Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • "Best of" Collection
      • Editors' Picks
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • "Best of" Collection
      • Editors' Picks
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Research Article

Longitudinal Adherence to Immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Testing vs Guaiac-based FOBT in an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program

Llucia Benito, Noemie Travier, Gemma Binefa, Carmen Vidal, Jose Espinosa, Núria Milà and Montse Garcia
Llucia Benito
1School of Nursing, University of Barcelona, Fundamental Care and Medical-Surgical Nursing Department, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
2IDIBELL, Institute of Biomedical Research, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Llucia Benito
Noemie Travier
2IDIBELL, Institute of Biomedical Research, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
3Catalan Institute of Oncology, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Noemie Travier
Gemma Binefa
2IDIBELL, Institute of Biomedical Research, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
3Catalan Institute of Oncology, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
4Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carmen Vidal
2IDIBELL, Institute of Biomedical Research, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
3Catalan Institute of Oncology, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Carmen Vidal
Jose Espinosa
2IDIBELL, Institute of Biomedical Research, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
3Catalan Institute of Oncology, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jose Espinosa
Núria Milà
2IDIBELL, Institute of Biomedical Research, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
3Catalan Institute of Oncology, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
4Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Núria Milà
Montse Garcia
2IDIBELL, Institute of Biomedical Research, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
3Catalan Institute of Oncology, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
4Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Montse Garcia
  • For correspondence: mgarcia@iconcologia.net
DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-18-0091 Published May 2019
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Longitudinal adherence is a critical component of the efficacy of stool-based screening programs because they should be repeated every 1–2 years. Few data have been published on the uptake in multiple rounds of fecal occult blood test-based (FOBT) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We calculated two measures of longitudinal adherence to biennial FOBT (guaiac fecal occult blood test:gFOBT or fecal immunochemical test:FIT) to better understand its impact on the programmatic effectiveness of a population-based CRC screening program (2000–2017). Ongoing population-based CRC program of men and women aged 50–69 years. Variables: Age at first CRC screening invitation, sex, number of screening invitations, number of screens, deprivation score, and uptake rate. Logistic regression models were used to assess the independent effect of sex, age at first invitation, deprivation, and the type of screening test offered on adherence. The uptake rate for guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) was 23.9%, and for the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), it was 37.4%. The overall rate of consistently screened invitees after seven rounds of screening was 14.2%, being 20.6% for those individuals who used FIT and 14.3% for those who used gFOBT. Factors associated with continued participation (consistent vs. inconsistent screenees) showed that the longitudinal adherence was associated with age, screening test used, and number of invitations. Continued participation was lower in individuals who were screened using FIT than among those screened using gFOBT [OR, 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.57–0.81]. The overall rate of consistently screened invitees for colorectal cancer screening was higher with FIT than gFOBT. Studying the rate of individuals being current for screening may help to anticipate potential benefits before the long-term outcome data are available.

Introduction

Colorectal cancer screening is a simple and effective public health intervention that prevents and minimizes the impact of colorectal cancer on the community. There is convincing evidence supporting the fecal occult blood test (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy as screening tools (1–9).

Uptake is a key indicator of the potential effectiveness of any screening intervention because it reflects the degree to which a population is exposed to the intervention. Bulliard and colleagues (10) published a review of cancer screening uptake definitions and measures, focusing primarily on uptake in a single round of screening and noted that measures of uptake across multiple rounds of screening are complex. Several indicators measure adherence; the choice of the indicator depends on the objective. Determining who is eligible to be studied depends on the question of interest, and there are three possibilities: the entire population (studies focused on the proportion of the population in need of screening), people meeting the eligibility criteria for screening (relevant considerations for screening eligibility include those related to the risk level; invitation to screen; prior cancer, symptoms, or tests; and screening ascertainment), and people who have been previously screened (measure of the time to rescreening; refs. 10, 11).

Longitudinal adherence is a critical component of stool-based screening programs for screening efficacy because screens should be repeated every 1 to 2 years, and the attrition rate has important implications for the long-term effectiveness of the screening program (12, 13). The effectiveness of an FOBT screening program is highly dependent on uptake in multiple rounds (14). Ideally, eligible invitees accept the invitation to be screened in every screening round (12, 15). The best indicator to study the effectiveness is to calculate the percentage of consistently screened individuals among all invitees.

