Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening on All-Cause and CRC-Specific Mortality Reduction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

被引:42
作者
Zheng, Senshuang [1 ]
Schrijvers, Jelle J. A. [1 ]
Greuter, Marcel J. W. [2 ,3 ]
Kats-Ugurlu, Guersah [4 ]
Lu, Wenli [5 ]
de Bock, Geertruida H. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Groningen, Med Ctr Groningen, Dept Epidemiol, NL-9700 RB Groningen, Netherlands
[2] Univ Groningen, Med Ctr Groningen, Dept Radiol, NL-9700 RB Groningen, Netherlands
[3] Univ Twente, Fac Elect Engn Math & Comp Sci, Tech Med Ctr, Robot & Mechatron RaM Grp, NL-7522 NH Enschede, Netherlands
[4] Univ Groningen, Med Ctr Groningen, Dept Pathol, NL-9700 RB Groningen, Netherlands
[5] Tianjin Med Univ, Dept Epidemiol & Hlth Stat, Tianjin 300070, Peoples R China
关键词
colorectal cancer; screening; mortality reduction; simulation models; randomized control trials; meta-analysis; FECAL IMMUNOCHEMICAL TEST; COST-EFFECTIVENESS; FOLLOW-UP; COLONOSCOPY; IMPACT; VALIDATION; ADHERENCE; PROGRAM; MODELS; INFORM;
D O I
10.3390/cancers15071948
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is one of the most effective measures to prevent CRC resulting in a decrease in CRC mortality. Mortality reduction (MR) from CRC screening was estimated based on large-scale randomized control trials (RCTs) as well as in model studies, as there is a wide range on CRC-specific MR and a lack of estimates of all-cause MR. We found that biennial FIT, gFOBT, single/5-yearly FS, and 10-yearly colonoscopy screenings reduced CRC-specific mortality significantly, and 10-yearly colonoscopy is the most effective with a mortality reduction of 73%. The effectiveness of screening increases at younger screening initiation ages and higher adherences. Our findings also suggest that adherence is an important factor in CRC-specific mortality and is an explanation for discrepancy in thus far published pooled estimates. (1) Background: The aim of this study was to pool and compare all-cause and colorectal cancer (CRC) specific mortality reduction of CRC screening in randomized control trials (RCTs) and simulation models, and to determine factors that influence screening effectiveness. (2) Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane library were searched for eligible studies. Multiuse simulation models or RCTs that compared the mortality of CRC screening with no screening in general population were included. CRC-specific and all-cause mortality rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by a bivariate random model. (3) Results: 10 RCTs and 47 model studieswere retrieved. The pooled CRC-specific mortality rate ratios in RCTs were 0.88 (0.80, 0.96) and 0.76 (0.68, 0.84) for guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests (gFOBT) and single flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening, respectively. For the model studies, the rate ratios were 0.45 (0.39, 0.51) for biennial fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), 0.31 (0.28, 0.34) for biennial gFOBT, 0.61 (0.53, 0.72) for single FS, 0.27 (0.21, 0.35) for 10-yearly colonoscopy, and 0.35 (0.29, 0.42) for 5-yearly FS. The CRC-specific mortality reduction of gFOBT increased with higher adherence in both studies (RCT: 0.78 (0.68, 0.89) vs. 0.92 (0.87, 0.98), model: 0.30 (0.28, 0.33) vs. 0.92 (0.51, 1.63)). Model studies showed a 0.62-1.1% all-cause mortality reduction with single FS screening. (4) Conclusions: Based on RCTs and model studies, biennial FIT/gFOBT, single and 5-yearly FS, and 10-yearly colonoscopy screening significantly reduces CRC-specific mortality. The model estimates are much higher than in RCTs, because the simulated biennial gFOBT assumes higher adherence. The effectiveness of screening increases at younger screening initiation ages and higher adherences.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 95 条
  • [41] International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2020, Globocan
  • [42] International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2019, IARC Handb Cancer Prev, VVolume 17, P300, DOI DOI 10.15258/ISTARULES.2019.F
  • [43] Culturally Targeted Patient Navigation for Increasing African Americans' Adherence to Screening Colonoscopy: A Randomized Clinical Trial
    Jandorf, Lina
    Braschi, Caitlyn
    Ernstoff, Elizabeth
    Wong, Carrie R.
    Thelemaque, Linda
    Winkel, Gary
    Thompson, Hayley S.
    Redd, William H.
    Itzkowitz, Steven H.
    [J]. CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2013, 22 (09) : 1577 - 1587
  • [44] Comparing tailored and narrative worksite interventions at increasing colonoscopy adherence in adults 50-75: A randomized controlled trial
    Jensen, Jakob D.
    King, Andy J.
    Carcioppolo, Nick
    Krakow, Melinda
    Samadder, N. Jewel
    Morgan, Susan
    [J]. SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2014, 104 : 31 - 40
  • [45] Colorectal cancer screening with faecal testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
    Jodal, Henriette C.
    Helsingen, Lise M.
    Anderson, Joseph C.
    Lytvyn, Lyubov
    Vandvik, Per Olav
    Emilsson, Louise
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2019, 9 (10):
  • [46] Cost-Effectiveness of Outreach Strategies for Stool-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Medicaid Population
    Karlitz, Jordan J.
    Fendrick, A. Mark
    Bhatt, Jay
    Coronado, Gloria D.
    Jeyakumar, Sushanth
    Smith, Nathaniel J.
    Plescia, Marcus
    Brooks, Durado
    Limburg, Paul
    Lieberman, David
    [J]. POPULATION HEALTH MANAGEMENT, 2022, 25 (03) : 343 - 351
  • [47] Khalafallah A, 2010, MEDITERR J HEMATOL I, V2, DOI [10.4084/MJHID.2010.005, 10.1136/bmj.l4898]
  • [48] Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Updated Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force
    Knudsen, Amy B.
    Rutter, Carolyn M.
    Peterse, Elisabeth F. P.
    Lietz, Anna P.
    Seguin, Claudia L.
    Meester, Reinier G. S.
    Perdue, Leslie A.
    Lin, Jennifer S.
    Siegel, Rebecca L.
    Doria-Rose, V. Paul
    Feuer, Eric J.
    Zauber, Ann G.
    Kuntz, Karen M.
    Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2021, 325 (19): : 1998 - 2011
  • [49] Estimation of Benefits, Burden, and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force
    Knudsen, Amy B.
    Zauber, Ann G.
    Rutter, Carolyn M.
    Naber, Steffie K.
    Doria-Rose, V. Paul
    Pabiniak, Chester
    Johanson, Colden
    Fischer, Sara E.
    Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris
    Kuntz, Karen M.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2016, 315 (23): : 2595 - 2609
  • [50] Simulation models in population breast cancer screening: A systematic review
    Koleva-Kolarova, Rositsa G.
    Zhan, Zhuozhao
    Greuter, Marcel J. W.
    Feenstra, Talitha L.
    De Bock, Geertruida H.
    [J]. BREAST, 2015, 24 (04) : 354 - 363