WEO CRC SC Meeting. Vienna, Austria October 14, 2016

Similar documents
WEO CRC SC Meeting. Barcelona, Spain October 23, 2015

NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programmes: Evaluation of pilot of Faecal Immunochemical Test : Final report.

Haemoglobin level at previous negative FIT and risk of neoplasia at subsequent screening rounds. Carlo SENORE

Prof Stephen P. Halloran. Update on the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Focus on BS & FIT

Friday, 23 October 2015: 10:15 12:00 * * * * *

Global colorectal cancer screening appropriate or practical? Graeme P Young, Flinders University WCC, Melbourne

Colorectal cancer screening in England

Risk scoring incorporating FIT in triage of symptomatic patients

The Dutch bowel cancer screening program Relevant lessions for Ontario

The National Bowel Cancer Screening Program

Comparison of FIT performance in screening programs. Carlo Senore

North West London Pathology. Faecal Occult Blood testing. Mrs Sophie Barnes FRCPath Consultant Clinical Scientist

Faecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) for Screening and Symptomatic Patients

Implementing of Population-based FOBT Screening

FIT Overview. Objectives 6/23/2014

Interval Fecal Immunochemical Testing in a Colonoscopic Surveillance Program Speeds Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia

Results from 2.6 million invitations between : 54% overall uptake (von Wagner et al., 2011)

Bowel Cancer Screening Exploiting science brings better medicine

An Update on the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Natasha Djedovic, London Hub Director 17 th September 2018

Friday, 17 October 2014: 08:30 11:30 * * * * *

FIT for purpose: enhanced applications for faecal immunochemical tests

PUBLISHED VERSION.

Bowel Cancer Prevention and Screening. Harriet Wynne, Cancer Council Victoria

Screening for GI Cancer Past Present and Future. Prof. Bob Steele University of Dundee

Improving Access to Endoscopy at Safety-Net Hospitals. Lukejohn W. Day MD Assistant Professor of Medicine

Colorectal Cancer Screening in Ohio CHCs. Ohio Association of Community Health Centers

Why FIT (Faecal Immunochemical Test) is the best biomarker for CRC screening

Quantitative immunochemical tests: evidence on accuracy and implementation considerations in the Czech MUDr.. Petr Kocna, CSc.

University of Dundee. Published in: Journal of Medical Screening DOI: / Publication date: 2016

National Colonoscopy Study (NCS) Screening Colonoscopy versus Annual Fecal Occult Blood Test NCT

Challenges for Colorectal Cancer Screening

WEO CRC SC Meeting. Barcelona, Spain October 23, 2015

FIT - A Tale of Two Settings. Callum G Fraser Centre for Research into Cancer Prevention and Screening University of Dundee Scotland

Friday, 15 May 2015: 10:00 12:00 * * * * *

Diagnostics guidance Published: 26 July 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/dg30

A TEST FOR COLORECTAL CANCER THAT IS 92% SENSITIVE AND NON-INVASIVE. Stool DNA test

Bowel cancer risk in the under 50s. Greg Rubin Professor of General Practice and Primary Care

The New Grade A: USPSTF Updated Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines, What does it all mean?

(Bowel) Cancer Screening an update. Mike Hulme-Moir Colorectal Surgeon CD NZ Bowel Screening Pilot

Latest Endoscopic Guidelines for FAP, HNPCC, IBD, and the General Population

Optimizing implementation of fecal immunochemical testing in Ontario: A randomized controlled trial

Debate: General surveillance/screening for colon cancer in a resource constrained environment is imperative

What I ll discuss. Head to Head Comparisons of Different FITs. What makes a FIT good? What makes a good FIT? Good performance

Faecal testing in colorectal cancer screening: State of the Art. Prof Stephen P. Halloran

Guidelines for Colonoscopy Surveillance After Screening and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

Northern Ireland Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Pathways. Version 4 1 st October 2013

RESEARCH. Abstract. Corresponding Author: Dr Sara Javanparast Discipline of Public Health Flinders University

Performance targets for lesion detection in surveillance

University of Dundee. Published in: Annals of Clinical Biochemistry DOI: / Publication date: 2017

TPMG experience in improving colorectal cancer screening rates

Improving adherence to colorectal cancer surveillance guidelines: results of a randomised controlled trial

Cost-effectiveness of adenoma surveillance - the Dutch guidelines -

Bowel cancer screening and prevention

Practical challenges in establishing and running the Czech national colorectal cancer screening programme

Risk assessment tools for the symptomatic population Graham Radford-Smith Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Royal Brisbane and Women s

Development and evaluation of a risk assessment tool to improve clinical triage accuracy for colonoscopic investigations

Screening for Colorectal Cancer in the Elderly. The Broad Perspective

Socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in organized colorectal cancer screening participation