Few data have been published on the uptake in multiple rounds of FOBT-based colorectal cancer screenings in a large population-based open cohort. To compare the published data, the measure used to calculate longitudinal adherence, especially the screening eligibility criteria and the length of the study period, needs to be considered. The longitudinal adherence of individuals eligible for colorectal cancer screenings using the guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) ranges from 38.1% to 47.2% (4, 6, 16, 17). Invitees between 14.3% and 44.4% were consistently screened for colorectal cancer using the gFOBT (12, 15, 18–20). Screening programs using the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) reported 38.3% to 53.6% rates of consistently screened invitees (21–24). In all these studies, the number of rounds studied was at most three or four.

European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis have defined a standard for uptake; however, the desirable target would be to achieve an uptake rate of 65% (25). These guidelines recommend minimal uptake, but there is no recommendation for longitudinal adherence.

In the context of an intervention or program, studying longitudinal adherence may help to anticipate the potential benefits before long-term outcome data are available. Measuring longitudinal adherence may also help identify opportunities to develop interventions and programs that reduce disparities.

In 2000, Catalonia was the first region to launch a population-based colorectal cancer screening program using FOBT in Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona, Spain; ref. 26). The first two screening rounds were part of the pilot study. Over time, the screening program was strategically modified to attain quality indicators and to make it more accessible to the population (26, 27). Nowadays, several regions of Spain have active colorectal cancer screening programs (28, 29).

We calculated two measures of longitudinal adherence to biennial FOBT (gFOBT or FIT) to better understand its impact on the programmatic effectiveness of a population-based colorectal cancer screening program from 2000 to 2017.

Materials and Methods

Seven rounds of the Catalan colorectal cancer biennial screening program were performed from February 2000 to June 2017 (first round from 2000 to 2002; second round from 2003 to 2005; third round from 2006 to 2008; fourth round from 2008 to 2010; fifth round from 2010 to 2012; sixth round from 2012 to 2014; and seventh round from 2014 to 2017).

Study population

The target population included 131,862 men and women aged 50 to 69 years who were residents in the screening area, Hospitalet de Llobregat, a municipality to the immediate southwest of Barcelona. The analysis evaluating screening adherence was restricted to the subjects invited to participate at least twice between 2000 and 2017 (n = 103,122).

To analyze the effect of the type of screening test used on longitudinal adherence, we compared subjects who were invited at least twice for gFOBT-based screenings irrespective of further invitations for FIT-based screenings with subjects who were invited at least twice for FIT-based screenings and had never been invited for gFOBT-based screenings (n = 93,107).

Screening procedure

This study was performed within our ongoing, population-based colorectal cancer screening program. The study design has been described previously (26, 27, 30). Briefly, a biennial population-based screening program for CCR using the FOBT was launched in Hospitalet de Llobregat, an industrial city of 260,288 inhabitants. Participants with positive screening results were referred for a colonoscopy. Participants with no lesions found during the colonoscopy were invited for another screening after 10 years if eligible. The program was free to the public and included men and women aged 50 to 69 years.

Exclusion criteria

Subjects were excluded if they had any of the following: a personal history of colorectal cancer or adenomas, familial colorectal cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, a colonoscopy in the previous 5 years or FOBT in the previous 2 years, or a terminal disease, or a severe disabling condition. Subjects with an invalid mailing address and removals from the screening area registry were also excluded because they could not be invited to a screening.

Screening test

The gFOBT was the only test used in the first three screening rounds (Hema-screen; Immunostics, Inc.). In the fourth round, the FIT (OC Sensorμ, Palex) was partially introduced and offered to 12,727 individuals to assess its feasibility and acceptability (eligible population assigned to two Basic Health Areas randomly selected). The gFOBT was offered to the remaining target population (n = 50,199; eligible population assigned to 10 Basic Health Areas).

On the basis of the favorable results obtained with the FIT, the Catalan Cancer Strategy decided that the FIT would be used throughout Catalonia. Thus, in the fifth, sixth, and seventh rounds of colorectal cancer screenings, the FIT was the only test used.

