Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

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

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.

SUBMITTER: Gill MD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3405230 | biostudies-other | 2012 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Shared Molecules

Only show the datasets with similarity scores above: 0.5

Threshold

0.5

Similar Datasets

Clinicopathological and molecular differences between stage IV screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers in the Flemish screening program.

Project description:IntroductionInterval cancer (IC) is an important quality indicator in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Previously, we found that fecal immunochemical test (FIT) ICs are more common in women, older age, right-sided tumors, and advanced stage. Here, we extended our existing stage IV patient cohort with clinicopathological and molecular characteristics, to identify factors associated with FIT-IC.MethodsLogistic regression models were fit to identify variables associated with the odds of having a stage IV FIT-IC. Multivariate models were corrected for gender, age, and location.ResultsA total of 292 screen-detected (SD) CRCs and 215 FIT-IC CRCs were included. FIT-IC CRC had 5 fold higher odds to be a neuroendocrine (NET) tumor and 2.5 fold higher odds to have lymphovascular invasion. Interestingly, some variables lost significance upon accounting for location. Thus, tumor location is a critical covariate that should always be included when evaluating factors related to FIT-IC.ConclusionsWe identified NETs and lymphovascular invasion as factors associated with increased odds of having a stage IV FIT-IC. Moreover, we highlight the importance of tumor location as a covariate in evaluating FIT-IC related factors. More research across all stages is needed to clarify how these insights might help to optimize the Flemish CRC screening program.

| S-EPMC11402608 | biostudies-literature

Screen-detected colorectal cancers are associated with an improved outcome compared with stage-matched interval cancers.

Project description:Colorectal cancers (CRCs) detected through the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) have been shown to have a more favourable outcome compared to non-screen-detected cancers. The aim was to identify whether this was solely due to the earlier stage shift of these cancers, or whether other factors were involved.A combination of a regional CRC registry (Northern Colorectal Cancer Audit Group) and the BCSP database were used to identify screen-detected and interval cancers (diagnosed after a negative faecal occult blood test, before the next screening round), diagnosed between April 2007 and March 2010, within the North East of England. For each Dukes' stage, patient demographics, tumour characteristics, and survival rates were compared between these two groups.Overall, 322 screen-detected cancers were compared against 192 interval cancers. Screen-detected Dukes' C and D CRCs had a superior survival rate compared with interval cancers (P=0.014 and P=0.04, respectively). Cox proportional hazards regression showed that Dukes' stage, tumour location, and diagnostic group (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29-0.69, P<0.001 for screen-detected CRCs) were all found to have a significant impact on the survival of patients.The improved survival of screen-detected over interval cancers for stages C and D suggest that there may be a biological difference in the cancers in each group. Although lead-time bias may have a role, this may be related to a tumour's propensity to bleed and therefore may reflect detection through current screening tests.

| S-EPMC4260027 | biostudies-other

Long-term trends in incidence, characteristics and prognosis of screen-detected and interval cancers in women participating in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme.

Project description:BackgroundNo studies are available in which changes over time in characteristics and prognosis of patients with interval breast cancers (ICs) and screen-detected breast cancers (SDCs) have been compared. The aim was to study these trends between 1995 and 2018.MethodsAll women with invasive SDCs (N = 4290) and ICs (N = 1352), diagnosed in a southern mammography screening region in the Netherlands, were included and followed until date of death or 31 December 2022.ResultsThe 5-year overall survival rate of women with SDCs increased from 91.4% for those diagnosed in 1995-1999 to 95.0% for those diagnosed in 2013-2018 (P < 0.001), and from 74.8 to 91.6% (P < 0.001) in the same periods for those with ICs. A similar trend was observed for the 10-year survival rates. After adjustment for changes in tumour characteristics, the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival was 0.47 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38-0.59) for women with SDCs diagnosed in the period 2013-2018, compared to the women diagnosed in the period 1995-1999. For the women with ICs this HR was 0.27 (95% CI: 0.19-0.40).ConclusionThe prognosis of women with ICs has improved rapidly since 1995 and is now almost similar to that of women with SDCs.

| S-EPMC11059155 | biostudies-literature

Participants' experiences of the management of screen-detected complex polyps within a structured bowel cancer screening programme.

