BMJ 1998;317:182-185 ( 18 July )

General Practice

Population based randomised study of uptake and yield of screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy compared with screening by faecal occult blood testing

Julia E C W Verne, consultant in public health medicine, a Roger Aubrey, general practitioner, b Sharon B Love, medical statistician, c Ian C Talbot, consultant histopathologist, d John M A Northover, honorary director. a

a ICRF Colorectal Cancer Unit, St Mark's Hospital, Northwick Park, Middlesex HA1 3UJ, b Bridge Cottage Surgery, Welwyn, Hertfordshire AL6 9EF, c ICRF Medical Statistics Group, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Institute of Health Sciences, Oxford OX3 7LF, d Department of Histopathology, St Mark's Hospital

Correspondence to: Dr J E C W Verne, North Thames Regional Office, London W2 3QR

    Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and methods
Results
Discussion
References

Objectives: To compare the feasibility of mass screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy with screening by faecal occult blood testing (Haemoccult) and both tests combined.
Design: Patients were randomised to screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy, faecal blood testing, or both tests. The flexible sigmoidoscopy examinations were performed by a general practitioner.
Setting: General practice.
Subjects: 3744 patients aged 50-75 years.
Main outcome measures: Uptake, positive results, detection of neoplasia, complications, and recall for diagnostic colonoscopy.
Results: Uptake was significantly higher in the flexible sigmoidoscopy group (46.6%) than in the faecal blood test group (31.6%; P<0.001) or than in the group having both tests (30.1%; P<0.001). Telephone reminders increased uptake of sigmoidoscopy to 61.8%. In total, 1116 sigmoidoscopy examinations were performed without major complication. Polyps were found in 19.3% (95% confidence interval 17.0% to 21.6%) but only 6.8% (5.3% to 8.3%) had adenomas and 2.4% (1.5% to 3.3%) "high risk" adenomas. Cancer was detected in four subjects. The faecal blood test yielded positive results in 0.8% (0.2% to 1.4%) but missed at least one cancer and 30 cases of adenoma which were found by sigmoidoscopy in the combined group. Use of histological criteria---shown elsewhere to correlate with future risk of colorectal cancer---to select "positive" patients could reduce recall for diagnostic colonoscopy from about 20% to less than 5%.
Conclusions: Some of the predicted obstacles to screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy are surmountable. Clear evidence relating to efficacy will be obtained only from a randomised controlled trial.

Key messages

  • Colorectal cancer is the second highest cause of death from cancer in England

  • Detection of premalignant adenomas by screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy offers the chance of reducing incidence as well as mortality

  • High uptake of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening is achievable provided accurate call up lists are used

  • Flexible sigmoidoscopy detects more adenomas and cancer than screening with a faecal occult blood test

  • Haphazard introduction of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening should be discouraged until there is more substantive evidence of its effectiveness


    Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and methods
Results
Discussion
References

Colorectal cancer is the second highest cause of death from cancer in England and Wales.1 Recent evidence suggests that removal of neoplastic lesions at sigmoidoscopy can reduce the incidence of and mortality from distal colorectal cancer.2-6 This has prompted calls for mass screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy. These data, from cohort and case-control studies, however, may be subject to biases, 7 8 giving an overoptimistic impression of efficacy. Given the negative aspects of screening programmes,9 policy makers have an obligation to ensure that the benefits (primarily lives saved) outweigh the costs before programmes are introduced.7 This could be most objectively shown through a randomised controlled trial.7 This feasibility study was conducted to determine key features which could influence the design of such a trial.

    Subjects and methods
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and methods
Results
Discussion
References

The study was approved by East Hertfordshire ethics committee.

Study population
The study was conducted in one general practice. The catchment area had a higher proportion of patients from social classes I and II (56%) than in England and Wales as a whole (23.3%) and a lower proportion from ethnic minority groups.10 A list of practice patients from the family health services authority suggested that 3933 (29%) of the practice population were in the study age range (50-75 years). The general practitioner (RA) identified and removed from the list 189 (4.8%) patients who had died or moved or were ineligible for the study because of a previous diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia, investigation of the colon and rectum within the previous 2 years, and physical or mental disease contraindicating screening.

The remaining 3744 (50% men) nominally asymptomatic subjects were randomised. Throughout the study inaccuracies on the list and postal returns were recorded.

Study design
Households were randomised by using the random number generator in Minitab and invited, by post, to undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy, faecal occult blood testing (Haemoccult), or faecal occult blood testing plus flexible sigmoidoscopy. Reminders were not routinely sent.

Sample size
It was found that inclusion of all eligible subjects would give more than 90% power to estimate the true prevalence rate of adenoma within 2%11 and to detect a 10% difference in compliance between groups (where one was 50%) at the 5% significance level.12

Telephone survey of non-responders to flexible sigmoidoscopy
As little was known about reasons for non-uptake of flexible sigmoidoscopy compared with faecal occult blood testing,13 a telephone survey of a random sample of 184 non-responders in the flexible sigmoidoscopy group was conducted to ascertain eligibility and, when appropriate, to make a second offer of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening.

Flexible sigmoidoscopy
An appointment (date and time), a sachet of laxative (sodium picosulphate-magnesium citrate (Picolax; Nordic)), and an explanatory booklet were sent 2 weeks in advance. Appointments could be changed or cancelled by telephone. Subjects were asked to give written consent to the examination.

All examinations were performed by the general practitioner (RA). To minimise recall for colonoscopy a pragmatic approach was adopted so that when diminutive polyps (<5 mm) that seemed hyperplastic were found only in the rectum these were removed at screening for histological examination. Subjects were recalled for colonoscopy only if histological examination showed an adenoma; those with other lesions were recalled for colonoscopy or surgery as appropriate.

Faecal occult blood test
The 3 day, six sample, diet restricted faecal occult blood test (Haemoccult, Rohm Pharma) was sent with a prepaid reply envelope and instruction booklet. The test was developed without rehydration. Patients were recalled if one or more windows yielded a positive result.

Faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy
Subjects were asked to complete the faecal occult blood test before attending for flexible sigmoidoscopy. The faecal test was developed blind to the results of the flexible sigmoidoscopy examination and vice versa. Subjects were recalled for colonoscopy if either the faecal test yielded positive results or the findings at flexible sigmoidoscopy fulfilled the criteria described above.

Colonoscopy and histology
Colonoscopy was performed by the general practitioner. Subjects with adenomas were classified into high and low risk groups on the basis of lesions found at screening (high risk if at least one adenoma was >= 1 cm, villous, or tubulovillous or showed features of severe dysplasia) on histological examination.5

Analysis
Crude uptake rates were calculated as the number of responders per group and the number of invited per group.

The information collected on ineligibility (from postal returns and the telephone survey of non-responders) was used to estimate the uptake rate for flexible sigmoidoscopy which could be achieved given an accurate register of eligible subjects as the number responding to the postal or telephone invitations (number invited minus number found to be ineligible).

The implications for diagnostic colonoscopy workloads of using various histological criteria for referral were examined according to polyps seen (no histology); at least one adenoma; and only high risk adenoma(s).

The chi 2 test for contingency tables was used to compare proportions. All reported P values are two tailed.

    Results
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and methods
Results
Discussion
References

Uptake of screening tests
Crude uptake rates are shown in table 1. In the flexible sigmoidoscopy group the crude uptake rate (46.6%) was significantly higher than in the faecal occult blood test group (31.6%; P<0.001). Similarly, it was significantly higher than in the combined test group whether subjects did both tests (30.1%; P<0.001) or only one of the two tests (39.5%; P<0.001). Of the subjects in the combined test group doing only one test, 80% chose flexible sigmoidoscopy (94 v 24). The uptake of flexible sigmoidoscopy in the combined test group was 37.6%. Although this was significantly lower than the rate in the flexible sigmoidoscopy only group (46.6%; P<0.001) it was significantly higher than in the group that underwent faecal occult blood testing only (31.6%; P<0.01). Conversely, the crude rate for the faecal test in the combined test group was 32.0%, which was not significantly different from the comparable rate in the faecal test group.

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 

Table 1. Crude uptake rates of screening tests

The telephone survey of a random sample of non-responders in the flexible sigmoidoscopy group revealed that up to 16% of invitations could have been sent inappropriately. If we take account of both the number of ineligible subjects and the increased uptake after the telephone survey this gives an estimated uptake rate of 61.8% (95% confidence interval 57.3% to 66.3%) for flexible sigmoidoscopy in those eligible to be screened . 

Endoscopic findings at flexible sigmoidoscopy
In total 1116 patients (51% men) underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy screening without major complication. Polyps were found in 138 (24.2%) men and 81 (14.9%) women (P<0.001), and two men had overt malignancy. Three subjects were referred for surgical resection (a woman with a 3 cm adenoma and two men with cancer). One hundred and ten subjects with polyps were recommended to return for colonoscopy. One man refused so his polyps were removed during the screening examination. A further 90 (41% of those with polyps) subjects with diminutive rectal polyps had these removed at screening. Seventeen (7.7%) subjects with diminutive (<5 mm) polyps had no intervention (two were taking warfarin and one had acute rectal prolapse after the laxative; contraindications for the others were not elucidated).

Findings at colonoscopy
Altogether 123 subjects (78 men) underwent colonoscopy; adenomas were removed from 14 at flexible sigmoidoscopy, and 109 were recalled directly without biopsy at flexible sigmoidoscopy. Eleven (10% of those who underwent colonoscopy) were found to have adenomas proximal to the sigmoid colon, 10 of whom had only a single adenoma and one who had three.

Clinical significance of neoplasias detectable by flexible sigmoidoscopy
The data on polyps and cancer of the sigmoid colon and rectum collected at flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy, or both, were combined. A diagnosis was assigned according to the most prognostically significant lesion in the 197 (91%) subjects with cancer or polyps for whom histological data were available (table 2). Four subjects had carcinoma (three Dukes' stage A, one Dukes' stage B) of the sigmoid colon or rectum, and 76 (35% of those with distal polyps or cancer) had at least one adenoma. Although polyps were detected in one in five subjects, the prevalence rates of neoplasia detected at screening were 0.4% for cancer and 6.8% for adenomas. Of the 76 patients with adenoma, a third were classified as "high risk" (2.4% (1.5% to 3.3%) of all subjects).

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 

Table 2. Diagnoses among 197 subjects whose polyps and cancers were removed from sigmoid and rectum at either flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy

Comparison of rates of positive diagnosis
In total 854 patients underwent faecal occult blood testing alone or combined with flexible sigmoidoscopy. Seven (0.8%; 0.2% to 1.4%) had positive results and all underwent colonoscopy. One had a Dukes' stage C rectal carcinoma, one had a 2 cm adenoma, and a third had a 2 mm adenoma. A fourth subject had two diminutive adenomas, one detected at screening and the other at colonoscopy. The three remaining patients did not have neoplasia.

In the combined test group 401 subjects underwent both tests, and a comparison of the performance of the two tests was made. Only one subject in this group in whom a polyp was seen at flexible sigmoidoscopy had a positive result of the faecal blood test. In 81 subjects with negative test results polyps were found at flexible sigmoidoscopy; of these 30 had one or more adenomas (all less than 1 cm diameter) and one had a Dukes' stage A cancer (<2 cm diameter).

    Discussion
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and methods
Results
Discussion
References

Poor uptake of flexible sigmoidoscopy and the generation of excessive numbers of colonoscopies have been cited as important potential obstacles to mass flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. 14 15 The aim of this study was to evaluate whether these obstacles are surmountable.

The estimated achievable uptake rate of flexible sigmoidoscopy (on the basis of an accurate list of eligible patients and a telephone reminder to non-compliers) of just over 60% compares favourably with the 29% in subjects offered flexible sigmoidoscopy after negative results of the faecal blood screening test in the United Kingdom.16 It is, however, lower than the 81% achieved in a population based Norwegian study in which reminders and press releases were used to boost uptake.17 In an Irish study 68% of volunteers preselected for their eligibility and willingness actually attended for flexible sigmoidoscopy.18

Certain features of the practice (enthusiasm of the primary care team for screening, social class profile of patients) could be expected to encourage higher uptake rates of screening. Both higher and lower uptake rates than those observed in this study would probably be reported, however, if screening were to be offered under different circumstances. It will be important to ascertain how widely rates differ and their most important determinants.

Comments made by subjects in the combined test group revealed possible reasons for the differential uptake rates for the two tests. These included the perceived immediacy of the flexible sigmoidoscopy screening and its results, less distaste for idea of sigmoidoscopy, the additional perceived benefit of consulting the general practitioner while undergoing sigmoidoscopy, and concern that failure to attend for screening might be noted by the doctor. There is support for the latter two factors from other studies of screening. 13 19

Need for colonoscopy
A fundamental prerequisite for the introduction of screening is that there should be sufficient facilities for diagnosis and treatment of any lesions detected.20 Colonoscopy services at present cannot meet diagnostic and follow up needs in many districts.21

With data from our study it can be seen that the proportion recalled for diagnostic colonoscopy could be reduced from 20% to about 7% (5.3% to 8.3%) if polyps are biopsied at screening and only patients with adenoma are recalled. The prevalence rates for cancer and adenomas detected by screening in this study were similar to those found in other studies in asymptomatic subjects screened by 60 cm flexible sigmoidoscopy. 22 23 Recall of only those classified as at "high risk" of future colorectal cancer would result in a further halving of the numbers (2.4%; 1.5% to 3.3 %). This is similar to the proportion of subjects who would be recalled for colonoscopy as a result of a positive faecal blood test,24 but in contrast, "histological positivity" has more biological relevance and hence efficiency than "haematin positivity."

The rate of positive results of the faecal occult blood test of 0.8% (0.2% to 1.4%) in this study was at the lower end of the range reported in the literature24 and is probably due to close adherence to the dietary restrictions. This study confirms the greater sensitivity of flexible sigmoidoscopy compared with faecal occult blood testing for distal neoplasia but refutes the hypothesis that neoplasia detection by flexible sigmoidoscopy can be considerably enhanced by the addition of faecal occult blood testing.25 The observation that the test result was negative in many subjects who were found at flexible sigmoidoscopy to have adenomas or cancer was not surprising; all of the adenomas were less than 1 cm in diameter and the malignant polyp was less than 2 cm. It has been shown that faecal occult blood testing detects only a quarter of polyps greater than 1 cm.26

Conclusions
We found that given an accurate list of eligible subjects and a telephone reminder an uptake rate of over 60% is achievable even without the use of mass media campaigns. We have also shown that if the result of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening is defined as "positive" on the basis of the histological characteristics of polyps removed during the procedure rather than simply their detection, this will result in selection of subjects whose current and future risk of large and villous adenomas or cancer is considerably increased 5 27-29 and will also reduce the recall rate for colonoscopy from about 20% to under 5%.

In this study the offer of screening by both faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy had a detrimental effect on uptake and did not increase detection of neoplasia so we conclude that the synchronous offer of both tests is not worth while. Priority should now be given to completing a randomised trial and discouraging the haphazard introduction of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening without more substantive evidence of its effectiveness.

    Acknowledgments

We thank the nurses and volunteers at the screening clinic, in particular Sister G Jellis, Mrs K Pearce, Mrs R Ashwell, and Mrs R McMillan; staff of the practice, in particular Mrs S Woods; and staff of the ICRF Colorectal Unit, in particular Mr K Miller and Mrs S Epstein for their assistance with and support for the study and Miss H Crowne for designing the database. We also thank the late Lt Col Sir Martin Gilliat.

Contributors: JECWV had the original idea for the study, formulated the hypothesis, designed the protocol, planned and coordinated the study, and wrote the paper. RA enabled the study to be undertaken in the general practice in which he is a principal; undertook all the flexible sigmoidoscopies and colonoscopies; and contributed from the stage of hypothesis formulation to all aspects of the study design. He contributed suggestions to the paper. SBL provided statistical advice from the stage of formulation of the hypothesis (including initial power calculations) to the study design and performed the randomisation and statistical analyses. She contributed suggestions to the paper. ICT examined all the samples histologically and provided diagnoses; he also contributed suggestions to the paper. JMAN directed the overall programme at the unit on screening for colorectal neoplasia and will act as guarantor. In this study, he provided guidance and support throughout, particularly in the development of the original idea, hypothesis formulation, protocol design, and writing of the paper.

