NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Research Articles

The gut microbiota in adults with cystic fibrosis compared to colorectal cancer

BackgroundGut dysbiosis is implicated in colorectal cancer (CRC) pathogenesis. Cystic fibrosis (CF) is associated with both gut dysbiosis and increased CRC risk. We therefore compared the faecal microbiota from individuals with CF to CRC and screening samples. We also assessed changes in CRC-associated taxa before and after triple CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator therapy. MethodsBacterial DNA amplification comprising V4 16S rRNA analysis was conducted on 84 baseline and 53 matched follow-up stool samples from adults with CF. These data were compared to an existing cohort of 430 CRC and 491 control gFOBT samples from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Data were also compared to 26 previously identified CRC-associated taxa from a published meta-analysis. ResultsFaecal CF samples had a lower alpha diversity and clustered distinctly from both CRC and control samples, with no clear clinical variables explaining the variation. Compared to controls, CF samples had an increased relative abundance in 6 of the 20 enriched CRC-associated taxa and depletion of 2 of the 6 taxa which have been reported as reduced in CRC. Commencing triple modulator therapy had subtle influence on the relative abundance of CRC-associated microbiota (n = 23 paired CF samples). ConclusionsCF stool samples were clearly dysbiotic, clustering distinctly from both CRC and control samples. Several bacterial shifts in CF samples resembled those observed in CRC. Studies assessing the impact of dietary or other interventions and the longer-term use of CFTR modulators on reducing this potentially pro-oncogenic milieu are needed.

Impact of changes to the interscreening interval and faecal immunochemical test threshold in the national bowel cancer screening programme in England: results from the FIT pilot study

IntroductionThe NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) faces endoscopy capacity challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic and plans to lower the screening starting age. This may necessitate modifying the interscreening interval or threshold.MethodsWe analysed data from the English Faecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) pilot, comprising 27,238 individuals aged 59–75, screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) using FIT. We estimated screening sensitivity to CRC, adenomas, advanced adenomas (AA) and mean sojourn time of each pathology by faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) thresholds, then predicted the detection of these abnormalities by interscreening interval and f-Hb threshold.ResultsCurrent 2-yearly screening with a f-Hb threshold of 120 μg/g was estimated to generate 16,092 colonoscopies, prevent 186 CRCs, detect 1142 CRCs, 7086 adenomas and 4259 AAs per 100,000 screened over 15 years. A higher threshold at 180 μg/g would reduce required colonoscopies to 11,500, prevent 131 CRCs, detect 1077 CRCs, 4961 adenomas and 3184 AAs. A longer interscreening interval of 3 years would reduce required colonoscopies to 10,283, prevent 126 and detect 909 CRCs, 4796 adenomas and 2986 AAs.ConclusionIncreasing the f-Hb threshold was estimated to be more efficient than increasing the interscreening interval regarding overall colonoscopies per screen-benefited cancer. Increasing the interval was more efficient regarding colonoscopies per cancer prevented.

Improving the management of early colorectal cancers (eCRC) by using quantitative markers to predict lymph node involvement and thus the need for major resection of pT1 cancers

BackgroundSince implementing the NHS bowel cancer screening programme, the rate of early colorectal cancer (eCRC; pT1) has increased threefold to 17%, but how these lesions should be managed is currently...

Development and user-testing of a brief decision aid for aspirin as a preventive approach alongside colorectal cancer screening