Project description:BackgroundThe Bowel Screening Wales complex polyp removal service was introduced to address variations in surgery rates for screen-detected complex benign colorectal polyps, to improve the quality of the screening service and to make management of these polyps more equitable across Wales. Little is known about patient experiences and the potential impact on quality of life when undergoing complex polyp removal. This study is part of a wider research programme evaluating the decision-making, pathways and outcomes from complex polyp removal.ObjectiveThis study aimed to understand experiences of having a complex polyp removed and how this may influence quality of life.DesignSemi-structured telephone interviews were conducted, and a thematic approach was used for data analysis.Setting and participantsAll participants had a complex polyp removed after a positive stool test and review by Bowel Screening Wales' Network Multi-Disciplinary Team.ResultsTwenty-one participants were interviewed. Most participants had their complex polyps removed endoscopically and reported no or minor problems or negative outcomes following their procedure. For a small minority, worse problems (e.g., pain, bowel dysfunction) and negative outcomes (e.g., cancer) followed their procedures. Most participants felt supported and reassured throughout their procedures. Any physical and emotional changes to quality of life were mainly linked to procedure outcomes.DiscussionExperiences of complex polyp removal were generally positive, with minimal changes in quality of life.ConclusionsWhile most people had a positive experience of having a complex polyp removed, support initiatives, such as counselling or signposting to coping strategies, may be helpful to reduce any potential negative effects of procedures on quality of life.Patient or public contributionFour patient and public involvement partners provided feedback on participant materials.

| S-EPMC9615050 | biostudies-literature

Digital vs screen-film mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: performance indicators and tumour characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers.

Project description:Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has replaced screen-film mammography (SFM) in most breast cancer screening programs due to technological advantages such as possibilities to adjust contrast, better image quality and transfer capabilities. This study describes the performance indicators during the transition from SFM to FFDM and the characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers.Data of the Dutch breast cancer screening program, region North from 2004 to 2010 were linked to The Netherlands Cancer Registry (N=902 868). Performance indicators and tumour characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers were compared between FFDM and SFM.After initial screens, recall rates were 2.1% (SFM) and 3.0% (FFDM; P<0.001). The positive predictive values (PPV) were 25.6% (SFM) and 19.9% (FFDM; P=0.002). Detection rates were similar, as were all performance indicators after subsequent screens. Similar percentages of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were found for SFM and FFDM. Invasive cancers diagnosed after subsequent screens with FFDM were more often of high-grade (P=0.024) and ductal type (P=0.030). The incidence rates of interval cancers were similar for SFM and FFDM after initial (2.69/1000 vs 2.51/1000; P=0.787) and subsequent screens (2.30 vs 2.41; P=0.652), with similar tumour characteristics.FFDM resulted in similar rates of screen-detected and interval cancers, indicating that FFDM performs as well as SFM in a breast cancer screening program. No signs of an increase in low-grade DCIS (which might connote possible overdiagnosis) were seen. Nonetheless, after initial screening, which accounts for 12% of all screens, FFDM resulted in higher recall rate and lower PPV that requires attention.

| S-EPMC4997549 | biostudies-other

Risk Models to Predict Screen-Detected and Interval Breast Cancers in Population Mammography Screening Participants.

Project description:AimThe aim of this study was to determine whether women at risk of having screen-detected (including detected at advanced stage) and interval breast cancer can be accurately identified using conventional risk factors collected by national screening programs.MethodsAll 1,026,137 mammography screening examinations for 323,082 women attending the BreastScreen Western Australia program (part of Australia's national biennial screening program) in July 2007-June 2017 contributed to models for predicting screen-detected breast cancers, screen-detected advanced cancers (≥pT2), and interval cancers.ResultsIn total, 7024 screen-detected (1551 in situ, 5472 invasive, of which 1329 were ≥pT2) and 1866 interval cancers (76 in situ, 1790 invasive) were diagnosed. In a multivariable model for screen-detected cancers, the ORs for the oldest age groups were 2.56 (CI 2.32-2.82) for 60-69 years and 3.60 (CI 3.23-4.00) for ≥70 years, and the OR for symptoms was 7.44 (CI 6.76-8.20). These associations were stronger for screen-detected advanced cancers. First-degree family history and a personal history of breast cancer were also associated with risk. In a multivariable model for interval cancers, the HR for dense breasts was 2.36 (CI 2.14-2.61) and the HR for symptoms was 3.27 (CI 2.53-4.24); family history and recent hormone replacement therapy use were also associated with risk. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.643 (CI 0.636-0.650) for screen-detected cancers, 0.651 (CI 0.638-0.664) for screen-detected advanced cancers, and 0.706 (CI 0.690-0.722) for interval cancers.ConclusionOlder age and symptoms were the strongest predictors of overall and advanced screen-detected breast cancers. Dense breasts and symptoms were the strongest predictors of interval cancers. All models had moderate discrimination, approximating that for established models.

| S-EPMC11898880 | biostudies-literature

Oncologic outcomes of screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 colorectal cancers.

