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

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

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

Faecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) for Screening and Symptomatic Patients

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

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

Risk scoring incorporating FIT in triage of symptomatic patients

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

Comparison of FIT performance in screening programs. Carlo Senore

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

Measuring performance and quality indicators of CRC screening

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

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

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

Implementing of Population-based FOBT Screening

The Dutch bowel cancer screening program Relevant lessions for Ontario

Colorectal cancer screening in England

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

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

Bowel cancer screening and prevention

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

Cost-effectiveness of adenoma surveillance - the Dutch guidelines -

Measure #343: Screening Colonoscopy Adenoma Detection Rate National Quality Strategy Domain: Effective Clincal Care

Quality ID #343: Screening Colonoscopy Adenoma Detection Rate National Quality Strategy Domain: Effective Clinical Care

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

Challenges for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Bowel Cancer Screening Exploiting science brings better medicine

FIT Overview. Objectives 6/23/2014

Performance of Colorectal cancer screening in the European Union Member States Data from the second European screening report

IARC Handbook Volume 17: Colorectal Cancer Screening. Béatrice Lauby-Secretan, PhD on behalf of the IARC Working Group for Volume 17

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

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

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Efficacy, effectiveness, quality: sources of data

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

Bowel Cancer Screening

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

Population-based colorectal cancer screening programmes using a faecal immunochemical test: should faecal haemoglobin cut-offs differ by age and sex?

Colorectal cancer screening

COLORECTAL CANCER: A CHALLENGE FOR HEALTHY LIFESTYLE, SCREENING AND PROPER CARE

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

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

Evaluation of the colorectal cancer screening Programme in the Basque Country (Spain) and its effectiveness based on the Miscan-colon model

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

Colonoscopy Quality Data 2017

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

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

EU Guidelines for quality assurance in organization, implementation and monitoring of colorectal cancer screening programme. Jožica Maučec Zakotnik

Czech CRC screening program at the point of switch to the population based design

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

Protocol. This trial protocol has been provided by the authors to give readers additional information about their work.

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

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

Quality of and compliance with colonoscopy in Lynch Syndrome surveillance: are we getting it right?

Performance targets for lesion detection in surveillance

COLON CANCER SCREENING: AN UPDATE

Fecal immunochemical testing results and characteristics of colonic lesions

Early detection and screening for colorectal neoplasia

2019 COLLECTION TYPE: MIPS CLINICAL QUALITY MEASURES (CQMS) MEASURE TYPE: Outcome High Priority

2018 OPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MEASURES: REGISTRY ONLY. MEASURE TYPE: Process

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

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

Colorectal Cancer Prevention Hospital Universitário São Paulo University

C olorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading causes of

COLORECTAL SCREENING PROGRAMME: IMPACT ON THE HOSPITAL S PATHOLOGY SERVICES SINCE ITS INTRODUCTION.

Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance

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

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

Sarvenaz Moosavi, 1 Robert Enns, 1 Laura Gentile, 2 Lovedeep Gondara, 2 Colleen McGahan, 2 and Jennifer Telford Introduction

2017 OPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MEASURES: CLAIMS ONLY. MEASURE TYPE: Process

Earlier stages of colorectal cancer detected with immunochemical faecal occult blood tests

Screening di Popolazione. del Cancro Colorettale. C. Hassan

Primary care at the forefront of colorectal cancer screening

Pathology in Slovenian CRC screening programme:

Time to Colonoscopy and Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Patients With Positive Results From Fecal Immunochemical Tests

Socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in organized colorectal cancer screening participation

Frequency of Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer with Double Contrast Barium Enema

Post-polypectomy follow-up after. removal of colorectal neoplasia

11/9/2015 OUTLINE. Quality Indicators for the Doctor Performing Screening Colonoscopy: What you should expect from your Endoscopist

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

The effectiveness of telephone reminders and SMS messages on compliance with colorectal cancer screening: an open-label, randomized controlled trial

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

Screening for colorectal cancer. Stuart Taylor Consultant Radiologist University College Hospital

Financial Disclosers

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

Colonoscopy Quality Data

THE NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL

Colorectal Cancer Screening. Paul Berg MD

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION. Incidence Male. Incidence Female.

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

Rx Only. Detecting Cancer In Blood.

