Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25225905›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2014

Optimising faecal occult blood screening:retrospective analysis of NHS Bowel Cancer Screening data to improve the screening algorithm.

J Geraghty, P Butler, H Seaman, J Snowball, S Sarkar, R Blanks, S Halloran, K Bodger, C J Rees

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

J Geraghty1] Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK [2] University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
P ButlerBowel Cancer Screening Southern Programme Hub, Guildford, UK.
H Seaman1] Bowel Cancer Screening Southern Programme Hub, Guildford, UK [2] University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK.
J SnowballBowel Cancer Screening Southern Programme Hub, Guildford, UK.
S SarkarRoyal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
R BlanksCancer Epidemiology Group at the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
S Halloran1] Bowel Cancer Screening Southern Programme Hub, Guildford, UK [2] University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK.
K Bodger1] University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK [2] Aintree University Hospital NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK.
C J Rees1] South of Tyne Bowel Cancer Screening Centre, South Tyneside District Hospital, South Shields, UK [2] Durham University School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham, UK [3] on behalf of the Northern Region Endoscopy Group.
Bowel Cancer UK · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBRoyal Liverpool University Hospital · GBSouth Tyneside District Hospital · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal neoplasia causes bleeding, enabling detection using Faecal Occult Blood tests (FOBt). The National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) guaiac-based FOBt (gFOBt) kits contain six sample windows (or 'spots') and each kit returns either a positive, unclear or negative result. Test kits with five or six positive windows are termed 'abnormal' and the subject is referred for further investigation, usually colonoscopy. If 1-4 windows are positive, the result is initially 'unclear' and up to two further kits are submitted, further positivity leads to colonoscopy ('weak positive'). If no further blood is detected, the test is deemed 'normal' and subjects are tested again in 2 years' time. We studied the association between spot positivity % (SP%) and neoplasia.

methodsSubjects in the Southern Hub completing the first of two consecutive episodes between April 2009 and March 2011 were studied. Each episode included up to three kits and a maximum of 18 windows (spots). For each positivity combination, the percentage of positive spots out of the total number of spots completed by an individual in a single-screening episode was derived and named 'SP%'. Fifty-five combinations of SP can occur if the position of positive/negative spots on the same test card is ignored.The proportion of individuals for whom neoplasia was identified in Episode 2 was derived for each of the 55 spot combinations. In addition, the Episode 1 spot pattern was analysed for subjects with cancer detected in Episode 2.

resultsDuring Episode 2, 284,261 subjects completed gFOBT screening and colonoscopies were performed on 3891 (1.4%) subjects. At colonoscopy, cancer was detected in 7.4% (n=286) and a further 39.8% (n=1550) had adenomas. Cancer was detected in 21.3% of subjects with an abnormal first kit (five or six positive spots) and in 5.9% of those with a weak positive test result.The proportion of cancers detected was positively correlated with SP%, with an R(2) correlation (linear) of 0.89. As the SP% increased from 11 to 100%, so the colorectal cancer (CRC) detection rate increased from 4 to 25%. At the lower SP%s, from 11to 25%, the CRC risk was relatively static at ~4%. Above an SP% of 25%, every 10-percentage points increase in the SP%, was associated with an increase in cancer detection of 2.5%.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated a strong correlation between SP% and cancer detection within the NHS BCSP. At the population level, subjects' cancer risk ranged from 4 to 25% and correlated with the gFOBt spot pattern.Some subjects with an SP% of 11% proceed to colonoscopy, whereas others with an SP% of 22% do not. Colonoscopy on patients with four positive spots in kit 1 (SP% 22%) would, we estimate, detect cancer in ~4% of cases and increase overall colonoscopy volume by 6%. This study also demonstrated how screening programme data could be used to guide its ongoing implementation and inform other programmes.

Indexed as

Occult BloodAdultAgedAlgorithmsColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReagent Kits, DiagnosticRetrospective StudiesReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID25225905
PMCPMC4260024
OpenAlexW2017176137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.