BackgroundSeveral epidemiological and cohort studies suggest that regular low-dose aspirin use independently reduces the long-term incidence and risk of colorectal cancer deaths by approximately 20%. However, there are also risks to aspirin use, mainly gastrointestinal bleeding and haemorrhagic stroke. Making informed decisions depends on the ability to understand and weigh up benefits and risks of available options. A decision aid to support people to consider aspirin therapy alongside participation in the NHS bowel cancer screening programme may have an additional impact on colorectal cancer prevention. This study aims to develop and user-test a brief decision aid about aspirin to enable informed decision-making for colorectal screening-eligible members of the public.MethodsWe undertook a qualitative study to develop an aspirin decision aid leaflet to support bowel screening responders in deciding whether to take aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer. The iterative development process involved two focus groups with public members aged 60–74 years (n = 14) and interviews with clinicians (n = 10). Interviews (n = 11) were used to evaluate its utility for decision-making. Analysis was conducted using a framework approach.ResultsOverall, participants found the decision aid acceptable and useful to facilitate decision-making. They expressed a need for individualised risk information, more detail about the potential risks of aspirin, and preferred risk information presented in pictograms when offered different options. Implementation pathways were discussed, including the possibility of involving different clinicians in the process such as GPs and/or community pharmacists. A range of potentially effective timepoints for sending out the decision aid were identified.ConclusionAn acceptable and usable decision aid was developed to support decisions about aspirin use to prevent colorectal cancer.

Microbiome Analysis of More Than 2,000 NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Samples Shows the Potential to Improve Screening Accuracy.

There is potential for fecal microbiome profiling to improve colorectal cancer screening. This has been demonstrated by research studies, but it has not been quantified at scale using samples collected and processed routinely by a national screening program. Between 2016 and 2019, the largest of the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme hubs prospectively collected processed guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) samples with subsequent colonoscopy outcomes: blood-negative [n = 491 (22%)]; colorectal cancer [n = 430 (19%)]; adenoma [n = 665 (30%)]; colonoscopy-normal [n = 300 (13%)]; nonneoplastic [n = 366 (16%)]. Samples were transported and stored at room temperature. DNA underwent 16S rRNA gene V4 amplicon sequencing. Taxonomic profiling was performed to provide features for classification via random forests (RF). Samples provided 16S amplicon-based microbial profiles, which confirmed previously described colorectal cancer-microbiome associations. Microbiome-based RF models showed potential as a first-tier screen, distinguishing colorectal cancer or neoplasm (colorectal cancer or adenoma) from blood-negative with AUC 0.86 (0.82-0.89) and AUC 0.78 (0.74-0.82), respectively. Microbiome-based models also showed potential as a second-tier screen, distinguishing from among gFOBT blood-positive samples, colorectal cancer or neoplasm from colonoscopy-normal with AUC 0.79 (0.74-0.83) and AUC 0.73 (0.68-0.77), respectively. Models remained robust when restricted to 15 taxa, and performed similarly during external validation with metagenomic datasets. Microbiome features can be assessed using gFOBT samples collected and processed routinely by a national colorectal cancer screening program to improve accuracy as a first- or second-tier screen. The models required as few as 15 taxa, raising the potential of an inexpensive qPCR test. This could reduce the number of colonoscopies in countries that use fecal occult blood test screening.

Including a general practice endorsement letter with the testing kit in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: Results of a cluster randomised trial

To evaluate the effect of general practitioner endorsement accompanying the screening kit rather than with the invitation letter on participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme and on the socioeconomic gradient in participation in the Programme. The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England is delivered via five regional hubs. In early 2016, we carried out a cluster-randomised trial, with hub-day of invitation as the randomisation unit. We randomised 150 hub-days of invitation to the intervention group, GP endorsement on the letter accompanying the guaiac faecal occult blood testing kit (75 hub-days, 197,366 individuals) or control, usual letter (75 hub-days, 197,476 individuals). The endpoint was participation, defined as return of a valid kit within 18 weeks of initial invitation. Because of the cluster randomisation, data were analysed by a hierarchical logistic regression, allowing a random effect for date of invitation. Socioeconomic status was represented by the index of multiple deprivation. Participation was 59.4% in the intervention group and 58.7% in the control group, a significant difference (p = 0.04). There was no heterogeneity of the effect of intervention by index of multiple deprivation. We found that there was some confounding between date and screening episode order (first or subsequent screen). This in turn may have induced confounding with age and slightly diluted the result. General practitioner endorsement induces a modest increase in participation in bowel cancer screening, but does not affect the socioeconomic gradient. When considering cluster randomisation as a research method, careful scrutiny of potential confounding is indicated in advance if possible and in analysis otherwise.

Barriers to home bowel screening test in South Asians in the UK

Abstract Background Bowel cancer is common and accounts for 10% of all cancer mortality. Early detection significantly reduces mortality. In the UK, the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme invites adults aged 60-74 years to carry out a home screening test biennially. The national target for test completion is 60%; completion is substantially lower (∼30%) amongst South Asian populations. Our aim was to develop a community-based intervention to increase completion of the home bowel screening test in South Asians. Methods Multi-methods comprising two stages: 1) group and individual interviews with South Asians aged 50-74 years purposively sampled from community groups for maximum variation. Semi-structured interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) investigated determinants of bowel screening completion. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using framework analysis and findings mapped onto the COM-B Behaviour Change Wheel; 2) Co-production of intervention during two workshops with key stakeholders and target population. Results To-date 25 adults recruited of Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnicity with variation in age, gender, first language, faith, and compliance with bowel screening. Key barriers and TDF domains that they mapped to were: - lack of knowledge about bowel cancer and screening; lack of language, literacy and physical ability (skills) to carry out the home test; confidence to carry it out correctly (belief about capabilities); appropriate space and time to carry out the test (environmental context and resources); putting off undertaking the test (memory attention and decision processes); risk perception and fear of cancer (emotions). Enablers were: social influences from peers; goals and motivations. Conclusions Early results suggest an intervention comprising education, persuasion, modelling and enablement functions could increase completion of the home test. Key messages Community engagement and working with community leaders enhanced the success of recruitment. The TDF was a useful framework for identifying barriers to home bowel screening test by South Asians in the South East of England.

The use of electronic healthcare records for colorectal cancer screening referral decisions and risk prediction model development

BackgroundThe database used for the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) derives participant information from primary care records. Combining predictors with FOBTs has shown to improve referral decisions and accuracy. The richer data available from GP databases could be used to complement screening referral decisions by identifying those at greatest risk of colorectal cancer. We determined the availability of data for key predictors and whether this information could be used to inform more accurate screening referral decisions.MethodsAn English BCSP cohort was derived using the electronic notifications received from the BCSP database to GP records. The cohort covered a period between 13th May 2009 to 17th January 2017. Completeness of variables and univariable associations were assessed. Risk prediction models were developed using Cox regression and multivariable fractional polynomials with backwards elimination. Optimism adjusted performance metrics were reported. The sensitivity and specificity of a combined approach using the negative FOBT model plus FOBT positive patients was determined using a probability equivalent to a 3% PPV NICE guidelines level.Results292,059 participants aged 60–74 were derived for the BCSP screening cohort. A model including the screening test result had a C-statistic of 0.860, c-slope of 0.997, and R2 of 0.597. A model developed for negative screening results only had a C-statistic of 0.597, c-slope of 0.940, and R2 of 0.062. Risk predictors included in the models included; age, sex, alcohol consumption, IBS diagnosis, family history of gastrointestinal cancer, smoking status, previous negatives and whether a GP had ordered a blood test. For the combined screening approach, sensitivity increased slightly from 53.90% (FOBT only) to 58.82% but at the expense of an increased referral rate.ConclusionsThis research has identified several potential predictors for CRC in a BCSP population. A risk prediction model developed for BCSP FOBT negative patients was not clinically useful due to a low sensitivity and increased referral rate. The predictors identified in this study should be investigated in a refined algorithm combining the quantitative FIT result. Combining data from multiple sources enables fuller patient profiles using the primary care and screening database interface.

Variation in post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer across colonoscopy providers in English National Health Service: population based cohort study

ObjectivesTo quantify post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates in England by using recent World Endoscopy Organisation guidelines, compare incidence among colonoscopy providers, and explore associated factors that could benefit from quality...

