Colorectal cancer screening in Europe: first things first

The dynamics of colorectal cancer management in 17 countries

This paper discusses the current care management arrangements for colorectal cancer (CRC) in 16 OECD countries plus the Russian Federation by analysing data sources, the uptake of screening and surveillance, the available capacity in endoscopy services, the treatment pathways in medical treatment, as well as the type and availability of pharmaceutical care. The paper highlights significant variations in practice across the 17 countries. Common themes emerge from each of these practices and standards in terms of political interest in policies and awareness of CRC (both of which need to be enhanced), affordability (in terms of scarcity of resources in some countries and out-of-pocket payments for parts of the overall treatment process), access (in terms of the significant variation that has been observed within and across countries with regard to diagnostics, treatment and certain pharmaceuticals) and quality of CRC services (which may arise due to variations in treatment and pharmaceutical guidelines as well as minimal monitoring). When considering policy options for the future, it is important to, first, improve data collection both within as well as across countries through international co-operation; second, it is critical to have greater national and international support for cancer screening activities proven to be effective and cost-effective; third, endoscopy capacity in individual countries needs to be improved, also allowing more choice to ensure timely diagnosis, regardless of screening activities; fourth, public and political awareness needs to be enhanced as it is the key to improving CRC outcomes; fifth, where appropriate, to give consideration to the principles of equity, human dignity and disease severity, among others, when deciding on the uptake of new (targeted) treatments, rather than base decisions solely on cost-effectiveness criteria; and sixth, to firm up national guidelines including screening, diagnosis, treatment, pharmaceutical treatments and surveillance, with a view to enhancing their timeliness, evidence-base and free access to all.

Duration of symptoms, stage at diagnosis and relative survival in colon and rectal cancer

In colorectal cancer, the relation between duration of symptoms and stage at presentation and prognosis is not yet settled. All 1263 patients treated for colorectal cancer at Levanger Hospital, 1980-2004, and 2892 patients treated in Norway during 2004 were included. The association between symptom duration as an explanatory variable and tumour stage as a dependent variable was analysed using a proportional odds logistic regression model. Known duration of symptoms was divided into four categories: <1 week, 1-8 weeks, 2-6 months and >6 months. There was an inverse relationship between symptom duration and colon cancer TNM-stage, OR=0.73 (95% CI 0.63-0.84), p<0.001 (Levanger Hospital) and 0.84 (0.75-0.95), p=0.004 (Norway 2004), where the OR is per category of symptom duration. Duration of symptoms were also inversely associated with T-stage, N-stage and M-stage in colon cancer. These relationships were not found for rectal cancer. In colon cancer the relative five-year survival for the four intervals of symptom duration was 44%, 39%, 54% and 66%, p<0.001, in Levanger, 1980-2004, and four-year survival was 46%, 62%, 75% and 74%, p<0.001, in Norway 2004, respectively. For rectal cancer survival was not dependent on symptom duration. In a multivariate analysis of relative survival of patients with colon cancer, duration of symptoms was associated with survival independent of tumour differentiation and TNM-stage. Increasing duration of symptoms was positively associated with less advanced disease and better survival in colon cancer, but not in rectal cancer.

Expected reduction of colorectal cancer incidence within 8 years after introduction of the German screening colonoscopy programme: estimates based on 1,875,708 screening colonoscopies

In late 2002, colonoscopy was introduced as a primary screening tool for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Germany. We aimed to estimate the expected reduction in case numbers and incidence of CRC between 2003 and 2010 by detection and removal of advanced adenomas. Data from 1,875,708 women and men included in the national screening colonoscopy database were combined with estimates of transition rates of advanced adenomas and with national population projections. Despite relatively low screening participation, incident CRC cases are expected to be reduced by more than 15,000 between 2003 and 2010. The impact is expected to be largest in age groups 55-59, 60-64 and 65-69 in whom total case numbers in 2010 are expected to be reduced by 13%, 19% and 14% among women, and by 11%, 15% and 12%, respectively, among men. Our results forecast a major rapid reduction of the CRC burden in Germany by screening colonoscopy.

Colonoscopic yield of colorectal neoplasia in daily clinical practice

AIM: To assess the prevalence and location of advanced neoplasia in patients undergoing colonoscopy, and to compare the yield per indication.

METHODS: In a multicenter colonoscopy survey (n = 18 hospitals) in the Amsterdam area (Northern Holland), data of all colonoscopies performed during a three month period in 2005 were analyzed. The location and the histological features of all colonic neoplasia were recorded. The prevalence and the distribution of advanced colorectal neoplasia and differences in yield between indication clusters were evaluated. Advanced neoplasm was defined as adenoma > 10 mm in size, with > 25% villous features or with high-grade dysplasia or cancer.

RESULTS: A total of 4623 eligible patients underwent a total colonoscopy. The prevalence of advanced neoplasia was 13%, with 281 (6%) adenocarcinomas and 342 (7%) advanced adenomas. Sixty-seven percent and 33% of advanced neoplasia were located in the distal and proximal colon, respectively. Of all patients with right-sided advanced neoplasia (n = 228), 51% had a normal distal colon, whereas 27% had a synchronous distal adenoma. Ten percent of all colonoscopies were performed in asymptomatic patients, 7% of whom had advanced neoplasia. In the respective procedure indication clusters, the prevalence of right-sided advanced neoplasia ranged from 11%-57%.

CONCLUSION: One out of every 7-8 colonoscopies yielded an advanced colorectal neoplasm. Colonoscopy is warranted for the evaluation of both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.

On attitudes about colorectal cancer screening among gastrointestinal specialists and general practitioners in the Netherlands

AIM: To find out whether there are differences in attitudes about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among gastrointestinal (GI) specialists and general practitioners (GPs) and which method is preferred in a national screening program

METHODS: Four hundred and twenty Dutch GI specialists in the Netherlands and 400 GPs in Amsterdam were questioned in 2004. Questions included demographics, affiliation, attitude towards screening both for the general population and themselves, methods of screening, family history and individual risk.

RESULTS: Eighty-four percent of the GI specialists returned the questionnaire in comparison to 32% of the GPs (P < 0.001). Among the GI specialists, 92% favoured population screening whereas 51% of GPs supported population screening (P < 0.001). Of the GI specialists 95% planned to be screened themselves, while 30% of GPs intended to do so (P < 0.001). Regarding the general population, 72% of the GI specialists preferred colonoscopy as the screening method compared to 27% of the GPs (P < 0.001). The method preferred for personal screening was colonoscopy in 97% of the GI specialists, while 29% of the GPs favoured colonoscopy (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: Screening for CRC is strongly supported by Dutch GI specialists and less by GPs. The major health issue is possibly misjudged by GPs. Since GPs play a crucial role in a successful national screening program, CRC awareness should be realized by increasing knowledge about the incidence and mortality, thus increasing awareness of the need for screening among GPs.

Computed tomography colonography: current issues

OBJECTIVE

Direct and indirect evidence supports the concept of screening for adenomas and early stage colorectal cancer in reducing the incidence and disease-specific mortality. Controversy remains as to the appropriateness of and preferred methods for screening an asymptomatic population.

METHODS

Review of computed tomography (CT) colonography based on the literature and personal experience.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Current discrepancies in the data on accuracy and patient acceptance of CT colonography reflect differences in the performance and evaluation of this examination. Before CT colonography can be implemented in colorectal cancer screening, factors that cause this variability must be elucidated. Studies in which high-resolution scanning, three-dimensional review methods and an enhanced colonoscopic reference are used achieve an accuracy that is similar to colonoscopy. At the same time the evidence that ultra-low radiation dose CT colonography is feasible is mounting, a development that dramatically reduces one of the largest obstacles for large-scale application of this technique.

Patient priorities in colorectal cancer screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer screening guidelines in the United States recommend that decisions about screening should incorporate patient preferences, but little is known about how patients make the trade-offs inherent in choosing one of the five currently recommended screening programmes.

STUDY POPULATION

Forty-eight primary care patients at average risk for colorectal cancer who completed an experimental shared decision-making intervention based on a multicriteria decision analysis.

METHODS

Descriptive analysis of priorities assigned to decision criteria describing the advantages and disadvantages of the five currently recommended colorectal screening programmes in the United States. Criteria were divided into four major criteria - avoid cancer, avoid screening side-effects, avoid false positive test results and the combined importance of other considerations - and three subcriteria: the number of screening tests, test preparation and the test itself. Cluster analysis was used to identify common combinations of priorities within each set of criteria.

RESULTS

Patients assigned widely variable priorities to both the criteria and subcriteria: the average range of priorities was 46 on a 100 point priority scale. Cluster analysis identified six different combinations of priorities for the major criteria and four for the subcriteria. The differences in priorities assigned to both the criteria and subcriteria in the clusters were statistically significant with P < 0.0001.

CONCLUSIONS

Even within a small group of patients, preferences vary widely regarding trade-offs involved in choosing among the currently recommended colorectal cancer screening programmes in the United States. These results provide empiric support for recommendations to utilize a shared decision-making process when making colorectal cancer screening decisions and highlight the need for additional research into how average risk patients view the trade-offs inherent in choosing a colorectal cancer screening programme.