Variables

Data on age at first invitation, sex, number of screening invitations, and number of screens were retrieved from the program database. Because no individual information on socioeconomic status (SES) was available, a deprivation score, elaborated by the Catalan Agency for Quality and Health Technology Assessment and calculated for basic healthcare areas of the Catalan territory, was used (31). This score combined several pieces of contextual data, such as income deprivation, employment deprivation, health deprivation, and average education, into a single deprivation score for a basic healthcare area (score: 0–100). Higher scores on this index represent greater socioeconomic deprivation.

The uptake rate was calculated as the number of participants (persons with an FOBT performed properly) relative to all eligible invitees. Uptake rates were calculated for each screening round.

We have used two measures to calculate the longitudinal adherence. The first measure is the continued participation, which answers the research question: what is the prevalence of receiving regular screening? This measure gives information about long-term satisfaction with the screening program (10). Participants are studied and analyzed if they continue over time with screening. The denominator of this indicator is the number of individuals who have participated.

The second measure is the percentage of invited individuals with a consistent screening behavior, which answers the research question: who could potentially benefit most from cancer screening?

What proportion of invitees participates in all screening rounds? In this case, the denominator is the individuals invited to the cancer screening program and the numerator the individuals that have been tested as many time as invited. The measure gives information about the percentage of eligible population that can benefit from the program, the effectiveness of the screening program. Thus, this could be an intermediate indicator of mortality, which is a very expensive indicator and requires a lot of time to calculate it. Nevertheless, this measure depends on the individuals who enhance uptake in screening and those who continued being screened over time.

To classify individuals according to their screening behavior, we considered three categories: never screened individuals (no uptake in any round of the screening), inconsistent screenees (attending at least one round of screening but less than the total eligible number of screenings), and consistent screenees (attending all rounds of screenings when eligible). We have examined the proportion of individuals who participated in the screening after two or more invitations (late adopters) and those who discontinued screening (quitters) in the next round.

Statistical analyses

A descriptive analysis was performed to identify invitees with a consistent screening behavior over seven screening rounds and by the type of test. The Joinpoint Regression Program (Version 4.5.0.1, Statistical Methodology and Applications Branch, Surveillance Research Program, NCI, Bethesda, MD, USA) was used to analyze uptake trends for the whole population and to detect where a significant change in the trend occurred.

Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the independent effects of sex, age at first invitation (5-year category), deprivation (10-point category), and type of screening test offered, on screening adherence. All the models were further adjusted for the number of invitations and average uptake after the first screening invitation. These models provided ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) that allowed us to compare: (i) consistent versus inconsistent screenees, (ii) inconsistent screenees versus never screened individuals, and (iii) screenees (both consistent and inconsistent screenees) versus never screened individuals.

Ethics

Our colorectal cancer screening program, similar to all Spanish population–based screening programs, followed public health laws and the Organic Law on Data Protection. The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the University Hospital of Bellvitge (L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain; PR261/17).

Results

Uptake

Over the seven screening rounds, the uptake rates increased significantly from 17.2% to 38.0%. Of the 131,862 individuals eligible for the seven screening rounds, 62.8% were “never participants,” and 37.2% participated at least once (Table 1; Supplementary Fig. S1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Colorectal cancer screening uptake per rounds

Consistently screened invitees

The number of times that invitees participated during the seven screening rounds displayed for the number of times that invitees were eligible is summarized in Table 2. The overall screening rate after seven rounds of screening was 14.2% (18,681/131,862). According to the number of invitations, it ranged from 16.03% to 12.51% (Table 2). The overall screening rate according to the type of test is shown in Table 3 (14.3 for gFOBT and 20.6 in FIT).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Number of times invitees participated in the colorectal cancer screening program displayed for the number of times they were eligible

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Individuals invited to a colorectal cancer screening program by the test used and number of invitations

Inconsistent screenees

Inconsistent screenees can be classified in two main groups: those who changed screening behavior over time (late adopters and quitters) and those with an erratic behavior regarding screening. Table 4 shows the proportion of individuals who participated in the screening after two or more invitations (late adopters) and those who stopped being screened (quitters; Table 4).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 4.

Participation and withdrawal according to the number of previous participations

Late adopters

Individuals who enhanced uptake after being invited one time in the previous round and not having participated was 11.2% for the gFOBT and 12.6% for the FIT (Supplementary Tables S2 and S4).