Eicosapentaenoic acid and/or aspirin for preventing colorectal adenomas during colonoscopic surveillance in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: the seAFOod RCT

BackgroundThe omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and aspirin both have proof of concept for colorectal cancer (CRC) chemoprevention, aligned with an excellent safety profile.ObjectivesThe objectives were to determine whether or not EPA prevents colorectal adenomas, either alone or in combination with aspirin, and to assess the safety/tolerability of EPA, in the free fatty acid (FFA) form or as the triglyceride (TG), and aspirin.DesignThis was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial.SettingThe NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP).ParticipantsPatients (aged 55–73 years) identified as ‘high risk’ (i.e. those who have five or more colorectal adenomas of < 10 mm in size or three or more colorectal adenomas if one is ≥ 10 mm in size) at screening colonoscopy.InterventionsThe interventions were capsules containing 2000 mg of 99% EPA–FFA or 2780 mg of 90% EPA–TG (equivalent to 2000 mg of FFA) taken daily, or identical placebo capsules; and 300 mg of aspirin taken daily, or an identical placebo, enteric-coated tablet. Both were taken for ≈1 year until surveillance colonoscopy. All participants and staff were unaware of treatment allocation.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the number of participants with one or more colorectal adenomas [adenoma detection rate (ADRa)] at surveillance colonoscopy. Outcomes were analysed for all participants with observable follow-up data by an ‘at-the-margins’ approach, adjusted for BCSP site and by the need for repeat baseline endoscopy. Secondary outcome measures – these included the number of colorectal adenomas per patient [mean adenomas per patient (MAP)], ‘advanced’ ADRa and colorectal adenoma location (right/left) and type (conventional/serrated).ResultsBetween November 2011 and June 2016, 709 participants were randomised, with 707 providing data (80% male, mean age 65 years). The four treatment groups (EPA + aspirin,n = 177; EPA,n = 179; aspirin,n = 177; placebo,n = 176) were well matched for baseline characteristics. Tissue EPA levels and tolerability were similar for FFA and TG users. There was no evidence of any difference in ADRa between EPA users (62%) and non-users (61%) [risk difference –0.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI) –8.8% to 6.9%] or for aspirin users (61%) versus non-users (62%) (risk difference –0.6%, 95% CI –8.5% to 7.2%). There was no evidence of an interaction between EPA and aspirin for ADRa. There was no evidence of any effect on advanced ADRa of either EPA (risk difference –0.6%, 95% CI –4.4% to 3.1%) or aspirin (risk difference –0.3%, 95% CI –4.1% to 3.5%). Aspirin use was associated with a reduction in MAP [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.90), with preventative efficacy against conventional (IRR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.94), serrated (IRR 0.46, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.87) and right-sided (IRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88) lesions, but not left-sided (IRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06) adenomas. There was evidence of chemopreventive efficacy of EPA on conventional (IRR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.99) and left-sided (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.94) adenomas, but not on total MAP (IRR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.05) or serrated (IRR 1.44, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.60) or right-sided (IRR 1.02, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.22) adenomas. EPA and aspirin treatment were well tolerated, with excess mild/moderate gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) in the EPA alone group. There were six GI bleeding AEs.ConclusionEPA and aspirin treatment were not associated with a reduction in ADRa. However, both agents displayed evidence of chemopreventive efficacy, based on adenoma number reduction, which was specific to adenoma type and location, and is compatible with known anti-CRC activity of aspirin.LimitationsLimitations of the trial included the failure to recruit to the target sample size of 853, and an unexpected switch of EPA formulation mid-trial.Future workA future objective should be to understand the mechanism(s) of action of EPA and aspirin using the trial biobank. Established trial infrastructure will enable future trials in the BCSP.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN05926847.FundingThis project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a MRC and NIHR partnership.

Persuasion, Adaptation, and Double Identity: Qualitative Study on the Psychological Impact of a Screen-Detected Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis.

The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) is aimed at reducing colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality through early detection within a healthy population. This study explores how 5 people (three females) experience and make sense of their screen-detected diagnosis and the psychological implications of this diagnostic pathway. A biographical narrative interview method was used, and transcripts were analysed using a thematic analysis with a phenomenological lens. Themes specifically relating to posttreatment experience and reflections are reported here: Do it: being living proof, Resisting the threat of recurrence, Rationalising bodily change, and Continuing life—“carrying on normally.” Participants described their gratefulness to the BCSP, motivating a strong desire to persuade others to be screened. Furthermore, participants professed a duality of experience categorised by the normalisation of life after diagnosis and treatment and an identification of strength post cancer, as well as a difficulty adjusting to the new changes in life and a contrasting identity of frailty. Understanding both the long- and short-term impacts of a CRC diagnosis through screening is instrumental to the optimisation of support for patients. The results perhaps highlight a particular target for psychological distress reduction, which could reduce the direct and indirect cost of cancer to the patient.

The NHS Bowel cancer screening programme achieves the anticipated survival improvement, but participation must be improved

PurposeThe NHS Bowel cancer screening programme (NHSBCSP) aims to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) cumulative mortality by up to 23 per cent; long-term outcomes at national level are not yet known. The purpose of this paper is to examine a local population of CRC patients of screening age for their characteristics and long-term survival in relation to their presentation, including through the NHSBCSP.Design/methodology/approachRetrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained CRC database for the years 2009-2014 in a single district hospital providing bowel cancer screening and tertiary rectal cancer services.FindingsOf 528 CRC patients diagnosed in the screening age range, 144(27.3 per cent) presented through NHSBCSP, 308(58.3 per cent) electively with symptoms and 76(14.4 per cent) as emergency. NHSBCSP-diagnosed patients were younger (median 66 vs 68 and 69 years, respectively, p=0.001), had more often left-sided cancers (59(41.0 per cent) vs 82(26.6 per cent) and 24(31.6 per cent), respectively, p=0.001), more UICC-stage I (42(29.2 per cent) vs 49(15.9 per cent) and 2(2.6 per cent)), stage III (59(41.0 per cent) vs 106(34.4 per cent) and 20(26.3 per cent)) and less stage IV disease (8(5.6 per cent) vs 61(19.8 per cent) and 34 (44.7 per cent), respectively, p<0.001). Three-year overall survival was best for NHSBCSP and worst for emergency patients (87.5 per cent vs 69.0 per cent and 35.3 per cent, respectively, LogRank p<0.001).Originality/valuePatients diagnosed within the NHSBCSP have improved outcome compared to both symptomatic elective and emergency presentations. A reduction in overall cumulative mortality in order of 25 per cent may well be achieved, but continuing high levels of emergency presentations and undetected right-sided disease emphasise need for further improvement in public participation in the NHSBCSP and research into more sensitive and acceptable alternative screening methods.

Participant satisfaction with NHS bowel scope screening: a cross-sectional survey

Introduction: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the UK. The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme commenced one-off flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in 2014. The aim of this study was to investigate patient satisfaction with the programme in a district general hospital and whether adenoma detection affected satisfaction levels. Method: The study used a cross-sectional survey design. Participants completed a Likert-type questionnaire after undergoing the procedure. Results: A total of 110 questionnaires were completed. Overall satisfaction was high (99.1%). Polypectomy was performed on 22.7% of participants, and this had little effect on their satisfaction with the procedure (98.2%). Reasons for participation ranged from family history to taking responsibility for their own health. Conclusion: The programme received positive feedback from participants and was viewed as a vital service. The emphasis on participants' experience and comfort led to an overall positive outcome.