The choice of methods for Colorectal Cancer Screening; The Dutch experience

PATIENT BROCHURE. 441 Charmany Dr 1 Madison WI, RX Only

Adding family history of colorectal cancer to the FIT-based screening program in a Dutch screening population sample

How to Screen a patient with a Family History of Adenoma(s)

Symptom or faecal immunochemical test based referral criteria for colorectal cancer detection in symptomatic patients: a diagnostic tests study

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

Impact of Screening Colonoscopy on Outcomes in Colon Cancer Surgery

C olorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common

T. Rubeca 1, S. Rapi 2, M. Confortini 1, M. Brogioni 2, G. Grazzini 1, M. Zappa 1, D. Puliti 1, G. Castiglione 1, S. Ciatto 1

Lessons learnt from cancer screening programmes as an example for establishing the Czech National Coordination Centre

Transcription:

WEO CRC SC Meeting Barcelona, Spain October 23, 2015

THE HEMOGLOBIN CONCENTRATION IN A NEGATIVE RESULT AS A PREDICTOR FOR ADVANCED NEOPLASIA Isabel Portillo, Eunare Arana-Arri, Isabel Idigoras, Lorea Martínez-Indart. Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme. Basque Country. mariaisabel.portillovillares@osakidetza.eus

No conflicts of interest

THE BASQUE COUNTRY PROGRAMME Coverage 100 80 60 40 20 0 98.6 100 85 72.2 70 56.6 31.4 32 25 5.6 5.6 4 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Objective: To decrease CRC incidence and mortality by detection and treatment of premalignant and malignant lesions First round Second round Third round

THE BASQUE COUNTRY PROGRAMME STRATEGY POPULATION BASED 50-69 year-olds (586,700 people) FIT biennial. Cut-off 20µg Hb/g OC-Sensor from 2010 Colonoscopy under sedation as confirmatory test Information system linked with medical database and cancer registries Primary Care Involved Centralized coordination MAIN RESULTS TOTAL INVITED 958,450 PARTICIPATION RATE 68.5% POSITIVE RATE 6.2% COLONOSCOPY UPTAKE 93.7% CCR DETECTION RATE 3.4 AA DETECTION RATE 23.3 AN DETECTION RATE 26.7 PPV CCR 5.4% PPV AA 37.5% PPV AN 42.9%

HYPOTHESIS There is a relationship between the Hb concentration in negative cases and lesion detected in successive rounds A pattern of bleeding could predict the lesion detected after a negative result in successive rounds

OBJECTIVES To know the association between Hb concentration in positives cases with an Advanced Neoplasia detected and their previous negative results. To know the pattern of this association by sex, age group, type of lesion compared with no adenomatous lesion. To know the pattern of this association in CRC by localization and stage.

METHODS 2 GROUPS 1. Participants who had three rounds with two previous negative results and a lesion detected in the third round 2. Participants who had a previous negative result and a lesion detected in successive round Lesions: Colorectal Cancer, Advanced Adenoma, Advanced Neoplasia (CRC+AA) and Low Risk Adenoma. No lesions: negative FIT and positive FIT and negative colonoscopy for CRC, adenoma or other bleeding colonic pathology. Faecal Hb concentrations differences between lesion detected and previous negative result were analyzed (Mann-Whitney test) Logistic regression: to analyze the association of Hb concentration with the diagnosis of Advanced Neoplasia

LIMITATIONS Previous lesion before the debut as positive cases are unknown (only in positive cases the colonoscopy was performed) Comparison in irregular attendees was not analyzed Other risk factors such as lifestyle, morbidity and deprivation were not taken into consideration for this study

µg Hb/g µg Hb/g MAIN RESULTS GROUP 1 GROUP 2 First Round 45,185 NEGATIVE FIT Previous Round 178,307 NEGATIVE FIT Second Round Third Round 45,185 NEGATIVE FIT 2.169 POSITIVE FIT 43,016 NEGATIVE FIT Second Round 10,772 POSITIVE FIT 167,535 NEGATIVE FIT 72 CRC 654 AA 726 AN 367 LRA 911 NEGATIVE COLONOSCOPY 417 CRC 3,260 AA 3,677 AN 1,799 LRA 3,640 NEGATIVE COLONOSCOPY RISK OF A COLONIC ADENOMA/CRC AFTER A PREVIOUS NEGATIVE RESULT Interval of 4 years 1.004 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.998 1.002 1.043 1.035 1.028 1.061 1.054 1.046 Interval of 2 years 1.002 1.001 1.000 1.001 1.000 CRC AA AN LRA Group 1 CRC AA AN LRA Group 2

µd Hb/g 0 100 200 300 400 500 µd Hb/g 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 µd Hb/g 0 50 100 150 GROUP 1: DIFFERENCES IN HB CONCENTRATION BETWEEN THIRD ROUND AND FIRST ROUND BY LESION BOTH SEX Round 1 (µg Hb/g) Round 3-Round 1 (µg Hb/g) LESIONS IN ROUND 3 CRC (72) 0.8 0.0-3.8 <0.001 104.1 38.8-302.9 <0.001 AA (654) 1.8 0.0-5.6 <0.001 45.6 28.8-98.3 <0.001 AN (726) 1.8 0.0-5.4 <0.001 47.7 29.9-109.8 <0.001 LRA (367) 0.8 0.0-3.4 <0.001 42.0 26.8-79.6 <0.001 NO LESIONS IN ROUND 3 (43,733) 0.0 0.0-0.8 0.6 0.0-2.0 TRENDS IN HB CONCENTRATION BY LESION CRC no in 3 round CRC yes in 3 round AA no in 3 round AA yes in 3 round AN no in 3 round AN yes in 3 round round 1 round 2 round 3 round 1 round 2 round 3 round 1 round 2 round 3