Quitters

The proportion of quitters for both tests was approximately 25% after their first screen. The percentage of participants who withdrew after two and three rounds of screenings was greater for the FIT than for the gFOBT and for three rounds (FIT: 13.8% and 8.7%; gFOBT: 7.1% and 5.4%, respectively; Supplementary Tables S2 and S4).

Continued participation

Table 5 provides the results of the multivariate logistic regression analysis examining the predictors of longitudinal adherence in colorectal cancer screenings. Model 1 analyzed the factors associated with continued participation (consistent vs. inconsistent screenees), longitudinal adherence was associated with age, screening test used (gFOBT or FIT), and number of invitations. Continued participation was lower among individuals who used the FIT than among those who used the gFOBT (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57–0.81).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5.

Factors associated with continued participation and uptake in a population-based screening program for colorectal cancer

No differences in sex or deprivation index were observed. The age at first invitation (5-year change) was associated with adherence to colorectal cancer screenings. Elderly individuals were more likely to be adherent than their younger counterparts.

The model that compared inconsistent screenees versus never screened individuals (model 2) revealed that screening uptake was associated with sex, deprivation index, and test type. The ORs showed that women participated more than men, especially those with a lower deprivation index and those who were invited to participate in screenings using the FIT. Similar findings were found with the model that compared those never screened with screenees (both consistent and inconsistent screenees; model 3); and women with a lower deprivation index and those who used FIT were more likely to have been screened at least once (Table 5).

Discussion

This population-based study calculated two longitudinal adherence indicators to colorectal cancer screening with FOBT. The results showed a longitudinal decrease in adherence over seven screening rounds. In addition, it was observed that the overall rate of consistently screened invitees for colorectal cancer screening was higher with FIT than gFOBT despite lower continued participation. Factors associated with initial uptake were quite different from those relating to adherence in the subsequent rounds of screenings. Continued participation was associated with age, screening test used (gFOBT or FIT), and number of invitations.

Monitoring longitudinal screening adherence is important (22, 24, 32), especially for FOBT, because individuals are more likely to adhere to screening options that require fewer screenings over time (33). There is little information on the uptake patterns in any screening program that is predicated on repeated invitations at regular intervals (15, 18, 19, 21–24; Supplementary Table S3). To the best of our knowledge, no study has compared the longitudinal adherence (neither continued participation among screenees nor proportion of consistently screened invitees) of both the tests (gFOBT and FIT).

Given the scarcity of information on the impact of repeated FIT or gFOBT screenings, such data are of major importance for countries considering or planning the implementation of population-based FIT or gFOBT screening programs. The replacement of the gFOBT with quantitative FIT screenings should increase uptake. When comparing the FIT and the gFOBT in terms of continued participation, in our screening program, is lower in the FIT, but instead, the number of people who join the screening program was greater in FIT than in the gFOBT and, therefore, the percentage of consistently screened invitees was still greater with the FIT. The latter measure gives information about how many individuals could potentially benefit most from cancer screening (some individuals who have been screened sporadically may also get some benefit from being screened; ref. 14).

The longitudinal decrease in adherence may be partially explained by screening fatigue. Invitees lose the motivation to participate because of a false perception of decreased colorectal cancer risk after several negative test outcomes (34). Screening fatigue considerably reduces screening effectiveness and is a potential threat for FOBT screening programs because repeated testing is important to achieve reasonable sensitivity for detecting advanced neoplasia. Furthermore, colorectal cancer risk increases with age, stressing the importance of uptake among older individuals (35).

Late adopters (individuals who participate in colorectal cancer screenings after several invitations) contributed to overall uptake. Here, previous nonattenders were reinvited every 2 years, irrespective of whether they had previously responded, because this practice improves uptake (36). Increased awareness of colorectal cancer screening and sufficient information on colorectal cancer and FIT screenings may enhance the uptake in successive rounds because the target population is screening-naïve when first approached (36). It is important to keep inviting the previous nonparticipants because, in our study, up to 8.4% of the population participated after three invitations, regardless of the type of test (gFOBT or FIT). In cancer screening programs where uptake is less than 45%, any intervention is important to increase uptake, especially when the intervention mainly involves sending an invitation letter and a reminder.