Reducing the socioeconomic gradient in uptake of the NHS bowel cancer screening Programme using a simplified supplementary information leaflet: a cluster-randomised trial

BackgroundUptake of colorectal cancer screening is low in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Participation in screening is strongly associated with socioeconomic status. The aim of this study was to determine whether a supplementary leaflet providing the ‘gist’ of guaiac-based Faecal Occult Blood test (gFOBt) screening for colorectal cancer could reduce the socioeconomic status (SES) gradient in uptake in the English NHS BCSP.MethodsThe trial was integrated within routine BCSP operations in November 2012. Using a cluster randomised controlled design all adults aged 59–74 years who were being routinely invited to complete the gFOBt were randomised based on day of invitation. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was used to create SES quintiles. The control group received the standard information booklet (‘SI’). The intervention group received the SI booklet and the Gist leaflet (‘SI + Gist’) which had been designed to help people with lower literacy engage with the invitation. Blinding of hubs was not possible and invited subjects were not made aware of a comparator condition. The primary outcome was the gradient in uptake across IMD quintiles.ResultsIn November 2012, 163,525 individuals were allocated to either the ‘SI’ intervention (n = 79,104) or the ‘SI + Gist’ group (n = 84,421). Overall uptake was similar between the intervention and control groups (SI: 57.3% and SI + Gist: 57.6%; OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.92–1.13, p = 0.77). Uptake was 42.0% (SI) vs. 43.0% (SI + Gist) in the most deprived quintile and 65.6% vs. 65.8% in the least deprived quintile (interaction p = 0.48). The SES gradient in uptake was similar between the study groups within age, gender, hub and screening round sub-groups.ConclusionsProviding supplementary simplified information in addition to the standard information booklet did not reduce the SES gradient in uptake in the NHS BCSP. The effectiveness of the Gist leaflet when used alone should be explored in future research.Trial registrationISRCTN74121020, registered: 17/20/2012.

Post-polypectomy bleeding in the English National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

Background and study aims Colonoscopic polypectomy reduces colorectal cancer incidence, but is associated with complications including post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB). PPB ranges in severity from minor to life-threatening, making interpretation and comparison difficult. No previous studies have examined PPB rate according to a standardized severity grading system. We aimed to determine the PPB rate stratified by severity grading, explore factors that contribute to PPB severity grading, and describe PPB management. Methods Data relating to PPB were prospectively collected from all colonoscopies performed in one region of the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) from 06/12/2010 to 15/07/2014. PPB was defined and stratified into major, intermediate, and minor according to BCSP standardized definitions based on the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy adverse events lexicon. Results A total of 15 285 colonoscopies (23 766 polypectomies) were analyzed. The PPB rate per colonoscopy was 0.44 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.34 - 0.54) and the rate per polypectomy was 0.29 % (95 %CI 0.20 - 0.38); 2.9 % of PPBs were major and 42.6 % were intermediate. Repeat endoscopy occurred in 27.9 % and was the most common reason for bleeding being categorized as of intermediate severity, although therapy was applied in only 36.8 % of these cases. A therapeutic intervention was significantly more common in patients with PPB who had either a hemoglobin drop ≥ 2 g/dL and/or a blood transfusion (P = 0.04, relative risk 3.47, 95 %CI 1.05 - 11.52). Conclusions This study specifically examined colonoscopic PPB rate, stratified using standardized criteria. The rates of PPB were low, with the majority of PPB being of minor severity. Current stratification of PPB severity combines measures of bleed severity with interventions. Using only hemoglobin drop ≥ 2 g/dL and/or blood transfusion as markers of PPB severity may simplify stratification, and allow a better assessment of the necessity and impact of an intervention.

CT colonography practice at a university teaching hospital: improving standards

My colleagues and I have recently completed a qualitative and quantitative assurance audit of CT colonography (CTC) at our University Hospital, under the auspices of the NHS Bowel cancer screening programme (BCSP) As readers will be aware, CTC standards are audited annually as recommended by the Royal College of Radiology and the British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

GP participation in increasing uptake in a national bowel cancer screening programme: the PEARL project

Background:The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England does not involve general practitioners (GPs). Uptake is ∼58%. The Practice Endorsed Additional Reminder Letter (PEARL) study piloted a GP-endorsed reminder letter.Methods:General practices in Wessex with uptake <55% (prevalent invitations) were invited to participate. Subjects who had been invited for screening, sent a standard 28-day BCSP reminder letter but had not returned a test kit within 30 days of the standard reminder were sent a second reminder letter bearing the GP’s letterhead and signature. Uptake was compared between PEARL and non-PEARL practices by standardised uptake ratio (standardised for prior prevalent uptake and other confounders). In addition, 25 non-PEARL practices were matched with PEARL practices for prior prevalent uptake and number of invitees.Results:Twenty-five practices agreed to participate. A total of 3149 GP-endorsed reminders were sent. Uptake in the PEARL practices was 54% compared with 51% in the matched-control practices. The adjusted RR for uptake was 1.08 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.11, P<0.001) for all invitees and 2.18 (1.79, 2.66, P<0.001) for invitees who had not returned a kit following the standard reminder.Conclusions:The GP-endorsed reminder was associated with significantly increased uptake among subjects not responding to the standard reminder letter.

Testing innovative strategies to reduce the social gradient in the uptake of bowel cancer screening: a programme of four qualitatively enhanced randomised controlled trials

BackgroundBowel cancer screening reduces cancer-specific mortality. There is a socioeconomic gradient in the uptake of the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP), which may lead to inequalities in cancer outcomes.ObjectiveTo reduce socioeconomic inequalities in uptake of the NHS BCSP’s guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt) without compromising uptake in any socioeconomic group.DesignWorkstream 1 explored psychosocial determinants of non-uptake of gFOBt in focus groups and interviews. Workstream 2 developed and tested four theoretically based interventions: (1) ‘gist’ information, (2) a ‘narrative’ leaflet, (3) ‘general practice endorsement’ (GPE) and (4) an ‘enhanced reminder’ (ER). Workstream 3 comprised four national cluster randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the cost-effectiveness of each intervention.MethodsInterventions were co-designed with user panels, user tested using interviews and focus groups, and piloted with postal questionnaires. RCTs compared ‘usual care’ (existing NHS BCSP invitations) with usual care plus each intervention. The four trials tested: (1) ‘gist’ leaflet (n = 163,525), (2) ‘narrative’ leaflet (n = 150,417), (3) GPE on the invitation letter (n = 265,434) and (4) ER (n = 168,480). Randomisation was based on day of mailing of the screening invitation. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) score associated with each individual’s home address was used as the marker of socioeconomic circumstances (SECs). Change in the socioeconomic gradient in uptake (interaction between treatment group and IMD quintile) was the primary outcome. Screening uptake was defined as the return of a gFOBt kit within 18 weeks of the invitation that led to a ‘definitive’ test result of either ‘normal’ (i.e. no further investigation required) or ‘abnormal’ (i.e. requiring referral for further testing). Difference in overall uptake was the secondary outcome.ResultsThe gist and narrative trials showed no effect on the SECs gradient or overall uptake (57.6% and 56.7%, respectively, compared with 57.3% and 58.5%, respectively, for usual care; allp-values &gt; 0.05). GPE showed no effect on the gradient (p = 0.5) but increased overall uptake [58.2% vs. 57.5% in usual care, odds ratio (OR) = 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.10;p &lt; 0.0001]. ER showed a significant interaction with SECs (p = 0.005), with a stronger effect in the most deprived IMD quintile (14.1% vs. 13.3% in usual care, OR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.20;p = 0.003) than the least deprived (34.7% vs. 34.9% in usual care OR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06;p = 0.98), and higher overall uptake (25.8% vs. 25.1% in usual care, OR = 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11;p = 0.001). All interventions were inexpensive to provide.LimitationsIn line with NHS policy, the gist and narrative leaflets supplemented rather than replaced existing NHS BCSP information. This may have undermined their effect.ConclusionsEnhanced reminder reduced the gradient and modestly increased overall uptake, whereas GPE increased overall uptake but did not reduce the gradient. Therefore, given their effectiveness and very low cost, the findings suggest that implementation of both by the NHS BCSP would be beneficial. The gist and narrative results highlight the challenge of achieving equitable delivery of the screening offer when all communication is written; the format is universal and informed decision-making mandates extensive medical information.Future workSocioculturally tailored research to promote communication about screening with family and friends should be developed and evaluated.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN74121020.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 5, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A national cluster-randomised controlled trial to examine the effect of enhanced reminders on the socioeconomic gradient in uptake in bowel cancer screening.

