Suppr超能文献

结直肠癌不同筛查策略的随机试验:患者反应及检出率

Randomized trial of different screening strategies for colorectal cancer: patient response and detection rates.

作者信息

Segnan Nereo, Senore Carlo, Andreoni Bruno, Arrigoni Arrigo, Bisanti Luigi, Cardelli Alessandro, Castiglione Guido, Crosta Cristiano, DiPlacido Roberta, Ferrari Arnaldo, Ferraris Roberto, Ferrero Franco, Fracchia Mario, Gasperoni Stefano, Malfitana Giuseppe, Recchia Serafino, Risio Mauro, Rizzetto Mario, Saracco Giorgio, Spandre Mauro, Turco Delio, Turco Patricia, Zappa Marco

机构信息

Centro Prevenzione Oncologica Regione Piemonte and Azienda Sanitaria Ospedaliera S Giovanni Battista, Torino, Italy.

出版信息

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Mar 2;97(5):347-57. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dji050.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Although there is general consensus concerning the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening, there is a lack of agreement about which routine screening strategy should be adopted. We compared the participation and detection rates achievable through different strategies of colorectal cancer screening.

METHODS

From November 1999 through June 2001 we conducted a multicenter, randomized trial in Italy among a sample of 55-64 year olds in the general population who had an average risk of colorectal cancer. People with previous colorectal cancer, adenomas, inflammatory bowel disease, a recent (< or =2 years) colorectal endoscopy or fecal occult blood test (FOBT), or two first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer were excluded. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned, within the roster of their general practitioner, to 1) biennial FOBT (delivered by mail), 2) biennial FOBT (delivered by general practitioner or a screening facility), 3) patient's choice of FOBT or "once-only" sigmoidoscopy, 4) "once-only" sigmoidoscopy, or 5) sigmoidoscopy followed by biennial FOBT. An immunologic FOBT was used. Participation and detection rates of the strategies tested were compared using multivariable logistic regression models that adjusted for age, sex, and screening center. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Of 28 319 people sampled, 1637 were excluded and 26 682 were randomly assigned to a screening arm. After excluding undelivered letters (n = 427), the participation rates for groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were 30.1% (682/2266), 28.1% (1654/5893), 27.1% (970/3579), 28.1% (1026/3650), and 28.1% (3049/10 867), respectively. Of the 2858 subjects screened by FOBT, 122 (4.3%) had a positive test result, 10 (3.5 per 1000) had colorectal cancer, and 39 (1.4%) had an advanced adenoma. Among the 4466 subjects screened by sigmoidoscopy, 341 (7.6%) were referred for colonoscopy, 18 (4 per 1000) had colorectal cancer, and 229 (5.1%) harbored an advanced adenoma.

CONCLUSIONS

The participation rates were similar for sigmoidoscopy and FOBT. The detection rate for advanced neoplasia was three times higher following screening by sigmoidoscopy than by FOBT.

摘要

背景

尽管对于结直肠癌筛查的有效性已达成普遍共识,但对于应采用哪种常规筛查策略仍存在分歧。我们比较了通过不同的结直肠癌筛查策略所能达到的参与率和检出率。

方法

从1999年11月至2001年6月,我们在意大利对一般人群中55 - 64岁、患结直肠癌平均风险的样本进行了一项多中心随机试验。排除有既往结直肠癌、腺瘤、炎症性肠病、近期(≤2年)进行过结直肠内镜检查或粪便潜血试验(FOBT)者,或有两名一级亲属患结直肠癌者。符合条件的受试者在其全科医生的名册内被随机分配至:1)每两年一次的FOBT(通过邮寄提供);2)每两年一次的FOBT(由全科医生或筛查机构提供);3)患者选择FOBT或“一次性”乙状结肠镜检查;4)“一次性”乙状结肠镜检查;或5)乙状结肠镜检查后每两年一次的FOBT。使用了免疫法FOBT。通过多变量逻辑回归模型比较所测试策略的参与率和检出率,该模型对年龄、性别和筛查中心进行了调整。所有统计检验均为双侧检验。

结果

在抽样的28319人中,1637人被排除,26682人被随机分配至一个筛查组。排除未送达的信件(n = 427)后,第1、2、3、4和5组的参与率分别为30.1%(682/2266)、28.1%(1654/5893)、27.1%(970/3579)、28.1%(1026/3650)和28.1%(3049/10867)。在通过FOBT筛查的2858名受试者中,122人(4.3%)检测结果为阳性,10人(每1000人中有3.5人)患有结直肠癌,39人(1.4%)患有高级别腺瘤。在通过乙状结肠镜检查筛查的4466名受试者中,341人(7.6%)被转诊进行结肠镜检查,18人(每1000人中有4人)患有结直肠癌,229人(5.1%)患有高级别腺瘤。

结论

乙状结肠镜检查和FOBT的参与率相似。乙状结肠镜检查筛查后高级别肿瘤的检出率比FOBT高两倍。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验