant polyp identified by CE was 11 (55 %) compared with 7 (35 %) identified by MRE (P = 0.25). Subsequent BE in 12 patients identified a total of 26 significant polyps in 8 patients. The positive predictive value of finding a polyp at BE was higher for MRE (100 %) compared to CE (60 %). Overall patient preferences identified CE as the preferred modality. This prospective study demonstrated that CE identifies significantly more small bowel polyps compared with MRE in patients with PJS. Correlation between the two techniques and subsequent BE however was relatively poor.

Concentrations of gastrin precursors are increased in particular groups with an increased risk of developing CRC.

No abstract