Occult small bowel bleeding - Video capsule first

Screening and Primary prevention of Colorectal Cancer: a Review of sex-specific and site-specific differences

Predictors of Repeat Participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme

EXPERT WORKING GROUP Surveillance after neoplasia removal. Meeting Chicago, May 5th 2017 Chair: Rodrigo Jover Uri Ladabaum

FIT Laboratory update

Dr Graeme Suthers: The genetic basis of cancer

A Blood-Based Biomarker for screening for Colorectal Cancer

Achieving 80% by 2018: Working Together Can Get Us There. Zachary Gregg, MD Sentara Martha Jefferson April 18, 2016

BACKGROUND. Fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) are an advanced fecal occult. METHODS. Individuals sampled consecutive stools, at home, with both FIT and

GENERAL PRACTITIONERS IN THE 1ST LINE OF CANCER PREVENTION

Dr Alasdair Patrick. Dr Nagham Al-Mozany. 9:45-10:10 Where Are We Up To With Bowel Cancer Screening?

Chicago th Meeting of the Expert Working Group (EWG) FIT for Screening MEETING REPORT

Estimates of complications and clinically significant findings in screening and surveillance colonoscopy

Performance measures in three rounds of the English bowel cancer screening pilot

Population-based colorectal cancer screening by fecal immunochemical testing over multiple rounds van der Vlugt, M.

When is a programmed follow-up meaningful and how should it be done? Professor Alastair Watson University of Liverpool

EVALUATION OF QUANTITATIVE DETECTION OF FECAL HUMAN HAEMOGLOBIN FOR COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING

Prevention of Bowel Cancer: which patients do I send for colonoscopy?

FIT for symptomatic patients. Facilitator name

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Cost-Effectiveness and Adverse events October, 2005

Dr Katie Elliott CRUK strategic GP Macmillan GP with NE &C Learning disability Network Assistant Clinical Lead Northern Cancer Alliance

Friday, 20 May 2016: 10:15 12:00 MEETING REPORT * * * * *

Fecal immunochemical testing results and characteristics of colonic lesions

Supplementary Online Content

Objectives. Definitions. Colorectal Cancer Screening 5/8/2018. Payam Afshar, MS, MD Kaiser Permanente, San Diego. Colorectal cancer background

Colorectal cancer screening: strategies to select populations with moderate risk for disease

Is aspirin ready for colorectal cancer chemoprevention and adjuvant therapy?

Colorectal Cancer Screening and Perceived Disgust: The Importance of the Ick Factor in Faecal Occult Blood Test Uptake

Heather Hampel, MS, CGC Professor, Division of Human Genetics

Colon Cancer Screening. A Provider Opinion Survey

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Mr Chris Wakeman. General Surgeon University of Otago, Christchurch. 12:15-12:40 Management of Colorectal Cancer

Increasing Colorectal Cancer Screening in Wyoming. Allie Bain, MPH Outreach & Education Supervisor Wyoming Integrated Cancer Services Program

Improving Outcomes in Colorectal Cancer: The Science of Screening. Colorectal Cancer (CRC)

In What Asia-Pacific Populations is CRC Screening Justified?

Time to Colonoscopy After a Positive Fecal Test and Risk of Colorectal Cancer Outcomes

Alberta Colorectal Cancer Screening Program (ACRCSP) Post Polypectomy Surveillance Guidelines

Engaging Primary Care in bowel screening

Colorectal Cancer Prevention Hospital Universitário São Paulo University

Transcription:

WEO CRC SC Meeting Vienna, Austria October 14, 216

Possibleconflictsofinterest The Bowel Health Service receives material support from Eiken Chemical Company. Erin Symonds

FIT positivity rate is highest in the people who participate in the first week after receiving the kit Observations from a South Australian screening program Erin Symonds Graeme Young Bowel Health Service, Repatriation General Hospital Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer AUSTRALIA

FOBT participation rates around the world Higher participation found with: Females Older age Subsequent screening rounds Blom J et al J Med Screen 214 Higher socioeconomic status Von Wagner et al Int J Epidemiol 211 Higher level of education Frederiksen BL et al Br J Cancer 21 No effect of family history of CRC Perencevich M, et al Gastroenterol 213 % 1% 2% 3% 4% % 6% 7% 8% Klabunde, et al J Med Screen 21 Most <% participation

Aim To establish FIT participation and positivity profiles and predictors. Population A hospital based screening and surveillance program for people at higher risk for CRC. 2 sample FITs (OC Sensor) have been used since Aug 28. Total of 36,331 FITs sent. Positive FIT = one sample 2μg Hb/g faeces. All samples are analysed within two weeks of sample collection Erin Symonds

