Adherence to follow-up and resource use after abnormal FIT-screening: Evaluation of the Danish colorectal cancer screening program
- PMID: 38707595
- PMCID: PMC11068436
- DOI: 10.1055/a-2297-9622
Adherence to follow-up and resource use after abnormal FIT-screening: Evaluation of the Danish colorectal cancer screening program
Abstract
Background and study aims The effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening programs depends on adherence to surveillance protocols for screening-positive individuals. We evaluated adherence in the Danish population-based screening program and estimated the volume of diagnostic resources required to achieve this adherence. Patients and methods In this register- and population-based study, we included individuals with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening from 2014 to 2017 and followed them until mid-2022. All endoscopic, imaging, and surgical procedures performed at public and private hospitals were identified. Adherence to national protocols was reported in terms of proportions and timeliness. Use of diagnostic and surveillance procedures was estimated during a 4-year post-screening period. Results Among 82,221 individuals with a positive FIT test, 84% had a baseline colonoscopy within 1 month. After removal of intermediate or high-risk adenomas, 12% and 6%, respectively, did not have any follow-up. Only ~50% had timely surveillance. Approximately 10% to 20%, depending on their referral diagnosis, did not have a second surveillance colonoscopy. In addition, 12% with a negative colonoscopy had a second colonoscopy within 4 years. Conclusions High adherence to baseline colonoscopy after positive FIT-screening is followed by lower adherence throughout the adenoma surveillance program. Better adherence to the guidelines could potentially improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the screening program.
Keywords: CRC screening; Colorectal cancer; Endoscopy Lower GI Tract; Polyps / adenomas / ....
The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of Interest Matejka Rebolj declares the following conflict of interest: The former Public Health England (now: NHS England and Department of Health/Office for Health Improvement and Disparities) provided financing for the epidemiological evaluation of various cervical screening studies; current and former member of various expert groups providing advice to the English Cervical Screening Programme; attended meetings with HPV test manufacturers; fees for attendance at advisory board and other meetings organised by Hologic, shared with employer, including travel cost reimbursement if applicable. The remaining authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Fecal occult blood test for colorectal cancer screening: an evidence-based analysis.Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2009;9(10):1-40. Epub 2009 Sep 1. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2009. PMID: 23074514 Free PMC article.
-
Colonoscopy surveillance following adenoma removal to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.Health Technol Assess. 2022 May;26(26):1-156. doi: 10.3310/OLUE3796. Health Technol Assess. 2022. PMID: 35635015 Free PMC article.
-
Subsequent participation in organized FIT based screening following screen-derived colonoscopy - A Danish nationwide cohort study.Prev Med Rep. 2023 Feb 3;32:102125. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102125. eCollection 2023 Apr. Prev Med Rep. 2023. PMID: 36816764 Free PMC article.
-
Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020.Eur Radiol. 2021 May;31(5):2967-2982. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07413-4. Eur Radiol. 2021. PMID: 33104846 Review.
-
Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society.Gastroenterology. 2006 May;130(6):1872-85. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2006.03.012. Gastroenterology. 2006. PMID: 16697750 Review.
Cited by
-
Fecal Immunochemical Testing for Colorectal Cancer Prevention in Two Public Hospitals.J Gastrointest Cancer. 2025 Feb 22;56(1):69. doi: 10.1007/s12029-025-01187-y. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2025. PMID: 39985680 Free PMC article.
-
Costs of colorectal cancer screening in Sweden: an observational, longitudinal cost description.BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2024 Dec 18;11(1):e001574. doi: 10.1136/bmjgast-2024-001574. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2024. PMID: 39694626 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Larsen MB, Njor S, Ingeholm P et al.Effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in detecting earlier-stage disease-a nationwide cohort study in Denmark. Gastroenterology. 2018;155:99–106. - PubMed
-
- Njor SH, Larsen MB, Søborg B et al.Colorectal cancer mortality after randomized implementation of FIT-based screening – a nationwide cohort study. J Med Screening. 2022;29:241–248. - PubMed
-
- Ferlay J EM, Lam F, Colombet M et al. Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Today. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2020. https://gco.iarc.fr/today. https://gco.iarc.fr/today.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources