Impact of screening programme using the faecal immunochemical test on stage of colorectal cancer: Results from the IMPATTO study
To evaluate the impact of faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening on stage distribution at diagnosis, and to estimate relative incidence rates by stage in screened at first and subsequent rounds vs. unscreened. We included all incident cases occurring in 2000–2008 in 50‐ to 71‐year‐olds residing...
Saved in:
Published in | International journal of cancer Vol. 145; no. 1; pp. 110 - 121 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
01.07.2019
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 0020-7136 1097-0215 1097-0215 |
DOI | 10.1002/ijc.32089 |
Cover
Summary: | To evaluate the impact of faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening on stage distribution at diagnosis, and to estimate relative incidence rates by stage in screened at first and subsequent rounds vs. unscreened. We included all incident cases occurring in 2000–2008 in 50‐ to 71‐year‐olds residing in areas with an FIT‐screening programme. Multinomial logistic models were computed to estimate the relative risk ratio (RRR) of stages I and IV, compared to stage II + III, adjusting for age, sex, geographical area, and incidence year. Proportions were then used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRR) by stage for screened subjects at the first and at subsequent rounds vs. unscreened subjects, applying the expected changes in overall incidence during screening phases. 11,663 cancers were included: 5965 in not‐invited and 5,698 in invited subjects, 3,425 of whom attendees. Compared to not‐invited, invited subjects had RRR 2.04 (95% CI: 1.84; 2.46) of stage I and RRR 0.77 (95% CI: 0.69; 0.87) of stage IV. Differences were stronger comparing attendees vs. nonattendees. Interval cancers were more frequently stage I compared to non‐invited (RRR 1.54; 95% CI: 1.15; 2.04), but there was no difference for stage IV. IRRs in screened at first round vs. unscreened were 4.6 (95% CI: 4.2; 5.1), 1.4 (95% CI: 1.3; 1.5) and 0.7 (95% CI: 0.6; 0.9) for stages I, II + III and IV, respectively; in the following rounds the IRRs of screened vs. unscreened were 1.4 (95% CI: 1.2; 1.6), 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7; 0.9) and 0.3 (95% CI: 0.1; 0.4) for stages I, II + III and IV, respectively. FIT screening reduces the incidence of metastatic cancers by about 70% after the first round.
What's new?
Screening programs are intended to reduce mortality by early diagnosis. In this study, the authors evaluated the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer. They calculated the effect of FIT screening on stage at diagnosis, and estimated the relative incidence rates by stage. Individuals who attended screening had far higher incidence of stage I cancer, and lower incidence of stage IV, than those not screened. Metastatic cancer incidence, they found, decreased by about 70% at the first round of screening. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | † Colorectal Cancer Screening IMPATTO Working Group Toscana: Grazia Grazzini, Paola Mantellini, Adele Caldarella, Teresa Intrieri, (Osservatorio Nazionale Screening; Istituto per lo studio e la prevenzione oncologica ISPO, Firenze); Emanuela Anghinoni (Gruppo italiano screening colorettale (GISCoR); Servizio medicina preventiva nelle comunita`, ASL di Mantova); Carlo Senore (Centro per la Prevenzione Oncologica (CPO) Piemonte, Torino); Siracusa: Francesco Tisano, Antonio Colanino Ziino (Registro Tumori, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Siracusa), Sabina Malignaggi, Guido Passanisi (Centro Gestionale Screening Oncologici, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Siracusa); Veneto: Massimo Rugge (Department of Medicine DIMED Pathology and Cytopathology Unit, University of Padova, Padova; Registro Tumori del Veneto, Azienda Zero, Padova), Anna Turrin (Screening e valutazione di impatto sanitario, Azienda Zero, Padova); Trentino: Silvano Piffer, Maria Gentilini(Registro Tumori di Trento, Servizio Epidemiologia Clinica e Valutativa, APSS, Trento), Roberto Rizzello, Riccardo Pertile (Centro Screening APSS, Trento); Sassari: Flavio Sensi, Rosaria Cesaraccio (Struttura Complessa Pianificazione Strategica, Organizzazione, Governance, ASL n. 1 – Sassari); Firenze: Adele Caldarella, Teresa Interieri (Istituto per lo studio e la prevenzione oncologica ISPO – Registro Tumori Toscano, Firenze), Grazia Grazzini, Paola Mantellini (Istituto per lo studio e la prevenzione oncologica ISPO – Prevenzione secondaria e screening, Firenze); Ferrara: Stefano Ferretti (Registro tumori AVEC, Azienda USL di Ferrara, Universita` di Ferrara), Aldo De Togni, Caterina Palmonari (Programmi di screening Azienda USL di Ferrara); Bologna: Natalina Collina, Chiara Petrucci (Unita` Operativa Epidemiologia Promozione della Salute e Comunicazione del Rischio‐ AUSL di Bologna); Sondrio: Anna Clara Fanetti (Osservatorio Epidemiologico – Registro Tumori della Provincia di Sondrio, ATS della Montagna, Sondrio), Lorella Cecconami (Direzione sanitaria, ATS della Montagna, Sondrio); Napoli: Mario Fusco, Maria Francesca Vitale (Registro Tumori Asl Napoli 3 Sud); Catania‐Messina: Marine Castaing, Antonella Ippolito, Massimo Varvarà, Paola Pesce (Registro Tumori Integrato di CT‐ME‐SR‐EN, Azienda Ospedaliero‐Universitaria Policlinico Vittorio Emanuele, Catania); Genova: Rosa Filiberti (IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria San Martino Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro di Genova, Claudia Casella, Antonella Puppo (Registro Tumori Ligure, Epidemiologia Clinica, IRCCS AOU San Martino – IST, Genova); Piacenza: Elisabetta Borciani, Pietro Seghini (Registro Tumori di Piacenza); Umbria: Fabrizio Stracci (Registro Tumori Umbro, Perugia); Morena Malaspina (Servizio di screening ASL Umbria 1, Perugia); Friuli Venezia Giulia: Diego Serraino (SOC Epidemiologia e Biostatistica, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano, IRCCS, Aviano (PN)); Romagna: Fabio Falcini, Orietta Giuliani (Registro Tumori della Romagna, Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST) IRCCS, Meldola (FC)); Latina: Fabio Pannozzo, Simonetta Curatella (Registro Tumori di Popolazione della Provincia di Latina, ASL Latina), Francesca Calabretta, Paola Bellardini (Centro Screening, ASL di Latina); Modena: Giuliano Carrozzi (Registro Tumori di Modena); Milano: Luigi Bisanti, Antonio Giampiero Russo sul registro (Registro Tumori di Milano), Anna Rita Silvestri, Enrica Tidone sullo screening (UOC Screening, ATS della Città Metropolitana di Milano; Biella: Adriano Giacomin Deceased 23 March 2017 (Registro Tumori del Piemonte, Provincia di Biella), Alberto Azzoni (S.S. Gastroenterologia, ASL Biella); Palermo: WalterMazzucco (RTPP – Dipartimento Scienze per la Promozione della salute e materno infantile “G. D'Alessandro” Universita` di Palermo), Rosanna Cusimano (RTPP – UOC Sanitá Pubblica Epidemiologia e Medicina Preventiva Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Palermo); Reggio Emilia: Cinzia Campari, Stefania Caroli (Screening Oncologici Ausl‐IRCCS di Reggio Emilia); Parma: Maria Michiara, Paolo Sgargi (Registro Tumori di Parma) ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 0020-7136 1097-0215 1097-0215 |
DOI: | 10.1002/ijc.32089 |