µd Hb/g 0 50 100 150 µd Hb/g 0 50 100 150 GROUP 1: DIFFERENCES IN HB CONCENTRATION BETWEEN THIRD ROUND AND FIRST ROUND BY LESION WOMEN Round 1 (µg Hb/g) Round 3-Round 1 (µg Hb/g) MEN Round 1 (µg Hb/g) Round 3-Round 1 (µg Hb/g) LESIONS IN ROUND 3 NO LESIONS IN ROUND 3 (24,995) CRC (27) AA (217) AN (244) LRA (149) 0.0 0.0-3.4 0.083 76.8 31.0-174.0 <0.001 1.8 0.0-5.5 <0.001 44.0 28.7-88.7 <0.001 1.6 0.0-5.3 <0.001 45.6 29.3-95.1 <0.001 0.2 0.0-2.2 <0.001 42.8 27.0-91.4 <0.001 0.0 0.0.-0.6 0.0 0.6-2.0 LESIONS IN ROUND 3 CRC (45) AA (437) AN (482) LRA (218) NO LESIONS IN ROUND 3 (18,738) 1.6 0.0-3.9 <0.001 121.2 48.2-366.1 <0.001 2.0 0.0-6.0 <0.001 46.8 29.1-105.1 <0.001 1.9 0.0-5.6 <0.001 49.4 29.5-112.5 <0.001 1.0 0.0-3.8 <0.001 41.8 26.1-75.7 <0.001 0.0 0.0-1.0 0.6 0.0-2.2 TRENDS IN HB CONCENTRATION IN ADVANCED NEOPLASIA WOMEN AN no in 3 round AN yes in 3 round MEN AN no in 3 round AN yes in 3 round round 1 round 2 round 3 round 1 round 2 round 3

GROUP 1: HB CONCENTRATION BY RANGES IN FIRST ROUND P< 0.001 P< 0.001 P< 0.001 BOTH SEX HB (µg Hb/g) IN ROUND 1 0.00-5.00 5.01-10.00 10.01-19.99 LESIONS IN CRC (72) 84.7% 6.9% 6 8.3% ROUND 3 AA (647) 72.5% 15.5% 12.1% AN (719) 73.7% 14.6% 11.7% LR (364) 83.8% 7.1% 9.1% NO LESIONS IN ROUND 3 (43,652) 94.3% 3.5% 2.3% WOMEN HB (µg Hb/g) IN ROUND 1 0.00-5.00 5.01-10.00 10.01-19.99 LESIONS IN CRC (27) 85.2% 7.4% 7.4% ROUND 3 AA (214) 72.9% 15.4% 11.7% AN (241) 74.3% 14.5% 11.2% LR (149) 86.6% 7.4% 6.0% NO LESIONS IN ROUND 3 (24,948) 95.1% 3.0% 1.9% MEN HB (µg Hb/g) IN ROUND 1 0.00-5.00 5.01-10.00 10.01-19.99 LESIONS IN CRC (45) 84.4% 6.7% 8.9% ROUND 3 AA (433) 72.3% 15.5% 12.2% AN (478) 73.4% 14.6% 11.9% LR (215) 81.9% 7.0% 11.2% NO LESIONS IN ROUND 3 (18,704) 93.3% 4% 2.7%

GROUP 1: DIFFERENCES IN HB CONCENTRATION BY CRC LOCALIZATION AND STAGE BOTH SEX Round 1 (µg Hb/g) Round 3-Round 1 (µg Hb/g) CRC RIGHT COLON (16) LEFT COLON (49) 1.3 0.0-4.3 58.2 30.6-147.2 0.536 0.6 0.0-3.5 114.4 42.7-394.3 0.244 BOTH SEX Round 1 (µg Hb/g) Round 3-Round 1 (µg Hb/g) CRC STAGE I-II (41) STAGE III-IV (28) 1.0 0.0-3.6 64.2 35.0-151.1 0.626 0.8 0.0-3.9 216.0 35.6-548.8 0.026