In addition, it is important to consider the percentage of quitters, especially when uptake is <45%. Almost 25% of the participants do not participate again in the next round. Primary care professionals should be closely involved in interventions designed to improve longitudinal adherence. The general practitioner role is pivotal not only to increase uptake in FOBT screenings but also to ensure adherence with repeat testing for people with negative FOBT results (18). General practitioners could increase their involvement in colorectal cancer screening if they had more involvement with patient information at different stages of the screening process. Their privileged mode of communication remains face-to-face consultation with the patient (37).

The strengths of our study include access to a large cohort of an average-risk population composed of participants of the age ranges that are typically invited for colorectal cancer screening programs worldwide. Our study also had several limitations. First, SES could only be assigned by postal code, as a proxy for individual level SES. Second, 17 years have passed since the screening program was implemented, and many organizational changes have occurred. These changes may have contributed to uptake modification and longitudinal adherence; however, these changes have not been monitored and, therefore, cannot be identified as confounding factors. Third, the first two rounds of screenings were pilot rounds with uptake values of 17.2% and 22.3%, respectively, which conditioned full adherence. When we excluded these two rounds, the full adherence over five rounds of screenings improved by six percentage points (from 14.2% to 20.6%).

To improve the comparability of longitudinal adherence indicators in cancer screening interventions, the definitions and associated terminology need to be explicit, standard terms should be favored, and the use of the same term for different meanings needs to be avoided (10).

In summary, there are differences in the longitudinal adherence of FIT and gFOBT screening; the FIT increased the overall uptake but decreased the continued participation. In programs with an overall uptake of less than 45%, it is considered appropriate to focus on the interventions that improve initial uptake. When the uptake is 45% or higher, then it is important to design specific interventions focused on maintaining adherence. Identifying the proportion of consistently screened individuals is important to anticipate the population benefits of screening before having the mortality data available.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: L. Benito, C. Vidal, J. Espinosa, M. Garcia

Development of methodology: L. Benito, G. Binefa, C. Vidal

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): L. Benito

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): L. Benito, N. Travier, M. Garcia

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: L. Benito, N. Travier, G. Binefa, C. Vidal, J. Espinosa, N. Milà, M. Garcia