FIT participation in a higher risk population 3 2 FIT participation (%) 2 1 1 Reminder letter wk 1 (n=3421) wk 2 (n=698) wk 3 (n=328) wk 4 (n=244) wk (n=147) wk 6 (n=183) wk 7 (n=1491) wk 8 (n=1) wk 9 (n=94) Participation in the hospital program is 6.% (higher than National program participation of 37%) 9% of the people who are going to participate do so in the first 9 weeks

FIT participation PREDICTORS FOR PARTICIPATION IN A HIGHER RISK POPULATION Female Older age Higher SES Previous FIT rounds (same as average risk population) Factor OR (9% CI) P value Female (compared to male) 1.23 (1.18-1.29) <.1 Age (compared to <y) -6y 1.76 (1.6-1.88) <.1 6-7y 3.4 (2.8-3.2) <.1 7+ 3.44 (3.19-3.73) <.1 Socioeconomic status (compared to highest quintile) 2 nd highest.99 (.92-1.6).69 Middle.93 (.87-.998).44 2 nd lowest.91 (.86-.97).4 lowest.8 (.79-.92) <.1 Subsequent FIT offer (compared to 1 st offer) 1.9 (.8-.67) <.1

FIT participation (%) 3 2 2 1 1 FIT positivity rate Participation Reminder letter wk 1 wk 2 wk 3 wk 4 wk wk 6 wk 7 wk 8 wk 9 FIT positivity (%) 9 8 7 6 4 3 2 1 % of samples with Hb 2µg/g faeces Reminder letter wk 1 wk 2 wk 3 wk 4 wk wk 6 wk 7 wk 8 wk 9 Greatest FIT positivity with samples returned week 1 in the higher risk population

Positivity rate: average risk population 4 Participation 12 % of samples with Hb 2µg/g faeces % particiaptino 3 3 2 2 1 1 Reminder letter FIT positivity (%) 1 8 6 4 2 Reminder letter Same observations in an average risk population, with greatest positivity in the first week of returns.

Risk factors for positivity Variables associated with positivity High Hb levels Rectal bleeding Cancer and adenomas Male Socioeconomic status Older age

Early positives due to symptoms? Are these samples associated with people noticing bleeding? (multivariate OR.36 (9%CI.1-1.24)) Will there be a higher Hb level? NO 7 Median Hb of positive samples 2 Proportion of samples with Hb 2µg/g faeces Median Hb (ug/ug) 6 4 3 2 1 wk 1 wk 2 wk 3 wk 4 wk wk 6 wk 7 wk 8 wk 9 % of positive samples with a high Hb (>2ug/g) 2 1 1 wk 1 wk 2 wk 3 wk 4 wk wk 6 wk 7 wk 8 wk 9

Early positives due to symptoms? Will these samples have a higher positive predictive value for neoplasia? 2 OR 1.13 (9% CI:.87-1.46) Positive predictive value (%) 2 1 1 significant adenoma Cancer wk 1 (n=249) wk 2 (n=369) wk 3 (n=22) wk 4 (n=118) wk (n=86) wk 6 (n=66) wk 7 (n=14) wk 8 (n=1) wk 9 (n=41)

Early positives due to demographic differences with participation? Male gender Lower socioeconomic status Older age All linked to increased positivity risk FIT participation (%) 3 2 2 1 1 No significant differences male female FIT participation (%) 3 2 2 1 1 No significant differences highest SES 2nd highest middle 2nd lowest lowest SES wk 1 wk 2 wk 3 wk 4 wk wk 6 wk 7 wk 8 wk 9 wk 1 wk 2 wk 3 wk 4 wk wk 6 wk 7 wk 8 wk 9

Early positives due to demographic differences with participation? Male gender Lower socioeconomic status Older age 3 3 Odds ratio of having an early positive FIT result Factor OR (9% CI) P value Age (compared to <y) -6y.69 (.32-1.) >. 6-7y 1.4 (.71-2.99) >. 7+ y 2.46 (1.16-.2).19 participation (%) 2 2 1 1 wk 1 wk 2 wk 3 wk 4 wk wk 6 wk 7 wk 8 wk 9 <y -9y 6-69y >=7y Earliest participation in the 7+ age group

Conclusions Participation Predictors for FIT participation are the same in a higher risk population compared to average risk populations. Positivity Highest returns of positive FITs week 1 and again after reminder letters. This is most likely due to the older age group participating early and being at higher risk for a positive result An early returned positive FIT does not indicate increased risk for neoplasia and can not be used to triage for colonoscopy.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Repatriation General Hospital Steve Cole Graeme Young Robert Fraser Charles Cock Gretchen Jean Kalindra Simpson Michelle Coats Susan Wick Jo Osborne Dawn Bastin Flinders Medical Centre Peter Bampton Karen Saxty Jayne Sandford Angela Chaplin Tennyson Centre Lyn Williams Noarlunga Centre Dawn Cotterill