4.3 Article

The Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention (NORCCAP) screening study

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 6, Pages 635-642

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.1080/00365520310003002

Keywords

colonic neoplasms; faecal occult blood test; mass screening; sigmoidoscopy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Randomized controlled trials of sufficient power testing the long-term effect of screening for colorectal neoplasia only exist for faecal occult blood testing (FOBT). There is indirect evidence that flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) may have a greater yield. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic yield of screening with FS or a combination of FS and FOBT in an average-risk population in an urban and combined urban and rural population in Norway. Methods: 20,780 men and women (1:1), aged 50-64 years, were invited for once-only screening (FS only or a combination of FS and FOBT (1:1)) by randomization from the population registry. A positive FS was defined as a finding of any neoplasia or any polyp greater than or equal to10 mm. A positive FS or FOBT qualified for colonoscopy. Results: Overall attendance was 65%. Forty-one (0.3%) cases of CRC were detected. Any adenoma was found in 2208 (17%) participants and 545 (4.2%) had high-risk adenomas. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between the FS and the FS and FOBT group regarding CRC or high-risk adenoma. Work-up load comprised 2821 colonoscopies in 2524 (20%) screenees and 10% of screenees were recommended later colonoscopy surveillance. There were no severe complications at FS, but six perforations after therapeutic colonoscopy (1:336). Conclusions: The present study bodes well for future management of a national screening programme, provided that follow-up results reflect adequate proof of a net benefit. It is highly questionable whether the addition of once-only FOBT to FS will contribute to this effect.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available