Background:The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England offers biennial guaiac faecal occult blood testing (gFOBt). There is a socioeconomic gradient in participation and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups have worse colorectal cancer survival than more advantaged groups. We compared the effectiveness and cost of an enhanced reminder letter with the usual reminder letter on overall uptake of gFOBt and the socioeconomic gradient in uptake.Methods:We enhanced the usual reminder by including a heading ‘A reminder to you' and a short paragraph restating the offer of screening in simple language. We undertook a cluster-randomised trial of all 168 480 individuals who were due to receive a reminder over 20 days in 2013. Randomisation was based on the day of invitation. Blinding of individuals was not possible, but the possibility of bias was minimal owing to the lack of direct contact with participants. The enhanced reminder was sent to 78 067 individuals and 90 413 received the usual reminder. The primary outcome was the proportion of people adequately screened and its variation by quintile of Index of Multiple Deprivation. Data were analysed by logistic regression with conservative variance estimates to take account of cluster randomisation.Results:There was a small but statistically significant (P=0.001) increase in participation with the enhanced reminder (25.8% vs 25.1%). There was significant (P=0.005) heterogeneity of the effect by socioeconomic status with an 11% increase in the odds of participation in the most deprived quintile (from 13.3 to 14.1%) and no increase in the least deprived. We estimated that implementing the enhanced reminder nationally could result in up to 80 more people with high or intermediate risk colorectal adenomas and up to 30 more cancers detected each year if it were implemented nationally. The intervention incurred a small one-off cost of £78 000 to modify the reminder letter.Conclusions:The enhanced reminder increases overall uptake and reduces the socioeconomic gradient in bowel cancer screening participation at little additional cost.

A lack of information engagement among colorectal cancer screening non-attenders: cross-sectional survey.

BackgroundThe NHS Cancer Screening Programmes in England now operate a policy of ‘informed choice’ about participation in cancer screening. Engagement with written information about screening is important to facilitate informed choice, although the degree to which the screening-eligible public engages with the available information is unknown. We examined the association between reading of the standard informational booklet (‘Bowel Cancer Screening: The Facts') and participation in the nationally organised NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England.MethodsFace-to-face interviews were conducted with 1307 adults who were age-eligible for nationally organised colorectal cancer (CRC; also called bowel cancer) in a population-based survey in England in 2014. Respondents were shown an image of ‘The Facts’ booklet and were asked how much of it they had read when they received their screening invitation (‘none’, ‘a little’, ‘some’, ‘most’, ‘almost all’, or ‘all’). Logistic regression was used to estimate the associations between screening uptake status (‘never’ vs. ‘ever’) and self-reported reading of ‘The Facts’ booklet (dichotomised to ‘none vs. ‘any’), adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment, and occupation-based social grade.ResultsOverall, 69 % of the sample (908/1307) had participated in CRC screening at least once (‘ever’ screeners). One-fifth of the sample reported that they had read ‘none’ of ‘The Facts’ booklet (22 %; 287/1307), while half reported having read ‘all’ of it (52 %; 680/1307). Reading of the booklet was strongly differential according to screening uptake status: nearly two-thirds of ‘never’ screeners had read none of ‘The Facts’ booklet (63 %; 251/399), compared to less than one in twenty ‘ever’ screeners (4 %; 36/908); adjusted OR = 39.0; 95 % CI: 26.2-58.1 for reading ‘none’ in ‘never’ vs. ‘ever’ screeners.ConclusionsAlthough ‘The Facts’ booklet is intended to support informed choices about CRC screening, the majority of unscreened individuals report that they have read none of it. The degree to which public engagement with the decision-making process about cancer screening is socially unequal must be better understood so that comprehensive and equitable public communication strategies can be developed.