Background The steady increase in colorectal cancer (CRC) could be reversed through timely secondary prevention (screening) as a main strategy. The aims of this study were to determine the main features of CRC, survival rate and related factors for different types of identified CRCs in a population-based screening programme using the faecal immunochemical test (FIT). Materials and methods The CRCs in the susceptible population to be screened between 2009 and 2014 were identified and classified into four groups: (a) nonscreening-detected CRC (diagnosed before first screening invitation and nonparticipants), (b) screening-detected CRC, (c) interval cancer (IC) FIT (diagnosed between screening rounds after a negative FIT) and (d) IC colonoscopy (diagnosed before the colonoscopy surveillance, which is recommended after the screening colonoscopy). Patient demographics and epidemiological characteristics, tumour characteristics and survival were compared between the four groups. Results 5909 individuals were diagnosed with a CRC. The median follow-up of survival was 4.6 years (range: 0–9 years). The study highlights a significant difference (P<0.0001) in the 5-year survival in the screening-detected CRC group compared with those who had nonscreening-detected CRCs (90.1 vs. 66.7%). Although ICs are not desirable events, the 5-year survival rate is significantly higher with respect to nonparticipants (P<0.0001) (76.3 vs. 60.5%), this being the group with the lowest survival rate. Conclusion The significantly higher 5-year survival rate of 23.4% of the participants in the screening programme suggests that incidence and mortality rates of CRC will decrease in the near future for participants in screening programmes. A high participation rate is essential to achieve health benefits, irrespective of the type of participation.

Purpose: The COVID19 pandemic has caused a redistribution of hospital resources. Prioritization strategies are needed in order to organize elective surgeries. We compared the new Medically Necessary Time-Sensitive score (MeNTS) and its factors (disease, procedure, and patient factors) between operated and deferred cases, and also to a subjective priority scale in the Urology department. Methods: The MeNTS score and a subjective prioritization scale were prospective applied to all patients included on the surgical waiting list from March 10 to September 9, 2020. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare MeNTS scores between operated and non-operated groups. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare MeNTS scores between three subjective priority groups. Results: A total of 150 cases were operated while 100 were deferred. Median total MeNTS score in the operated group was 39.5 whereas in the non-operated group it was 38 ( p = 0.135). Median disease factors score was 9.5 in the operated group and 11 in the non-operated group( p = 0.033). Median procedure factors score was 10 in both groups ( p = 0.02). Median patient factors score was 17 in the operated group and 18 in the non-operated group ( p = 0.210). Disease factors displayed a significant difference between the three subjective priority groups Conclusions: Total MeNTS score does not show significant differences between operated and non-operated patients. However, we demonstrate a relationship between MeNTS disease factors and the operated group as well as with the subjective priority scale.

No abstract

No abstract