Project description:BackgroundThe incidence of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) has increased with the implementation of CRC screening programs. It is unknown whether the outcomes and risk models for T1 CRC based on non-screen-detected patients can be extrapolated to screen-detected T1 CRC. This study aimed to compare the stage distribution and oncologic outcomes of T1 CRC patients within and outside the screening program.MethodsData from T1 CRC patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 were collected from 12 hospitals in the Netherlands. The presence of lymph node metastasis (LNM) at diagnosis was compared between screen-detected and non-screen-detected patients using multivariable logistic regression. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to analyze differences in the time to recurrence (TTR), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival. Additionally, the performance of conventional risk factors for LNM was evaluated across the groups.Results1803 patients were included (1114 [62%] screen-detected), with median follow-up of 51 months (interquartile range 30). The proportion of LNM did not significantly differ between screen- and non-screen-detected patients (12.6% vs. 8.9%; odds ratio 1.41; 95%CI 0.89-2.23); a prediction model for LNM performed equally in both groups. The 3- and 5-year TTR, MFS, and CSS were similar for patients within and outside the screening program. However, overall survival was significantly longer in screen-detected T1 CRC patients (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51; 95%CI 0.38-0.68).ConclusionsScreen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 CRCs have similar stage distributions and oncologic outcomes and can therefore be treated equally. However, screen-detected T1 CRC patients exhibit a lower rate of non-CRC-related mortality, resulting in longer overall survival.

| S-EPMC11583000 | biostudies-literature

Future Prospects of Colorectal Cancer Screening: Characterizing Interval Cancers.

Project description:Tumors that are not detected by screening tests are known as interval cancers and are diagnosed clinically after a negative result in the screening episode but before the next screening invitation. Clinical characteristics associated with interval colorectal cancers have been studied, but few molecular data are available that describe interval colorectal cancers. A better understanding of the clinical and biological characteristics associated with interval colorectal cancer may provide new insights into how to prevent this disease more effectively. This review aimed to summarize the current literature concerning interval colorectal cancer and its epidemiological, clinical, and molecular features.

| S-EPMC8001713 | biostudies-literature

Comparison of Mortality Among Participants of Women's Health Initiative Trials With Screening-Detected Breast Cancers vs Interval Breast Cancers.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC7327543 | biostudies-literature

Left-right breast asymmetry and risk of screen-detected and interval cancers in a large population-based screening population.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the associations between automated volumetric estimates of mammographic asymmetry and breast cancers detected at the same ("contemporaneous") screen, at subsequent screens, or in between (interval cancers).MethodsAutomated measurements from mammographic images (N = 79,731) were used to estimate absolute asymmetry in breast volume (BV) and dense volume (DV) in a large ethnically diverse population of attendees of a UK breast screening programme. Logistic regression models were fitted to assess asymmetry associations with the odds of a breast cancer detected at contemporaneous screen (767 cases), adjusted for relevant confounders.Nested case-control investigations were designed to examine associations between asymmetry and the odds of: (a) interval cancer (numbers of cases/age-matched controls: 153/646) and (b) subsequent screen-detected cancer (345/1438), via conditional logistic regression.ResultsDV, but not BV, asymmetry was positively associated with the odds of contemporaneous breast cancer (P-for-linear-trend (Pt) = 0.018). This association was stronger for first (prevalent) screens (Pt = 0.012). Both DV and BV asymmetry were positively associated with the odds of an interval cancer diagnosis (Pt = 0.060 and 0.030, respectively). Neither BV nor DV asymmetry were associated with the odds of having a subsequent screen-detected cancer.ConclusionsIncreased DV asymmetry was associated with the risk of a breast cancer diagnosis at a contemporaneous screen or as an interval cancer. BV asymmetry was positively associated with the risk of an interval cancer diagnosis.Advances in knowledgeThe findings suggest that DV and BV asymmetry may provide additional signals for detecting contemporaneous cancers and assessing the likelihood of interval cancers in population-based screening programmes.

| S-EPMC7446006 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data