Gut

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Niv, Y
Right arrow Articles by Tamir, A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Niv, Y
Right arrow Articles by Tamir, A
Gut 2002;50:33-37
© 2002 by Gut


CANCER

Protective effect of faecal occult blood test screening for colorectal cancer: worse prognosis for screening refusers

Y Niv1, M Lev-El1, G Fraser1, G Abuksis1, A Tamir2

1 Department of Gastroenterology, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Campus, Tel-Aviv University, Israel
2 Department of Epidemiology, Hacarmel Medical Center, Technion, Israel

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Professor Y Niv, Department of Gastroenterology, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Campus, Tel-Aviv University, Israel;

Background and aims: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) by faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) decreases CRC mortality by 15–33%. Compliance remains an obstacle to maximising the benefit of FOBT screening. We tested the hypothesis that individuals offered FOBT screening but refused would have an increased incidence and worse prognosis for CRC compared with those tested and with controls.

Methods: Annual screening was offered to 3548 average risk individuals, >=40 years of age, from a highly stable population. A total of 2538 agreed to testing (group 1) and 1010 (28%) refused (group 2). Another 1376 individuals were never offered the test and served as controls (group 3). The groups were followed for 11 years: a three year screening period (1985–1987) and an eight year follow up period at the end of the screening programme (1988–1995). Incidence, stage, and mortality were compared. Characterisation of refusers was completed in 188 and 130 subjects of groups 1 and 2, respectively.

Results: In the screening phase, mortality from CRC was significantly lower in group 1 than in groups 2 and 3. The cumulative incidence of CRC in the eight year follow up period was 21 (0.88%), 23 (2.28%), and 13 (0.94%) in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. This shows a reduction of 61.4% in group 1 compared with group 2 (relative risk 0.28 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19–0.32)) (p<0.001) and 6.4% compared with group 3 (relative risk 0.93 (95% CI 0.93–1.00)) (NS). During follow up, group 1 subjects also demonstrated a decrease in advanced Dukes' stage and mortality rate by 80% and 64%, and 79% and 62%, compared with groups 2 and 3, respectively. Refusers were more likely to be male, of Asian-African descent, and more likely to smoke, consume more coffee, and less tea or dairy foods.

Conclusions: When accepted, FOBT may protect against CRC for prolonged periods. Individuals who refuse FOBT have a significantly higher CRC incidence and mortality rates than those who accept testing.


Keywords: colorectal cancer; polyp; adenoma; screen; faecal occult blood testing

Abbreviations: CRC, colorectal cancer; FOBT, faecal occult blood testing




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
BMJHome page
A. B Ballinger and C. Anggiansah
Colorectal cancer
BMJ, October 6, 2007; 335(7622): 715 - 718.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
D. A. Lieberman, S. Prindiville, D. G. Weiss, and W. Willett
Risk Factors for Advanced Colonic Neoplasia and Hyperplastic Polyps in Asymptomatic Individuals
JAMA, December 10, 2003; 290(22): 2959 - 2967.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2002 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & British Society of Gastroenterology