4.4 Article

Performance of a Colorectal Cancer Screening Protocol in an Economically and Medically Underserved Population

Journal

CANCER PREVENTION RESEARCH
Volume 4, Issue 10, Pages 1572-1579

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-10-0377

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health and Ministry of Finance, China
  2. board of health in Jiashan County

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The performance of combining fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) and a high-risk factor questionnaire (HRFQ) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in economically and medically underserved populations is uncertain. This study investigated the performance of a CRC screening protocol of combining FITs and an HRFQ as primary screening methods in a rural Chinese population. A CRC mass screening was conducted using FITs and an HRFQ as the first and colonoscopy as the second stage of screening in Jiashan, 20072009. The target population was 31,963 residents in three communities. The compliance was 84.7% for HRFQ, 76.4% for FITs, and 78.7% for colonoscopy. The detected rates of cancer, adenoma, nonadenomatous polyps, and advanced neoplasm were 2.7%, 14.8%, 5.9%, and 8.9% by FITs, which were higher than those by HRFQ (0.5%, 9.2%, 4.8%, and 3.8%, respectively). There was no significant difference in detected rate for nonadenomatous polyps between FITs and HRFQ. A total of 41.2% adenomas, 53.2% nonadenomatous polyps, and 29.8% advanced neoplasms were detected by HRFQ but missed by FITs. Positive predictive value of the screening protocol of combining FITs and HRFQ for advanced neoplasm was 5.7%, which was higher than FITs alone. Men had a higher prevalence of advanced neoplasm than women. Results indicate that combining FITs and HRFQ as primary screening methods is an efficient CRC screening strategy in economically and medically underserved populations. Cancer Prev Res; 4(10); 1572-9. (C) 2011 AACR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available