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): L. Benito

Study supervision: L. Benito, C. Vidal, M. Garcia

Acknowledgments

This study was partially cofounded by ISCIII-Subdirección General de Evaluación and by FEDER funds/European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)—a way to build Europe (PI12/00992, PI16/00588) and by the Department of Universities and Research (2017 SGR 1283) of the Government of Catalonia.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Cancer Prevention Research Online (http://cancerprevres.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Received March 17, 2018.
  • Revision received November 29, 2018.
  • Accepted March 13, 2019.
  • Published first March 19, 2019.
  • ©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Atkin WS,
    2. Edwards R,
    3. Kralj-Hans I,
    4. Wooldrage K,
    5. Hart AR,
    6. Northover JM,
    7. et al.
    Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010;375:1624–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Brenner H,
    2. Stock C,
    3. Hoffmeister M
    . Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. BMJ 2014;348:g2467.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Brenner H,
    2. Chang-Claude J,
    3. Jansen L,
    4. Knebel P,
    5. Stock C,
    6. Hoffmeister M
    . Reduced risk of colorectal cancer up to 10 years after screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2014;146:709–17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Hardcastle JD,
    2. Chamberlain JO,
    3. Robinson MH,
    4. Moss SM,
    5. Amar SS,
    6. Balfour TW,
    7. et al.
    Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet 1996;348:1472–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Hewitson P,
    2. Glasziou P,
    3. Watson E,
    4. Towler B,
    5. Irwig L
    . Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (hemoccult): an update. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:1541–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Kronborg O,
    2. Fenger C,
    3. Olsen J,
    4. Jorgensen OD,
    5. Sondergaard O
    . Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet 1996;348:1467–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Mandel JS,
    2. Church TR,
    3. Bond JH,
    4. Ederer F,
    5. Geisser MS,
    6. Mongin SJ,
    7. et al.
    The effect of fecal occult-blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1603–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Schoen RE,
    2. Pinsky PF,
    3. Weissfeld JL,
    4. Yokochi LA,
    5. Church T,
    6. Laiyemo AO,
    7. et al.
    Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med 2012;366:2345–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Segnan N,
    2. Armaroli P,
    3. Bonelli L,
    4. Risio M,
    5. Sciallero S,
    6. Zappa M,
    7. et al.
    Once-only sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: follow-up findings of the Italian randomized controlled trial–SCORE. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:1310–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Bulliard JL,
    2. Garcia M,
    3. Blom J,
    4. Senore C,
    5. Mai V,
    6. Klabunde C
    . Sorting out measures and definitions of screening participation to improve comparability: the example of colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 2014;50:434–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Chubak J,
    2. Hubbard R
    . Defining and measuring adherence to cancer screening. J Med Screen 2016;23:179–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Gellad ZF,
    2. Stechuchak KM,
    3. Fisher DA,
    4. Olsen MK,
    5. McDuffie JR,
    6. Ostbye T,
    7. et al.
    Longitudinal adherence to fecal occult blood testing impacts colorectal cancer screening quality. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:1125–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Liang PS,
    2. Wheat CL,
    3. Abhat A,
    4. Brenner AT,
    5. Fagerlin A,
    6. Hayward RA,
    7. et al.
    Adherence to competing strategies for colorectal cancer screening over 3 years. Am J Gastroenterol 2016;111:105–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Ponti A,
    2. Anttila A,
    3. Ronco G,
    4. Senore C,
    5. Basu P,
    6. Segnan N,
    7. et al.
    Report on the implementation of the council recommendation on cancer screening. 2017; Luxembourg: European Commission. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/major_chronic_diseases/docs/2017_cancerscreening_2ndreportimplementation_en.pdf
  15. 15.↵
    1. Steele RJ,
    2. McClements PL,
    3. Libby G,
    4. Carey FA,
    5. Fraser CG
    . Patterns of uptake in a biennial faecal occult blood test screening programme for colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2013;16:28–32.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Lindholm E,
    2. Brevinge H,
    3. Haglind E
    . Survival benefit in a randomized clinical trial of faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2008;95:1029–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Mandel JS,
    2. Bond JH,
    3. Church TR,
    4. Snover DC,
    5. Bradley GM,
    6. Schuman LM,
    7. et al.
    Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota colon cancer control study. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1365–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Denis B,
    2. Gendre I,
    3. Perrin P
    . Participation in four rounds of a French colorectal cancer screening programme with guaiac faecal occult blood test: a population-based open cohort study. J Med Screen 2015;22:76–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Lo SH,
    2. Halloran S,
    3. Snowball J,
    4. Seaman H,
    5. Wardle J,
    6. von Wagner C
    . Predictors of repeat participation in the NHS bowel cancer screening programme. Br J Cancer 2015;112:199–206.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Mila N,
    2. Garcia M,
    3. Binefa G,
    4. Borras JM,
    5. Espinas JA,
    6. Moreno V
    . Adherence to a population-based colorectal cancer screening program in Catalonia (Spain), 2000–2008. Gac Sanit 2012;26:217–22.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Crotta S,
    2. Segnan N,
    3. Paganin S,
    4. Dagnes B,
    5. Rosset R,
    6. Senore C