GROUP 2: DIFFERENCES IN HB CONCENTRATION BETWEEN SUCESSIVE AND PREVIOUS ROUND BY LESION BOTH SEX Round 1 (µg Hb/g) Round 2-Round 1 (µg Hb/g) LESIONS IN CRC ROUND 2 (417) AA (3,260) AN (3,677) LRA (1,799) NO LESIONS IN ROUND 2 (171,175) 2.2 0.0-8.0 <0.001 121.0 43.8-512.0 <0.001 2.2 0.0-7.6 <0.001 49.8 28.4-112.3 <0.001 2.2 0.0-7.8 <0.001 53.2 29.4-130.2 <0.001 0.4 0.0-3.4 <0.001 43.2 27.0-89.4 <0.001 0.0 0.0-0.4 0.0 0.4-2.0

GROUP 2: DIFFERENCES IN HB CONCENTRATION BETWEEN SUCESSIVE AND PREVIOUS ROUND BY LESION AND SEX WOMEN Round 1 (µg Hb/g) Round 2-Round 1 (µg Hb/g) LESIONS IN ROUND 2 CRC (147) 1.6 0.0-7.0 <0.001 96.9 40.3-392.4 <0.001 AA (1,017) AN (1,164) NO LESIONS IN ROUND 2 (94,986) 2.0 0.0-7.2 <0.001 48.8 27.2-103.0 <0.001 2.0 0.0-7.2 <0.001 50.8 28.6-118.2 <0.001 LRA (700) 0.2 0.0-2.9 <0.001 43.7 27.2-92.5 <0.001 0.0 0.0.-0.4 0.4 0.0-2.0 MEN Round 1 (µg Hb/g) Round 2-Round 1 (µg Hb/g) LESIONS IN ROUND 2 NO LESIONS IN ROUND 2 (76,189) CRC (270) 2.6 0.0-8.6 <0.001 140.2 45.8-555.0 <0.001 AA (2,228) AN (2,498) LRA (1,099) 2.4 0.0-8.0 <0.001 51.2 28.8-118.4 <0.001 2.4 0.0-8.0 <0.001 54.8 29.8-137.4 <0.001 0.6 0.0-3.8 <0.001 43.0 26.6-86.2 <0.001 0.0 0.0-0.6 0.4 0.0-2.0

GROUP 2: HB CONCENTRATION BY RANGES IN FIRST ROUND P< 0.001 BOTH SEX HB (µg Hb/g) IN ROUND 1 0.00-5.00 5.01-10.00 10.01-19.99 LESION IN CRC (417) 66.4% 14.9% 18.7% ROUND 2 AA (3,240) 66.5% 15.1% 18.4% AN (3,657) 66.5% 15.1% 18.4% LR (1,798) 80.1% 10.5% 9.5% NO LESION ROUND 2 (169,782) 93.9% 3.8% 2.3% P< 0.001 P< 0.001 WOMEN HB (µg Hb/g) IN ROUND 1 LESION IN ROUND 2 0.00-5.00 5.01-10.00 10.01-19.99 CRC (147) 70.7% 12.9% 16.3% AA (1,019) 69.4% 13.0% 17.7% AN (1,166) 69.6% 13.0% 17.5% LR (711) 81.2% 11.3% 7.65% NO LESION IN ROUND 2 (94,920) 94.5% 3.6% 2.0% MEN HB (µg Hb/g) IN ROUND 1 0.00-5.00 5.01-10.00 10.01-19.99 LESION IN ROUND 2 CRC (270) 64.1% 15.9% 20.0% AA (2,234) 65.6% 16.7% 17.8% AN (2,504) 65.4% 16.6% 18.0% LR (1,103) 79.1% 9.6% 11.3% NO LESION IN ROUND 2 (76,139) 92.7% 4.5% 2.8%

GROUP 2: DIFFERENCES IN HB CONCENTRATION BY CRC LOCALIZATION AND STAGE Round 1 (µg Hb/g) Round 2-Round 1 (µg Hb/g) BOTH SEX CRC RIGHT COLON (86) LEFT COLON (273) 1.2 0.0-5.4 85.3 39.5-687.8 0.033 2.8 0.0-9.4 146.4 50.3-516.5 0.272 BOTH SEX Round 1 (µg Hb/g) Round 2-Round 1 (µg Hb/g) CRC STAGE I-II (252) STAGE III-IV (115) 2.4 0.0-8.1 104.9 46.5-396.7 0.545 2.2 0.2-7.4 335.4 46.8-748.0 0.003

MESSAGE TO TAKE HOME There is no association between previous concentration of Hb and lesion detected in successive rounds. No special pattern was found that allows us to predict the development of Advanced Neoplasia after a negative result. The OR prediction found even their statistical significance in most cases has no clinical relevance No relevant differences were found by sex, age group, CRC stage and localization Intermittent bleeding could be the most important pattern Participation in screening is the most important key to detect lesions Previous bleeding (over 10µ Hb/g faeces) should be carefully considered In order to balance benefits and risks in Screening Programmes