Close monitoring of the implementation of the Dutch national CRC screening program allowed for instant adjustment of the FIT cut-off levels to optimize program performance.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common and lethal malignancies in Western countries. Its development is a multistep process that spans more than 15 years, thereby providing an opportunity for prevention and early detection. The high incidence and mortality rates emphasise the need for prevention and screening. Many countries have therefore introduced CRC screening programmes. It is expected, and preliminary evidence in some countries suggests, that this screening effort will decrease CRC-related mortality rates. CRC prevention involves a healthy lifestyle and chemoprevention—more specifically, oral chemoprevention that can interfere with progression from a normal colonic mucosa to adenocarcinoma. This preventive effect is important for individuals with a genetic predisposition, but also in the general population. The ideal chemopreventive agent, or combination of agents, remains unknown, especially when considering safety during long-term use. This review evaluates the evidence across 80 meta-analyses of interventional and observational studies of CRC prevention using medications, vitamins, supplements and dietary factors. This review suggests that the following factors are associated with a decreased incidence of CRC: aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, magnesium, folate, a high consumption of fruits and vegetables, fibre and dairy products. An increased incidence of CRC was observed with frequent alcohol or meat consumption. No evidence of a protective effect for tea, coffee, garlic, fish and soy products was found. The level of evidence is moderate for aspirin, β-carotene and selenium, but is low or very low for all other exposures or interventions.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We evaluated the incidence of interval cancers between the first and second rounds of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with the FOB-Gold fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and the effects of different cutoff values and patient sex and age. METHODS: We collected data from participants in a population-based CRC screening program in the Netherlands who had a negative result from a first-round of FIT screening. We calculated the cumulative incidence of interval cancer after a negative result from a FIT and the sensitivity of the FIT for detection of CRC at a low (15 mg Hb/g feces) and high (47 mg Hb/g feces) cutoff value. RESULTS: Among the 485,112 participants with a negative result from a FIT, 544 interval cancers were detected; 126 were in the 111,800 participants with negative results from a FIT with the low cutoff value and 418 were in the 373,312 FIT participants with negative results from a FIT with the high cutoff value. The mean age of participants tested with the low cutoff value was 72.0 years and the mean age of participants tested the high cutoff value was 66.7 years. The age-adjusted 2-year cumulative incidence of interval cancer after a negative result from a FIT were 9.5 per 10,000 persons at the low cutoff value vs 13.8 per 10,000 persons at the high cutoff value (P < .005). The age-adjusted sensitivity of the FIT for CRC were 90.5% for the low cutoff value vs 82.9% for the high cutoff (P < .0001). The FIT identified men with CRC with 87.4% sensitivity and women with CRC with 82.6% sensitivity (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of data from a FIT population-based screening program in the Netherlands, we found that incidence of interval CRC after a negative result from a FIT to be low. Although the sensitivity of detection of CRC decreased with a higher FIT cutoff value, it remained above 80%.

The Dutch colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program started in 2014, inviting the target population biennially to perform a fecal immunochemical test (FIT). We obtained prospectively collected data from the national screening information‐system to present the results of the second round (2016) and evaluate the impact of increasing the FIT cut‐off halfway through the first round from 15 to 47 μg Hb/g feces on outcomes in the second round. Second round screening was done with a 47 μg Hb/g feces FIT cut‐off. Participants were classified based on first round participation status as either FIT (15,47) or FIT (47,47) participants, and previous nonparticipants. In total, 348,891 (75.9%) out of 459,740 invitees participated in the second round. Participation rates were 93.4% among previous participants and 21.0% among previous non‐participants. FIT(47,47) participants had a significantly higher detection rate of AN (15.3 vs. 10.4 per 1,000 participants) compared to FIT(15,47) participants in the second round, while their cumulative detection rate of AN over two rounds was significantly lower (45.6 vs. 52.6 per 1,000 participants). Our results showed that participation in the Dutch CRC screening program was consistently high and that second round detection rates depended on the first round FIT cut‐off. The cumulative detection over two rounds was higher among FIT(15,47) participants. These findings suggest that a substantial part of, but not all the missed findings in the first round due to the increased FIT cut‐off were detected in the subsequent round.

Background: Microsimulation models are increasingly being used to inform colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations. MISCAN-Colon is an example of such a model, used to inform the Dutch CRC screening program and United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines. Assessing the validity of these models is essential to provide transparency regarding their performance. In this study we tested the external and predictive validity of MISCAN-Colon. Methods: We validated MISCAN-Colon using the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention (NORCCAP) trial, a randomized controlled trial that examined the effectiveness of once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening. We simulated the study population and design of the NORCCAP trial in MISCAN-Colon and compared 10- to 12-year model predicted hazard ratios (HRs) for overall and distal CRC incidence and mortality to those observed. In addition, we compared the numbers of screen-detected neoplasia. Finally, we predicted the trial’s future results to allow for the assessment of predictive validity. Results: MISCAN-Colon predicted a HR for overall CRC incidence (0.85), for distal CRC incidence (0.82), for overall CRC mortality (0.68) and for distal CRC mortality (0.62). These were within the limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the NORCCAP trial results. Similar results were observed for the number of screen-detected cancers. The model significantly underestimated the number of screen-detected adenomas. Model-predicted HRs for CRC incidence and mortality up to 15- to 17-years follow-up were 0.84 and 0.72, respectively. Conclusion: Although the underestimation of screen-detected adenomas requires further investigation, MISCAN-Colon is able to make a valid replication of the CRC incidence and mortality reduction of an FS screening trial, which suggests that it can be considered a useful tool to support decision making on CRC screening.