Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2012 Jul 24;107(3):417-21.
doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.305. Epub 2012 Jul 10.

Comparison of screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme

M D Gill  1 , M G Bramble, C J Rees, T J W Lee, D M Bradburn, S J Mills
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme

M D Gill et al. Br J Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) offers biennial faecal occult blood testing (FOBt) followed by colonoscopy after positive results. Colorectal cancers (CRCs) registered with the Northern Colorectal Cancer Audit Group database were cross-referenced with the BCSP database to analyse their screening history.

Methods: The CRCs in the screening population between April 2007 and March 2010 were identified and classified into four groups: control (diagnosed before first screening invite), screen-detected, interval (diagnosed between screening rounds after a negative FOBt), and non-uptake (declined screening). Patient demographics, tumour characteristics and survival were compared between groups.

Results: In all, 511 out of 1336 (38.2%) CRCs were controls; 825 (61.8%) were in individuals invited for screening of which 322 (39.0%) were screen detected, 311 (37.7%) were in the non-uptake group, and 192 (23.3%) were interval cancers. Compared with the control and interval cancer group, the screen-detected group had a higher proportion of men (P=0.002, P=0.003 respectively), left colon tumours (P=0.007, P=0.003), and superior survival (both P<0.001). There was no difference in demographics, tumour location/stage, or survival between control and interval groups.

Conclusion: The FOBt is better at detecting cancers in the left colon and in men. The significant numbers of interval cancers weren't found to have an improved outcome compared with the non-screened population.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Dr Colin Rees is a co-author on a manuscript covering a similar topic to this paper, from a different unit, as yet unpublished. All the remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Survival curves, all cause mortality.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Arain MA, Sawhney M, Sheikh S, Anway R, Thyagarajan B, Bond JH, Shaukat A (2010) CIMP Status of interval colon cancers: another piece to the puzzle. Am J of Gastroenterol 105(5): 1189–1195 - PubMed
    1. Cancer Research UK (2010) Bowel (colorectal) cancer - UK incidence statistics. Available from: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/bowel/incidence/#sour...
    1. Chlebowski RT, Wactawski-Wende J, Ritenbaugh C, Hubbell FA, Ascensao J, Rodabough RJ, Rosenberg CA, Taylor VM, Harris R, Chen C, Adams-Campbell LL, White E (2004) Estrogen plus progestin and colorectal cancer in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med 350(10): 991–1004 - PubMed
    1. Dray X, Camus M, Coelho J, Ozenne V, Pocard M, Marteau P (2011) Treatment of gastrointestinal angiodysplasia and unmet needs. Dig Liver Dis 43(7): 515–522 - PubMed
    1. Faivre J, Dancourt V, Lejeune C, Tazi MA, Lamour J, Gerard D, Dassonville F, Bonithon-Kopp C (2004) Reduction in colorectal cancer mortality by fecal occult blood screening in a French controlled study. Gastroenterology 126(7): 1674–1680 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources