Results of the first round of a demonstration pilot of screening for colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom
BMJ 2004; 329 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38153.491887.7C (Published 15 July 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;329:133All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The UK colorectal cancer screening pilot group report the results
from the first round of the demonstration pilot set up by the UK health
departments in March 2000 (1). This pilot covered two geographical areas,
one in Scotland and one in England, and the main evaluation group presents
very positive findings in terms of observed population uptake, outcomes,
and consequences.
In July 2001, following the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 which
came into force in April 2001 (2), the Department of Health extended the
feasibility study to include examination of issues of access, and progress
through the colorectal cancer screening process, by ethnic minority
groups. The new Act places a statutory duty on bodies such as the NHS to
make explicit the implications for racial equality of every new policy,
such as a cancer screening programme.
The UK colorectal cancer screening (ethnicity) pilot group worked
closely with the main pilot group, with some academic members common to
both groups. The study on ethnicity was carried out in the English pilot
site (Coventry and Warwickshire), since the Scottish site did not cover an
ethnically diverse population.
The findings from our group are far less positive than those reported
by the main pilot group. Even after controlling for the influence of
socio-economic status, a major disparity is evident in terms of observed
outcomes for this section of the population, indicating that the
programme, as piloted, may not meet emerging guidelines for culturally and
linguistically appropriate services (3). South Asian sub-groups
demonstrated a significantly (p<0.01) lower faecal occult blood test
uptake rate, ranging from 31.9% (Muslims) and 34.6% (Sikhs) to 42.6%
(Hindu-Gujeratis) and 43.7% (Hindu-Others), versus 63.7% for the non-south
Asian population in the area. Gender and age uptake patterns were also
different from those of the majority population. Multivariate analyses,
including other descriptors such as age, gender and deprivation, still
indicate that the level of successfully completed screening is half in the
South Asian population (adjusted OR 0.439 (CI 0.414 - 0.465), p<0.01);
this difference remains significant (p<0.01) at individual ethnic sub-
group level. More worryingly, colonoscopy uptake is similarly half the
level members of the for South Asian population with a positive faecal
occult blood test result (p<0.01).
Our findings indicate that, if colorectal cancer screening is
implemented in the UK, ethnic minority populations will require special
attention, including targeted interventions in order to achieve equitable
uptake rates. The implications for roll-out are likely to be particularly
significant in areas such as inner London, Leicester, Bradford and
Birmingham (with south Asian populations reaching up to 40%). Areas with
Muslim or Sikh communities, in particular, will require interventions to
improve access since these Asian sub-groups are both at higher risk, as
meat eaters, and also have been found to have the lowest uptake rates.
From the main pilot group findings, the evidence indicates that the
UK colorectal cancer screening programme as piloted should be very cost-
effective (£5,900 per life year saved). It would appear, therefore, that
there is considerable leeway in terms of NHS investment in interventions
to improve uptake for ethnic minority populations while maintaining the
overall cost-effectiveness of such a programme. However, the literature
review we have undertaken as part of our research indicates that there is
as yet limited research evidence available on effective interventions for
improving colorectal cancer screening uptake by ethnic minorities.
Professor Ala Szczepura [on behalf of UK Colorectal Cancer Screening
(Ethnicity) Pilot Group*]
Director, Centre for Health Services Studies (CHESS)
Co-Director, UK Centre for Evidence in Ethnicity, Health and diversity
(CEEHD)
1. UK Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot Group. Results of the first
round of a demonstration pilot of screening for colorectal cancer in the
United Kingdom. BMJ 2004; 329: 133-135. (17 July)
2. Parliament. Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000: Elizabeth II: Chapter
34. London: Stationery Office, 2000.
3. Shaw-Taylor, Y. (2002). Culturally and linguistically appropriate
health care for racial or ethnic minorities: analysis of the US Office of
Minority Health's recommended standards. Health Policy. 62(2): 211 -
221.
* UK colorectal cancer screening (ethnicity) pilot group membership:
Professor Ala Szczepura Centre for Health Services Studies (CHESS),
University of Warwick: Project lead.
Dr Anil Gumber CHESS, University of Warwick: Analyses of uptake
rates.
Professor Mark Johnson Mary Seacole Research Centre, De Montfort
University: Focus group study.
Professor Sheina Orbell Department of Psychology, University of
Essex: Psychosocial survey.
Dr Ian O’Sullivan Department of Psychology, University of Essex:
Psychosocial survey.
Diane Clay CHESS, University of Warwick): Literature review searches.
Dr David Owen Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations (CRER),
University of Warwick: Geographical extrapolation of pilot findings.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
"about half of all colonoscopies carried out on the basis of a
positive test result show no evidence of neoplasia"
As a medical student at Glasgow I was lucky enough to be exposed,
during our colon cancer PBL, to 2 doctors with different views of FOB
screening. Whilst this process will probably save lives, we were also
told that simply brushing your teeth in the morning before the test could
give you a positive result. FOB is clearly NOT a specific test, and I'm
not sure it's really worth it to call hoards of patients back, and
presumably scare them to death in the process, on the grounds that "well,
there might be something wrong with you, maybe", and then proceed to
inflict a colonoscopy in them. The same argument applies to the
sensitivity of the test - do we really want to send 50% of colon cancer
patients home with an ill-founded "all clear"?
I get the feeling that, despite the promising results of this study,
there is still some debate to come on the validity of this screening
programme.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
The UK Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot Group writes it is a fact
that “Population based randomised controlled trials have shown that
screening by faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer can reduce
mortality”.
One of the studies this fact is based on is the Funen study from
Denmark (1) and this study has some biases that favours the effect of
screening:
Persons in the control-group were not told about the study and
continued to use health-care facilities as normal. Between 1985 and 1995
the usual practice in Denmark was for the general practitioner to perform
a rectoscopy on a patient with symptoms of colorectal cancer and to refer
the patient for an X-ray examination of the colon at the local hospital.
In contrast, nearly all participants in the Funen study with a positive
FOB test had a colonoscopy. Consequently, the outcome of the Funen study
is not only related to the FOB test but also to the fact that colonoscopy
is a better diagnostic method than X-ray of the colon (2).
The age of the participants was 45 – 84 years, but the suggested age
group is 50 – 69 or 50 - 74 years. Since the incidence of colorectal
cancer is higher in the elderly, the positive predictive value of the FOB
test plus colonoscopy was higher than would be obtained in practice, and
rates of false positive tests lower. The adverse effects of screening
could therefore be underestimated in the Funen study.
In the intervention group all patients received their operation at
the University Hospital, where it is likely that the surgeons were more
competent than at local hospitals where the control group underwent
surgery. Since surgery now is centralised the benefits of a colorectal
screening program might be smaller today.
In the Funen study, experienced staff probably conducted most of the
colonoscopies. In a real life situation non-specialists in training would
undertake some of the colonoscopies and, consequently, it would be
expected that more cancers would be missed and more false positive tests
occur, as has been the case with breast screening (3).
It is likely that some of these biases are also relevant for other
studies of colorectal cancer screening e.g. the Nottingham study (4).
1. Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jorgensen OD, Sondergaard.
Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-
blood test [see comments]. Lancet 1996;348:1467-71.
2. Rex DK, Rahmani EY, Haseman JH, Lemmel GT, Kaster S, Buckley JS.
Relative sensitivity of colonoscopy and barium enema for detection of
colorectal cancer in clinical practice. Gastroenterology 1997;112:17-23.
3. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for
screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists.
Radiology 2002;224:861-9.
4. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, Moss SM, Amar SS,
Balfour TW et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood
screening for colorectal cancer [see comments]. Lancet 1996;348:1472-7.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
The UK Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot Group concluded that foecal
occult blood screening should reduce deaths from coloretal cancer. The
results do not support such a conclusion, because the investigators did
not present any death numbers.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I was very interested to read the results from the pilot sites for
colorectal cancer screening1 as I developed the original plans2 for this
service for the UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC) in 1996, which the
pilots have been testing.
The plans were based on the previous experience
of the three large trials 3-5, adapted for a general UK population, to
provide for a sustainable national programme. I estimated that an
additional 60,000 colonoscopies would be required for a bi-annual faecal-
occult blood testing (FOBT) programme offered to all those aged 50 to 69
years- hence the current initiative to develop endoscopy training before
any bowel screening programme can be implemented.
Most of my predictions
have proved to be accurate, but I underestimated the pathology which would
be found in patients recalled for colonoscopy following positive FOBT,
which has meant that the time allowed for each endoscopy has had to be
increased.
Part of my brief from the UKNSC was to justify the age range, which
has now been piloted. Participants in the Minnesota study3 were aged 50-80
whilst those in the Danish4 and Nottingham5 studies were 45-74. However,
colorectal cancer is rare in those under 50, with only 5% of cases
diagnosed, and these may have genetic implications. About 50% of cases
occur in the age range 50-69 6. In the Nottingham trial uptake at initial
invitation was significantly lower both in those aged 45-49, (only 37%)
and in those aged over 70 (48%) than in the 50-69 age group (55%). The
mortality benefit was divided into two age groups. It was 19% better for
those under 65 at the start of the study but only a non-significant 10%
better for those 65 or over, giving the quoted 15% overall figure. I
therefore recommended an age range of 50-69 based on these results and the
experience of the NHS Breast Screening Programme, where an age upper limit
of 64 had proved too low7.
The authors now suggest that we should go back to the Danish trial and
invite up to age 74, since the incidence continues to increase with age.
This argument ignores the natural history of colorectal cancer in the
context of an established national screening programme, which would
provide benefit by both primary and secondary prevention, through the
removal of precancerous lesions during colonoscopy as well as the
detection of invasive disease. As with screening for cervical cancer the
risk would be lower in those who had already been screened several times
before their 70th birthdays. The clinical and cost effectiveness of
continuing beyond this age would be decreased and it would be possible to
do more harm than good.
1. UK Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot Group. Results of the first
round of a demonstration pilot of screening for colorectal cancer in the
United Kingdom. BMJ 2004;329:133-5.
2. Garvican L. Planning for a possible National Colorectal Cancer
Screening Programme. J Med Screen 1998;5:187-94.
3. Mandel JS, Bard JH, Church TR, Snover DC, Bradley GM, Schuman LM &
Ederer F for the Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. Reducing Mortality
from Colorectal Cancer by Screening for Faecal Occult Blood. N.Eng.J.Med.
1993;328:1365-71.
4. Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jorgensen OD, Sandergaard O. Randomised
study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal occult blood test.
Lancet 1996;348:1467-71.
5. Hardcastle JD, Camberlain JO, Robinson MHE, Moss SM, Amar SA, Balfour
TW, James PD, Mangham CM. Randomised controlled trial of faecal occult
blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet 1996;348:1472-7.
6. Lieberman D, Sleisenger MH. Is it time to recommend screening for
colorectal cancer? (Commentary) Lancet 1996;348:1463-4
7. Moss S, Brown J, Garvican L, Coleman DA, Johns L, Blanks RG et al.
Routine breast screening for women aged 65-69: Three year results from
evaluation of the demonstration sites. Br J Cancer 2001; 85:1289-94.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sirs,
I don’t understand, once again, what accounts for the reason that
screening for colorectal cancer, e.g., by testing for faecal occult blood,
certainly feasible within the context of the United Kingdom's NHS, should
be applied to “all” people aged 50-69 years. I agree with the statement
that “Screening should lead to a reduction in deaths from colorectal
cancer in the population offered screening”, if such as screening is
performed properly, correctly and early, in individuals involved by
Oncological Terrain, and possibly by colon cancer real risk (1, 2) (See
HONCOde website 233736, www.semeioticabiofisica.it).
In fact, doctors must
first (i.e., before whatever research) investigate and ascertain the
presence and intensity of the Congenital Acidosic Enzyme-Acidosic
Histangiopathy (CAEMH = functional mitochindrial cytopathology) in the
"tested" population, and soon thereafter assessing prevalence and
intensity of the "Oncological Terrain", which always develops on the basis
of the above-mentioned congenital cytopathology (2, 3, 4). In fact,
without this alteration of psycho-neuro-endocrine-immunological system,
oncogenesis is not possible. Moreover, it is possible with the aid of
Biophysical Semeiotics to recognize also cancer “real risk” in the colon,
and therefore to select people in a rational matter obtaining the best
results with relatively scarse expense. This accounts for the reason that
“Planning for the EU public Health Portal” all’URL:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_information/documents/ev_20030710_co...,
suggests the SPBM (Single Patient Based Medicine, in above-cited website)
as useful tool in the primary prevention against malignancy.
In
conclusion, a 46-year-long clinical experience, allows me to state that
without Oncological Terrain, cancer efficacious primary prevention and
screening are not possible at all.
1) Kingdom UK Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot Group .BMJ
2004;329:133 (17 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.38153.491887.7C (published 5 July
2004)
2) Stagnaro-Neri Marina, Stagnaro Sergio. Introduzione alla Semeiotica
Biofisica. Il Terreno oncologico”. Travel Factory SRL., Roma, 2004.
http://www.travelfactory.it/semeiotica_biofisica.htm
3) Stagnaro S., Stagnaro-Neri M., La Melatonina nella Terapia del Terreno
Oncologico e del “Reale Rischio” Oncologico. Ediz. Travel Factory, Roma,
2004.
4) Stagnaro-Neri M., Stagnaro S., Cancro della mammella: prevenzione
primaria e diagnosi precoce con la percussione ascoltata. Gazz. Med. It. –
Arch. Sc. Med. 152, 447 1993
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Colour blindness may be of importance in screening for colorectal cancer.
Your recent publication1 highlighted the potential for screening for
colorectal cancer by testing for faecal occult blood. One important
factor not referred to, but previously described2 relates to the potential
importance of the presence of colour vision deficiency (“colour
blindness”), a disorder affecting around 8% of the male population. In
our study, some doctors, especially those with more severe colour vision
deficiencies, had difficulty in detecting blood in stool specimens. It
may be of importance that such doctors should be aware not simply of the
presence of colour vision deficiency, but of its severity. Furthermore,
the use of technologies such as faecal occult blood testing may be an
important technology by which the lack of confidence reported by doctors
with colour vision deficiency2 might be addressed, to the overall benefit
of patient care.
Yours sincerely,
1. UK Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot Group
Results of the first round of a demonstration pilot of screening for
colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom
British Medical Journal 2004 329 133-138
2. Campbell JL, Spalding A, Mir F, Birch J
Doctors and the assessment of clinical photographs. Does colour blindness
matter?
British Journal of General Practice 1999 49 459-461
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests