A population-based audit of the clinical use of faecal occult blood testing in primary care for colorectal cancer

Diagnostic accuracy of a quantitative faecal immunochemical test vs. symptoms suspected for colorectal cancer in patients referred for colonoscopy

Objective: Determine diagnostic accuracy of a quantitative faecal immunochemical haemoglobin test (QuikRead go^® FIT, Orion Diagnostica Oy) in symptomatic patients referred for colonoscopy, at various cut-offs and for one or two tests.Methods: Patients referred to four endoscopy units in mid-Sweden between 2013 and 2017 provided information on lower abdominal symptoms and faecal samples from two separate days prior to colonoscopy.Results: In all, 5.4% (13/242) patients had colorectal cancer (CRC). For one FIT at cut-off 10 µg Hb/g faeces, sensitivity for CRC was 92% (95% CI 78-100%) and specificity 77% (95% CI 72-83%); equal to 74%; 95% CI 68-80 (178/242) colonoscopies potentially avoidable and one CRC missed. Based on the maximal outcome of two FITs, sensitivity was 100%, specificity 71% (66-77%) and 68%; 95% CI 62-74 (160/237) colonoscopies potentially avoidable. Among 17% (42/242) patients with one FIT of >200 µg Hb/g faeces, 85% (11/13) had CRC. Positive predictive values of FIT varied 16.9-26.2% depending on cut-off and one or two FITs, whereas NPVs were 99% and above in all scenarios.In 60 patients reporting rectal bleeding, one FIT at cut-off 10 µg Hb/g discriminated well between CRC and other conditions (p = .001). In regression models, FIT was more important than age, sex and all symptoms.Conclusion: One or two FITs in symptomatic patients referred for colonoscopy imply powerful risk stratification abilities for CRC, even among patients reporting rectal bleeding. Larger studies in various settings will clarify how to make the best use of this opportunity. Trial registration: Clinicaltrails.gov NCT02491593.

Incidence of faecal occult blood test interval cancers in population-based colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are replacing guaiac faecal occult blood tests (gFOBTs) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Incidence of interval colorectal cancer (iCRC) following a negative stool test result is not yet known. We aimed to compare incidence of iCRC following a negative FIT or gFOBT.

DESIGN

We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, PubMed and Google Scholar from inception to 12 December 2017 for citations related to CRC screening based on stool tests. We included studies on FIT or gFOBT iCRC in average-risk screening populations. Main outcome was pooled incidence rate of iCRCs per 100 000 person-years (p-y). Pooled incidence rates were obtained by fitting random-effect Poisson regression models.

RESULTS

We identified 7 426 records and included 29 studies. Meta-analyses comprised data of 6 987 825 subjects with a negative test result, in whom 11 932 screen-detected CRCs and 5 548 gFOBT or FIT iCRCs were documented. Median faecal haemoglobin (Hb) positivity cut-off used was 20 (range 10-200) µg Hb/g faeces in the 17 studies that provided FIT results. Pooled incidence rates of iCRC following FIT and gFOBT were 20 (95% CI 14 to 29; I²=99%) and 34 (95% CI 20 to 57; I²=99%) per 100 000 p-y, respectively. Pooled incidence rate ratio of FIT versus gFOBT iCRC was 0.58 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.07; I²=99%) and 0.36 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.75; I²=10%) in sensitivity analysis. For every FIT iCRC, 2.6 screen-detected CRCs were found (ratio 1:2.6); for gFOBT, the ratio between iCRC and screen-detected CRC was 1:1.2. Age below 60 years and the third screening round were significantly associated with a lower iCRC rate.

CONCLUSION

A negative gFOBT result is associated with a higher iCRC incidence than a negative FIT. This supports the use of FIT over gFOBT as CRC screening tool.

Faecal immunochemical tests to triage patients with lower abdominal symptoms for suspected colorectal cancer referrals in primary care: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the UK. Presenting symptoms that can be associated with CRC usually have another explanation. Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) detect blood that is not visible to the naked eye and may help to select patients who are likely to benefit from further investigation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of FITs [OC-Sensor (Eiken Chemical Co./MAST Diagnostics, Tokyo, Japan), HM-JACKarc (Kyowa Medex/Alpha Laboratories Ltd, Tokyo, Japan), FOB Gold (Sentinel/Sysmex, Sentinel Diagnostics, Milan, Italy), RIDASCREEN Hb or RIDASCREEN Hb/Hp complex (R-Biopharm, Darmstadt, Germany)] for primary care triage of people with low-risk symptoms.

METHODS

Twenty-four resources were searched to March 2016. Review methods followed published guidelines. Summary estimates were calculated using a bivariate model or a random-effects logistic regression model. The cost-effectiveness analysis considered long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) that were associated with different faecal occult blood tests and direct colonoscopy referral. Modelling comprised a diagnostic decision model, a Markov model for long-term costs and QALYs that were associated with CRC treatment and progression, and a Markov model for QALYs that were associated with no CRC.

RESULTS

We included 10 studies. Using a single sample and 10 µg Hb/g faeces threshold, sensitivity estimates for OC-Sensor [92.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 86.9% to 95.3%] and HM-JACKarc (100%, 95% CI 71.5% to 100%) indicated that both may be useful to rule out CRC. Specificity estimates were 85.8% (95% CI 78.3% to 91.0%) and 76.6% (95% CI 72.6% to 80.3%). Triage using FITs could rule out CRC and avoid colonoscopy in approximately 75% of symptomatic patients. Data from our systematic review suggest that 22.5-93% of patients with a positive FIT and no CRC have other significant bowel pathologies. The results of the base-case analysis suggested minimal difference in QALYs between all of the strategies; no triage (referral straight to colonoscopy) is the most expensive. Faecal immunochemical testing was cost-effective (cheaper and more, or only slightly less, effective) compared with no triage. Faecal immunochemical testing was more effective and costly than guaiac faecal occult blood testing, but remained cost-effective at a threshold incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £30,000. The results of scenario analyses did not differ substantively from the base-case. Results were better for faecal immunochemical testing when accuracy of the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) was based on studies that were more representative of the correct population.

LIMITATIONS

Only one included study evaluated faecal immunochemical testing in primary care; however, all of the other studies evaluated faecal immunochemical testing at the point of referral. Further, validation data for the Faecal haemoglobin, Age and Sex Test (FAST) score, which includes faecal immunochemical testing, showed no significant difference in performance between primary and secondary care. There were insufficient data to adequately assess FOB Gold, RIDASCREEN Hb or RIDASCREEN Hb/Hp complex. No study compared FIT assays, or FIT assays versus gFOBT; all of the data included in this assessment refer to the clinical effectiveness of individual FIT methods and not their comparative effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Faecal immunochemical testing is likely to be a clinically effective and cost-effective strategy for triaging people who are presenting, in primary care settings, with lower abdominal symptoms and who are at low risk for CRC. Further research is required to confirm the effectiveness of faecal immunochemical testing in primary care practice and to compare the performance of different FIT assays.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037723.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) can help to rule out colorectal cancer in patients presenting in primary care with lower abdominal symptoms: a systematic review conducted to inform new NICE DG30 diagnostic guidance

BACKGROUND

This study has attempted to assess the effectiveness of quantitative faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) for triage of people presenting with lower abdominal symptoms, where a referral to secondary care for investigation of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) is being considered, particularly when the 2-week criteria are not met.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review following published guidelines for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Twenty-one resources were searched up until March 2016. Summary estimates were calculated using a bivariate model or a random-effects logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Nine studies are included in this review. One additional study, included in our systematic review, was provided as 'academic in confidence' and cannot be described herein. When FIT was based on a single faecal sample and a cut-off of 10 μg Hb/g faeces, sensitivity estimates indicated that a negative result using either the OC-Sensor or HM-JACKarc may be adequate to rule out nearly all CRC; the summary estimate of sensitivity for the OC-Sensor was 92.1% (95% confidence interval, CI 86.9-95.3%), based on four studies (n = 4091 participants, 176 with CRC), and the only study of HM-JACKarc to assess the 10 μg Hb/g faeces cut-off (n = 507 participants, 11 with CRC) reported a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 71.5-100%). The corresponding specificity estimates were 85.8% (95% CI 78.3-91.0%) and 76.6% (95% CI 72.6-80.3%), respectively. When the diagnostic criterion was changed to include lower grades of neoplasia, i.e. the target condition included higher risk adenoma (HRA) as well as CRC, the rule-out performance of both FIT assays was reduced.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence to suggest that triage using FIT at a cut-off around 10 μg Hb/g faeces has the potential to correctly rule out CRC and avoid colonoscopy in 75-80% of symptomatic patients.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 42016037723.

Ethical issues with colorectal cancer screening-a systematic review

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely recommended and implemented. However, sometimes CRC screening is not implemented despite good evidence, and some types of CRC screening are implemented despite lack of evidence. The objective of this article is to expose and elucidate relevant ethical issues in the literature on CRC screening that are important for open and transparent deliberation on CRC screening.

METHODS

An axiological question-based method is used for exposing and elucidating ethical issues relevant in HTA. A literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed Bioethics subset, ISI Web of Knowledge, Bioethics Literature Database (BELIT), Ethics in Medicine (ETHMED), SIBIL Base dati di bioetica, LEWI Bibliographic Database on Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities, and EUROETHICS identified 870 references of which 114 were found relevant according to title and abstract. The content of the included papers were subject to ethical analysis to highlight the ethical issues, concerns, and arguments.

RESULTS

A wide range of important ethical issues were identified. The main benefits are reduced relative CRC mortality rate, and potentially incidence rate, but there is no evidence of reduced absolute mortality rate. Potential harms are bleeding, perforation, false test results, overdetection, overdiagnosis, overtreatment (including unnecessary removal of polyps), and (rarely) death. Other important issues are related to autonomy and informed choice equity, justice, medicalization, and expanding disease.

CONCLUSION

A series of important ethical issues have been identified and need to be addressed in open and transparent deliberation on CRC screening.

Vitamin B-6 and colorectal cancer risk: a prospective population-based study using 3 distinct plasma markers of vitamin B-6 status

Background: Higher plasma concentrations of the vitamin B-6 marker pyridoxal 5'-phosphate (PLP) have been associated with reduced colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. Inflammatory processes, including vitamin B-6 catabolism, could explain such findings.Objective: We investigated 3 biomarkers of vitamin B-6 status in relation to CRC risk.Design: This was a prospective case-control study of 613 CRC cases and 1190 matched controls nested within the Northern Sweden Health and Disease Study (n = 114,679). Participants were followed from 1985 to 2009, and the median follow-up from baseline to CRC diagnosis was 8.2 y. PLP, pyridoxal, pyridoxic acid (PA), 3-hydroxykynurenine, and xanthurenic acids (XAs) were measured in plasma with the use of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. We calculated relative and absolute risks of CRC for PLP and the ratios 3-hydroxykynurenine:XA (HK:XA), an inverse marker of functional vitamin B-6 status, and PA:(PLP + pyridoxal) (PAr), a marker of inflammation and oxidative stress and an inverse marker of vitamin B-6 status.Results: Plasma PLP concentrations were associated with a reduced CRC risk for the third compared with the first quartile and for PLP sufficiency compared with deficiency [OR: 0.60 (95% CI: 0.44, 0.81) and OR: 0.55 (95% CI: 0.37, 0.81), respectively]. HK:XA and PAr were both associated with increased CRC risk [OR: 1.48 (95% CI: 1.08, 2.02) and OR: 1.50 (95% CI: 1.10, 2.04), respectively] for the fourth compared with the first quartile. For HK:XA and PAr, the findings were mainly observed in study participants with <10.5 y of follow-up between sampling and diagnosis.Conclusions: Vitamin B-6 deficiency as measured by plasma PLP is associated with a clear increase in CRC risk. Furthermore, our analyses of novel markers of functional vitamin B-6 status and vitamin B-6-associated oxidative stress and inflammation suggest a role in tumor progression rather than initiation.

Diagnosing colorectal cancer and inflammatory bowel disease in primary care: The usefulness of tests for faecal haemoglobin, faecal calprotectin, anaemia and iron deficiency. A prospective study

OBJECTIVE

Abdominal complaints are common reasons to consult primary care but they are seldom caused by colorectal cancer (CRC), high-risk adenomas (HRAs), or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Reliable diagnostic aids would be helpful in deciding which patients to refer for bowel imaging. Our aim was to assess the value of a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and a faecal calprotectin (FC) test in detecting CRC, HRAs and IBD in primary care, and the value of combining these tests with anaemia and iron-deficiency tests.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective study included 373 consecutive patients that received a FIT or a FC test ordered by a primary care physician. We collected samples for FITs, FC tests, full blood counts and iron-deficiency tests. Physicians were instructed to refer patients with a positive FIT or FC test (cut-off ≥100μg/g) for bowel imaging. The patients' presenting symptoms were recorded. Patients were followed for 2 years.

RESULTS

The best test for detecting CRC and IBD was the combination of the FIT and haemoglobin concentration. This test had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 100%, 61.7%, 11.7% and 100%, respectively. The FIT detected a significantly larger proportion of CRC, HRAs and IBD than the FC test (0.92 versus 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.22-0.67).

CONCLUSION

A negative FIT combined with a normal haemoglobin concentration could rule out CRC and IBD with a high degree of safety. This could be useful in prioritising referrals for bowel imaging from primary care.

Encapsulating chromogenic reaction substrates with porous hydrogel scaffolds onto arrayed capillary tubes toward a visual and high-throughput colorimetric strategy for rapid occult blood tests

A porous hydrogel composite was used to encapsulate the chromogenic reaction substrates onto capillary tubes arrayed for visual and high-throughput occult blood test.

Implementation of immunochemical faecal occult blood test in general practice: a study protocol using a cluster-randomised stepped-wedge design

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is a common malignancy and a leading cause of cancer-related death. Half of patients with colorectal cancer initially present with non-specific or vague symptoms. In the need for a safe low-cost test, the immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) may be part of the evaluation of such patients in primary care. Currently, Danish general practitioners have limited access to this test. The aim of this article is to describe a study that will assess the uptake and clinical use of iFOBT in general practice. Furthermore, it will investigate the diagnostic value and the clinical implications of using iFOBT in general practice on patients presenting with non-alarm symptoms of colorectal cancer.

METHODS/DESIGN

The study uses a cluster-randomised stepped-wedge design and is conducted in the Central Denmark Region among 836 GPs in 381 general practices. The municipalities of the Region and their appertaining general practitioners will be included sequentially in the study during the first 7 months of the 1-year study period. The following intervention has been developed for the study: a mandatory intervention providing all general practitioners with a starting package of 10 iFOBTs, a clinical instruction on iFOBT use in general practice and online information material from the date of inclusion, and an optional intervention consisting of a continuous medical education on colorectal cancer diagnostics and use of iFOBT.

DISCUSSION

This study is among the first and largest trials to investigate the diagnostic use and the clinical value of iFOBT on patients presenting with non-alarm symptoms of colorectal cancer. The findings will be of national and international importance for the future planning of colorectal cancer diagnostics, particularly for 'low-risk-but-not-no-risk' patients with non-alarm symptoms of colorectal cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

A Trial of the Implementation of iFOBT in General Practice NCT02308384 . Date of registration: 26 November 2014.

Could it be colorectal cancer? General practitioners' use of the faecal occult blood test and decision making--a qualitative study

Background

Abdominal complaints are common reasons for contacting primary care physicians, and it can be challenging for general practitioners (GPs) to identify patients with suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) for referral to secondary care. The immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) is used as a diagnostic aid in primary care, but it is unclear how test results are interpreted. Studies show that negative tests are associated with a risk of delayed diagnosis of CRC and that some patients with positive tests are not investigated further. The aim of this study was to explore what makes GPs suspect CRC and to investigate their practices regarding investigation and referral, with special attention on the use of iFOBTs.

Method

Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with eleven purposely selected GPs and registrars in Region Jämtland Härjedalen, Sweden, and subjected to qualitative content analysis.

Results

In the analysis of the interviews four categories were identified that described what made the physicians suspect CRC and their practices. Careful listening—with awareness of the pitfalls: Attentive listening was described as essential, but there was a risk of being misled by, for example, the patient’s own explanations. Tests can help—the iFOBT can also complicate the diagnosis: All physicians used iFOBTs to various extents. In the absence of guidelines, all found their own ways to interpret and act on the test results. To refer or not to refer—safety margins are necessary: Uncertainty was described as a part of everyday work and was handled in different ways. Common vague symptoms could be CRC and thus justified referral with safety margins. Growing more confident—but also more humble: With increasing experience, the GPs described becoming more confident in their decisions but they were also more cautious.

Conclusions

Listening carefully to the patient’s history was essential. The iFOBT was frequently used as support, but there were considerable variations in the interpretation and handling of the results. The diagnostic process can be described as navigating uncertain waters with safety margins, while striving to keep the patient’s best interests in mind. The iFOBT may be useful as a diagnostic aid in primary care, but more research and evidence-based guidelines are needed.

Diagnostic accuracy of the faecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients: comparison with NICE and SIGN referral criteria

AIM

The diagnostic accuracy of the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) at a 100 ng/ml threshold for colorectal cancer (CRC) was compared with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) referral criteria.

METHOD

A multicentre, prospective, blind study of diagnostic tests was carried out in two Spanish health areas. In 787 symptomatic patients referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy, we determined whether patients met NICE and SIGN referral criteria. All patients performed one FIT determination (OCsensor(™) ). The sensitivity and specificity for CRC detection were determined with McNemar's test. The diagnostic odds ratio as well as the number needed to scope (NNS) to detect a CRC were calculated.

RESULTS

We detected CRC in 97 (12.3%) patients; 241 (30.6%) had an FIT ≥ 100 ng/ml and 300 (38.1%) and 473 (60.1%) met NICE and SIGN referral criteria. The FIT had a higher sensitivity for CRC detection than NICE criteria (87.6%, 61.9%; P < 0.001) and SIGN criteria (82.5%; P = 0.4). The specificity of FIT was also higher than NICE and SIGN criteria (77.4%, 65.2%, 42.7%; P < 0.001). The odds ratios of FIT, NICE and SIGN criteria for the diagnosis of CRC were 24.24 (95% CI 12.91-45.53), 3.04 (95% CI 1.96-4.71) and 3.51 (95% CI 2.03-6.06). The NNS to detect a CRC in individuals with an FIT ≥ 100 ng/ml was 2.83 (95% CI 2.4-3.41) and in individuals who met NICE and SIGN criteria it was 5 (95% CI 3.98-6.37) and 5.95 (95% CI 4.85-7.35).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that FIT is more accurate for the detection of CRC than the current NICE and SIGN referral criteria in symptomatic patients referred for colonoscopy.

Ethical issues in colorectal cancer screening

In many countries, colorectal cancer screening is currently an established population screening program due to the evidence on its reduction of colorectal cancer mortality. There is general consensus that colorectal cancer screening meets the screening criteria as proposed by Wilson and Jungner. However, as for all population screening programs, colorectal cancer screening also has disadvantages and thereby entails ethical issues. There are the general issues concerning the introduction of screening programs (e.g. medicalization, overdiagnosis and overtreatment, information provision to screenees), evaluation of cancer screening programs (e.g. lead time and length bias), chosen screening method (e.g. false-positive and false-negative test results, reduction of all-cause mortality, choice between different screening methods). The different colorectal cancer screening methods and the ethical issues concerning colorectal cancer screening will be discussed in this review.