Funding: Smith-Kline-Beecham donated the flexible sigmoidoscopes.

Conflict of interest: None.

    References
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and methods
Results
Discussion
References

  1. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Mortality statistics: cause 1989. London: HMSO , 1991(Series DH2, No 16.)
  2. Gilbertsen VA, Nelms JM. The prevention of invasive cancer of the rectum. Cancer 1978; 41: 1137-1139[Medline].
  3. Newcomb PA, Norfleet RG, Surawicz TS, Storer BE. Sigmoidoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality. Am J Epidemiol 1989; 30: 827-832.
  4. Selby JV, Friedman GD, Quesenberry CP, Weiss NS. A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 1992; 326: 653-657[Abstract].
  5. Atkin WS, Morson BC, Cuzick J. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after excision of rectosigmoid adenomas. N Engl J Med 1992; 326: 658-662[Abstract].
  6. Muller AD, Sonnenberg A. Protection by endoscopy against death from colorectal cancer. A case control study among veterans. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 1711-1712[Abstract/Free Full Text].
  7. Morrison AS. Screening in chronic disease. In:Kelsey JL, Marmot MG, Stowley PD, Vesey MP, eds. Monographs in Epidemiology and Biostatistics. , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985:7.
  8. Moss SM. Case-control studies of screening. Int J Epidemiol 1991; 20: 1-6[Abstract/Free Full Text].
  9. Marteau T. Psychological costs of screening. BMJ 1989; 299: 527.
  10. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Key statistics for urban areas. The south east. Cities and towns 49-34. London: HMSO , 1981.
  11. Neugut AI, Pita S. Role of sigmoidoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer: a critical review. Gastroenterology 1988; 95: 492-499[Medline].
  12. Machin D, Campbell MJ. Statistical tables for the design of clinical trials. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications , 1987.
  13. Blalock S, McEvoy De Vellis B, Sandler R. Participation in fecal occult blood screening: a critical review. Prev Med 1987; 16: 9-18[Medline].
  14. Frame PM. Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. J Fam Pract 1988; 26: 614-616[Medline].
  15. Hoff G. Colorectal polyps. Clinical implications: screening and cancer prevention. Scand J Gastroenterol 1987; 22: 769-775[Medline].
  16. Robinson MHE, Berry DP, Vellacott KD, Moshakis V, Hardcastle JD. Screening for colorectal cancer [letter]. Lancet 1993; 342: 241[Medline].
  17. Hoff G, Vatn M, Gione E, Larsen S, Sauar J. Epidemiology of polyps in the rectum and sigmoid colon. Design of a population screening study. Scand J Gastroenterol 1985; 20: 351-355[Medline].
  18. Foley DP, Dunne P, O'Brien M, Crowe J, O'Callaghan TW, Lennon JR. Left sided colonoscopy as screening procedure for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic volunteers >= 45 years [abstract]. Gut 198;28:10.
  19. Box V, Nichols S, Lallemand RC, Pearson P, Vakil PA. Haemoccult compliance rates and reasons for non-compliance. Publ Health 1984; 98: 16-25.
  20. Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Geneva: World Health Organisation , 1968(WHO Public Health Paper 24.)
  21. Endoscopy Section Committee of the British Society of Gastroenterology. Future requirements for colonoscopy in Britain. Gut 1987; 28: 772-775[Abstract/Free Full Text].
  22. Ujszaszy L, Pronay G, Nagy G, Kovacs J, Libor K, Minik K. Screening for colorectal cancer in a Hungarian county. Endoscopy 1985; 17: 109-112[Medline].
  23. Weldon MJ, Grammatopoulos A, Papakonstantinou M, Karoutsos K, Newton C, Maxwell JD. The alternative method opportunistic flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer. Gut 1992; 33: S52[Free Full Text].
  24. UKCCCR. Report of the United Kingdom coordinating committee on cancer research working party on faecal occult blood. London: Medical Research Council , 1989.
  25. Rozen P, Ron E, Fireman Z, Hallak A, Grossman A, Baratz M, et al. The relative value of fecal occult blood tests and flexible sigmoidoscopy in screening for large bowel neoplasia. Cancer 1987; 60: 2553-2558[Medline].
  26. Macrae FA, St John DJB. Relationship between patterns of bleeding and haemoccult sensitivity in patients with colorectal cancer or adenomas. Gastroenterology 1982; 82: 891-898[Medline].
  27. Morson BC, Bussey HJR. Magnitude of risk for cancer in patients with colorectal adenomas. Br J Surg 1985; 72: S23-S25.
  28. Zarchy TM, Ershoff D. Do charactersitics of adenomas on flexible sigmoidoscopy predict advanced lesions on baseline colonoscopy? Gastroenterology 1994; 106: 1501-1504[Medline].
  29. Tripp MR, Morgan TR, Sampliner RE, Kogan FJ, Protell RL, Earnest DL. Synchronous neoplasms in patients with diminutive colorectal adenomas. Cancer 1987; 60: 1599-1603[Medline].

