Population-Based Colonoscopy Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
Kaminski, Michal F
Zauber, Ann G
Kuipers, Ernst J
Hernán, Miguel A
Spaander, Manon C W
MetadataShow full item record
CitationPopulation-Based Colonoscopy Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. 2016, 176 (7):894-902 JAMA Intern Med
AbstractAlthough some countries have implemented widespread colonoscopy screening, most European countries have not introduced it because of uncertainty regarding participation rates, procedure-related pain and discomfort, endoscopist performance, and effectiveness. To our knowledge, no randomized trials on colonoscopy screening currently exist.
To investigate participation rate, adenoma yield, performance, and adverse events of population-based colonoscopy screening in several European countries.
A population-based randomized clinical trial was conducted among 94 959 men and women aged 55 to 64 years of average risk for colon cancer in Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, and Sweden from June 8, 2009, to June 23, 2014.
Colonoscopy screening or no screening.
Participation in colonoscopy screening, cancer and adenoma yield, and participant experience. Study outcomes were compared by country and endoscopist.
Of 31 420 eligible participants randomized to the colonoscopy group, 12 574 (40.0%) underwent screening. Participation rates were 60.7% in Norway (5354 of 8816), 39.8% in Sweden (486 of 1222), 33.0% in Poland (6004 of 18 188), and 22.9% in the Netherlands (730 of 3194) (P < .001). The cecum intubation rate was 97.2% (12 217 of 12 574), with 9726 participants (77.4%) not receiving sedation. Of the 12 574 participants undergoing colonoscopy screening, we observed 1 perforation (0.01%), 2 postpolypectomy serosal burns (0.02%), and 18 cases of bleeding owing to polypectomy (0.14%). Sixty-two individuals (0.5%) were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 3861 (30.7%) had adenomas, of which 1304 (10.4%) were high-risk adenomas. Detection rates were similar in the proximal and distal colon. Performance differed significantly between endoscopists; recommended benchmarks for cecal intubation (95%) and adenoma detection (25%) were not met by 6 (17.1%) and 10 of 35 endoscopists (28.6%), respectively. Moderate or severe abdominal pain after colonoscopy was reported by 601 of 3611 participants (16.7%) examined with standard air insufflation vs 214 of 5144 participants (4.2%) examined with carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation (P < .001).
Colonoscopy screening entails high detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Participation rates and endoscopist performance vary significantly. Postprocedure abdominal pain is common with standard air insufflation and can be significantly reduced by using CO2.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00883792.
DescriptionTo access publisher's full text version of this article click on the hyperlink at the bottom of the page
RightsArchived with thanks to JAMA internal medicine
- Water infusion versus air insufflation for colonoscopy.
- Authors: Hafner S, Zolk K, Radaelli F, Otte J, Rabenstein T, Zolk O
- Issue date: 2015 May 26
- A two-center randomized controlled trial of water-aided colonoscopy versus air insufflation colonoscopy.
- Authors: Cadoni S, Gallittu P, Sanna S, Fanari V, Porcedda ML, Erriu M, Leung FW
- Issue date: 2014 Mar
- A randomized, controlled comparison of warm water infusion in lieu of air insufflation versus air insufflation for aiding colonoscopy insertion in sedated patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening and surveillance.
- Authors: Leung JW, Mann SK, Siao-Salera R, Ransibrahmanakul K, Lim B, Cabrera H, Canete W, Barredo P, Gutierrez R, Leung FW
- Issue date: 2009 Sep
- Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled trial.
- Authors: Stoop EM, de Haan MC, de Wijkerslooth TR, Bossuyt PM, van Ballegooijen M, Nio CY, van de Vijver MJ, Biermann K, Thomeer M, van Leerdam ME, Fockens P, Stoker J, Kuipers EJ, Dekker E
- Issue date: 2012 Jan
- Carbon dioxide insufflation during colonoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease patients: a double-blind, randomized, single-center trial.
- Authors: Falt P, Šmajstrla V, Fojtík P, Hill M, Urban O
- Issue date: 2017 Mar