Sex differences in faecal occult blood test screening for colorectal cancer.
Published: 21st November 2018
Authors: L. Koskenvuo, N. Malila, J. Pitkäniemi, J. Miettinen, S. Heikkinen, V. Sallinen et al.
This analysis of patients in a randomized population‐based health services study was done to determine the effects of faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) in outcomes beyond mortality, and to obtain explanations for potential sex differences in screening effectiveness.
In the Finnish FOBT screening programme (2004–2011), people aged 60–69 years were randomized into the screening and control arms. Differences in incidence, symptoms, tumour location, TNM categories, non‐vital outcomes and survival in the screening and control arms were analysed.
From 321 311 individuals randomized, 743 patients with screening‐detected tumours and 617 control patients with CRC were analysed. CRC was less common in women than in men (0·34 versus 0·50 per cent; risk ratio (RR) 0·82, 95 per cent c.i. 0·74 to 0·91) and women were less often asymptomatic (16·7 versus 22·0 per cent; RR 0·76, 0·61 to 0·93). Women more often had right‐sided tumours (32·0 versus 21·3 per cent; RR 1·51, 1·26 to 1·80). Among men with left‐sided tumours, those in the screening arm had lower N (RR 1·23, 1·02 to 1·48) and M (RR 1·57, 1·14 to 2·17) categories, as well as a higher overall survival rate than those in the control arm. Furthermore among men with left‐sided tumours, non‐radical resections (26·2 versus 15·7 per cent; RR 1·67, 1·22 to 2·30) and postoperative chemotherapy sessions (61·6 versus 48·2 per cent; RR 1·28, 1·10 to 1·48) were more frequent in the control arm. Similar benefits of screening were not detected in men with right‐sided tumours or in women.
Biennial FOBT screening seems to be effective in terms of improving several different outcomes in men, but not in women. Differences in incidence, symptoms and tumour location may explain the differences in screening efficacy between sexes.Full text
You may also be interested in
Authors: D. S. Keller, C. Reali, A. Spinelli, M. Penna, F. Di Candido, C. Cunningham et al.
Authors: C. F. Justiniano, Z. Xu, A. Z. Becerra, C. T. Aquina, C. I. Boodry, L. K. Temple et al.
Functional outcomes from a randomized trial of early closure of temporary ileostomy after rectal excision for cancer.
Authors: C. Keane, J. Park, S. Öberg, A. Wedin, D. Bock, G. O'Grady et al.
Authors: R. J. Meinds, A. F. W. van der Steeg, C. E. J. Sloots, M. J. Witvliet, I. de Blaauw, W. G. van Gemert et al.
Influence of the level of sacrectomy on survival in patients with locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer.
Authors: Y. C. Lau, K. Jongerius, C. Wakeman, A. G. Heriot, M. J. Solomon, P. M. Sagar et al.
Cost‐effectiveness analysis of a multicentre randomized clinical trial comparing surgery with conservative management for recurrent and ongoing diverticulitis (DIRECT trial).
Authors: H. E. Bolkenstein, G. A. de Wit, E. C. J. Consten, B. J. M. Van de Wall, I. A. M. J. Broeders, W. A. Draaisma et al.
Notes: Maintained benefits
Authors: I. van 't Sant, W. J. van Eden, M. P. Engbersen, N. F. M. Kok, K. Woensdregt, D. M. J. Lambregts et al.
Notes: Promising staging tool
Authors: C. T. Aquina, A. Z. Becerra, Z. Xu, C. F. Justiniano, K. Noyes, J. R. T. Monson et al.
Notes: Non‐operative management better
Cost‐effectiveness of liver transplantation in patients with colorectal metastases confined to the liver. BJS 2019; 106: 132-141.
Authors: G. M. W. Bjørnelv, S. Dueland, P.‐D. Line, P. Joranger, Å. A. Fretland, B. Edwin et al.
Notes: Not cost effective for everyone
Systematic review of treatment intensification using novel agents for chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 1553-1572.
Authors: R. Clifford, N. Govindarajah, J. L. Parsons, S. Gollins, N. P. West, D. Vimalachandran et al.
Notes: Promising agents coming
Authors: R. Ahl, P. Matthiessen, X. Fang, Y. Cao, G. Sjolin, R. Lindgren et al.
Notes: Reduces mortality
Bowel dysfunction after sigmoid resection for cancer and its impact on quality of life. BJS 2019; 106: 142-151.
Authors: H. Elfeki, H. M. Larsen, K. J. Emmertsen, P. Christensen, M. Youssef, W. Khafagy et al.
Notes: Substantial impairment common