    . High rate of advanced adenoma detection in 4 rounds of colorectal cancer screening with the fecal immunochemical test. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:633–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Kapidzic A,
    2. Grobbee EJ,
    3. Hol L,
    4. van Roon AH,
    5. van Vuuren AJ,
    6. Spijker W,
    7. et al.
    Attendance and yield over three rounds of population-based fecal immunochemical test screening. Am J Gastroenterol 2014;109:1257–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Osborne JM,
    2. Wilson C,
    3. Duncan A,
    4. Cole SR,
    5. Flight I,
    6. Turnbull D,
    7. et al.
    Patterns of participation over four rounds of annual fecal immunochemical test-based screening for colorectal cancer: what predicts rescreening? BMC Public Health 2018;18:81.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    1. van der Vlugt M,
    2. Grobbee EJ,
    3. Bossuyt PM,
    4. Bongers E,
    5. Spijker W,
    6. Kuipers EJ,
    7. et al.
    Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: four rounds of faecal immunochemical test-based screening. Br J Cancer 2017;116:44–9.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Segnan N,
    2. Patnick J,
    3. von Karsa L
    . European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. Luxembourg: European Comission, Office for Official Publications of the European Union; 2010.
  26. 26.↵
    1. Peris M,
    2. Espinas JA,
    3. Munoz L,
    4. Navarro M,
    5. Binefa G,
    6. Borras JM
    . Lessons learnt from a population-based pilot programme for colorectal cancer screening in Catalonia (Spain). J Med Screen 2007;14:81–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Binefa G,
    2. Garcia M,
    3. Milà N,
    4. Fernández E,
    5. Rodríguez-Moranta F,
    6. Gonzalo N,
    7. et al.
    Colorectal cancer screening programme in Spain: results of key performance indicators after five rounds (2000–2012). Sci Rep 2016;6:19532.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Ascunce N,
    2. Salas D,
    3. Zubizarreta R,
    4. Almazan R,
    5. Ibanez J,
    6. Ederra M
    . Cancer screening in Spain. Ann Oncol 2010;21:iii43–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    Cancer Screening Programmes Network. Situation of colorectal cancer screening programmes in Spain. 2017. Available from:http://www.cribadocancer.org.
  30. 30.↵
    1. Garcia M,
    2. Borras JM,
    3. Binefa G,
    4. Mila N,
    5. Espinas JA,
    6. Moreno V
    . Repeated screening for colorectal cancer with fecal occult blood test in Catalonia, Spain. Eur J Cancer Prev 2012;21:42–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Observatory of the Catalan Health System. New socioeconomic indicator for the financing of the basic health areas 2014. 2017. Available from: http://observatorisalut.gencat.cat/ca/observatori-sobre-els-efectes-de-crisi-en-salut/indicador_socioeconomic_2015/#bloc3.
  32. 32.↵
    1. Jensen CD,
    2. Corley DA,
    3. Quinn VP,
    4. Doubeni CA,
    5. Zauber AG,
    6. Lee JK,
    7. et al.
    Fecal immunochemical test program performance over 4 rounds of annual screening: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2016;164:456–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Cyhaniuk A,
    2. Coombes ME
    . Longitudinal adherence to colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Am J Manag Care 2016;22:105–11.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Marteau TM,
    2. Kinmonth AL,
    3. Thompson S,
    4. Pyke S
    . The psychological impact of cardiovascular screening and intervention in primary care: a problem of false reassurance? British family heart study group. Br J Gen Pract 1996;46:577–82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Greuter MJ,
    2. Berkhof J,
    3. Canfell K,
    4. Lew JB,
    5. Dekker E,
    6. Coupe VM
    . Resilience of a FIT screening programme against screening fatigue: a modelling study. BMC Public Health 2016;16:1009.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    1. Steele RJ,
    2. McClements PL,
    3. Libby G,
    4. Black R,
    5. Morton C,
    6. Birrell J,
    7. et al.
    Results from the first three rounds of the Scottish demonstration pilot of FOBT screening for colorectal cancer. Gut 2009;58:530–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Papin-Lefebvre F,
    2. Guillaume E,
    3. Moutel G,
    4. Launoy G,
    5. Berchi C
    . General practitioners' preferences with regard to colorectal cancer screening organisation colon cancer screening medico-legal aspects. Health Policy 2017;121:1079–84.
    OpenUrl
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Prevention Research: 12 (5)
May 2019
Volume 12, Issue 5
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Editorial Board (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Prevention Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Longitudinal Adherence to Immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Testing vs Guaiac-based FOBT in an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Prevention Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Prevention Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Longitudinal Adherence to Immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Testing vs Guaiac-based FOBT in an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program
Llucia Benito, Noemie Travier, Gemma Binefa, Carmen Vidal, Jose Espinosa, Núria Milà and Montse Garcia
Cancer Prev Res May 1 2019 (12) (5) 327-334; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-18-0091

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Longitudinal Adherence to Immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Testing vs Guaiac-based FOBT in an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program
Llucia Benito, Noemie Travier, Gemma Binefa, Carmen Vidal, Jose Espinosa, Núria Milà and Montse Garcia
Cancer Prev Res May 1 2019 (12) (5) 327-334; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-18-0091
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • mt-sDNA Specificity in 45–49 Year-Olds
  • Targeting CD40 and PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibits OPL Progression to OSCC
  • Revisiting a clinical diagnosis of NF1 for other syndromes
Show more Research Articles
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Prevention Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Prevention Research
eISSN: 1940-6215
ISSN: 1940-6207

Advertisement