Immunochemical faecal occult blood tests in primary care and the risk of delay in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the value, risks, and shortcomings of immunochemical faecal occult blood tests (iFOBTs) in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) and adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in patients initially presenting to primary care.

DESIGN

A retrospective population-based study.

SETTING AND SUBJECTS

All 495 cases of CRC and adenomas with HGD diagnosed in the county of Jämtland, Sweden from 2005 to 2009.

RESULTS

Of 495 patients 323 (65%) initially presented to primary care. IFOBTs were performed in 215 of 323 (67%) patients. The sensitivity of iFOBT for CRC and adenomas with HGD was 88% (83% when patients with a history of rectal bleeding were excluded). Of 34 patients with anaemia found en passant, 10 had negative iFOBTs. Time to diagnosis was longer for patients with negative iFOBTs (p < 0.0005).

CONCLUSION

IFOBT might be helpful in selecting which patients to refer for colonoscopy. However, iFOBT has a limited sensitivity as a diagnostic test for CRC and adenomas with HGD. Relying only on iFOBT for colonoscopy referral could delay diagnosis, especially for patients with anaemia found en passant.

Results of National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Croatia (2007-2011)

AIM: To study the epidemiologic indicators of uptake and characteristic colonoscopic findings in the Croatian National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

METHODS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) was the second leading cause of cancer mortality in men (n = 1063, 49.77/100  000), as well as women (n = 803, 34.89/100  000) in Croatia in 2009. The Croatian National CRC Screening Program was established by the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, and its implementation started in September, 2007. The coordinators were recruited in each county institute of public health with an obligation to provide fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) to the participants, followed by colonoscopy in all positive cases. The FOBT was performed by hypersensitive guaiac-based Hemognost card test (Biognost, Zagreb). The test and short questionnaire were delivered to the home addresses of all citizens aged 50-74 years consecutively during a 3-year period. Each participant was required to complete the questionnaire and send it together with the stool specimen on three test cards back to the institute for further analysis. About 4% FOBT positive cases are expected in normal risk populations. A descriptive analysis was performed.

RESULTS: A total of 1  056  694 individuals (born between 1933-1945 and 1952-1957) were invited to screening by the end of September 2011. In total, 210  239 (19.9%) persons returned the envelope with a completed questionnaire, and 181 102 of them returned it with a correctly placed stool specimen on FOBT cards. Until now, 12  477 (6.9%), FOBT-positive patients have been found, which is at the upper limit of the expected values in European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in CRC Screening and Diagnosis [European Union (EU) Guidelines]. Colonoscopy was performed in 8541 cases (uptake 66%). Screening has identified CRC in 472 patients (5.5% of colonoscopied, 3.8% of FOBT-positive, and 0.26% of all screened individuals). This is also in the expected range according to EU Guidelines. Polyps were found and removed in 3329 (39% of colonoscopied) patients. The largest number of polyps were found in the left half of the colon: 64% (19%, 37% and 8% in the rectum, sigma, and descendens, respectively). The other 36% were detected in the proximal part (17% in the transverse colon and 19% in ceco-ascending colon). Small polyps in the rectum (5-10 mm in diameter), sigmoid and descending colon were histologically found to be tubular adenomas in 60% of cases, with a low degree of dysplasia, and 40% were classified as hyperplastic. Polyps of this size in the transverse or ceco-ascending colon in almost 20% had a histologically villous component, but still had a low degree of dysplasia. Polyps sized 10-20 mm in diameter were in 43% cases tubulovillous, and among them, 32% had areas with a high degree of dysplasia, especially those polyps in the ceco-ascending or transverse part. The characteristics of the Croatian CRC Screening National Program in the first 3 years were as follows: relatively low percentage of returned FOBT, higher number of FOBT-positive persons but still in the range for population-based programs, and higher number of pathologic findings (polyps and cancers).

CONCLUSION: These results suggest a need for intervention strategies that include organizational changes and educational activities to improve awareness of CRC screening usefulness and increase participation rates.