(Accepted 16 December 1997)

© BMJ 1998
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy is feasible in general practice
BMJ 1998 317: 0. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Weissfeld, J. L., Schoen, R. E., Pinsky, P. F., Bresalier, R. S., Church, T., Yurgalevitch, S., Austin, J. H., Prorok, P. C., Gohagan, J. K., for the PLCO Project Team, (2005). Flexible Sigmoidoscopy in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial: Results From the Baseline Screening Examination of a Randomized Trial. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 97: 989-997 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Szczepura, A (2005). Access to health care for ethnic minority populations. Postgrad. Med. J. 81: 141-147 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Edwards, J. T., Mendelson, R. M., Fritschi, L., Foster, N. M., Wood, C., Murray, D., Forbes, G. M. (2004). Colorectal Neoplasia Screening with CT Colonography in Average-Risk Asymptomatic Subjects: Community-based Study. Radiology 230: 459-464 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Taylor, S. A., Halligan, S., Saunders, B. P., Bassett, P., Vance, M., Bartram, C. I. (2003). Acceptance by Patients of Multidetector CT Colonography Compared with Barium Enema Examinations, Flexible Sigmoidoscopy, and Colonoscopy. Am. J. Roentgenol. 181: 913-921 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Walsh, J. M. E., Terdiman, J. P. (2003). Colorectal Cancer Screening: Scientific Review. JAMA 289: 1288-1296 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Atkin, W S, Northover, J M A (2003). Population based endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer. Gut 52: 321-322 [Full text]  
  • Pignone, M., Rich, M., Teutsch, S. M., Berg, A. O., Lohr, K. N. (2002). Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Adults at Average Risk: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. ANN INTERN MED 137: 132-141 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Traverso, G., Shuber, A., Levin, B., Johnson, C., Olsson, L., Schoetz, D. J. Jr., Hamilton, S. R., Boynton, K., Kinzler, K. W., Vogelstein, B. (2002). Detection of APC Mutations in Fecal DNA from Patients with Colorectal Tumors. NEJM 346: 311-320 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • (2001). Colorectal cancer screening: Recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. CMAJ 165: 206-208 [Full text]  
  • Atkin, W. S, Hart, A., Edwards, R., Cook, C. F, Wardle, J., McIntyre, P., Aubrey, R., Baron, C., Sutton, S., Cuzick, J., Senapati, A., Northover, J. M A, Wulff, H. R, Taylor, M. (2000). Single blind, randomised trial of efficacy and acceptability of oral Picolax versus self administered phosphate enema in bowel preparation for flexible sigmoidoscopy screening Commentary: participants should have been told they were being randomised Commentary: opportunity for patient partnership was lost. BMJ 320: 1504-1509 [Abstract] [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Flexible sigmoidoscope
Vincent Ip
bmj.com, 21 Jul 1998 [Full text]
Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy uptake rates
Michael Gray
bmj.com, 4 Aug 1998 [Full text]
Doc2Doc Vacancy
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