Adherence to follow-up and resource use after abnormal FIT-screening: Evaluation of the Danish colorectal cancer screening program

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims The effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening programs depends on adherence to surveillance protocols for screening-positive individuals. We evaluated adherence in the Danish population-based screening program and estimated the volume of diagnostic resources required to achieve this adherence.

Patients and methods In this register- and population-based study, we included individuals with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening from 2014 to 2017 and followed them until mid-2022. All endoscopic, imaging, and surgical procedures performed at public and private hospitals were identified. Adherence to national protocols was reported in terms of proportions and timeliness. Use of diagnostic and surveillance procedures was estimated during a 4-year post-screening period.

Results Among 82,221 individuals with a positive FIT test, 84% had a baseline colonoscopy within 1 month. After removal of intermediate or high-risk adenomas, 12% and 6%, respectively, did not have any follow-up. Only ~50% had timely surveillance. Approximately 10% to 20%, depending on their referral diagnosis, did not have a second surveillance colonoscopy. In addition, 12% with a negative colonoscopy had a second colonoscopy within 4 years.

Conclusions High adherence to baseline colonoscopy after positive FIT-screening is followed by lower adherence throughout the adenoma surveillance program. Better adherence to the guidelines could potentially improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the screening program.

Publication History

Received: 13 July 2023

Accepted after revision: 21 March 2024

Article published online:
03 May 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

• References

• 1 Larsen MB, Njor S, Ingeholm P. et al. Effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in detecting earlier-stage disease-a nationwide cohort study in Denmark. Gastroenterology 2018; 155: 99-106
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Njor SH, Larsen MB, Søborg B. et al. Colorectal cancer mortality after randomized implementation of FIT-based screening – a nationwide cohort study. J Med Screening 2022; 29: 241-248
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Ebell MH, Thai TN, Royalty KJ. Cancer screening recommendations: an international comparison of high income countries. Public Health Rev 2018; 39: 7-018
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Lee JK, Jensen CD, Levin TR. et al. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer and related death after adenoma removal in a large, community-based population. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 884-894.e885
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Ferlay J EM, Lam F, Colombet M et al. Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Today. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2020. https://gco.iarc.fr/today.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Ringgaard A. Kræftscreening sætter midtjyske hospitaler under pres. Dagens Medicin; 2015
  Google Scholar
• 7 Gessl I, Waldmann E, Britto-Arias M. et al. Surveillance colonoscopy in Austria: Are we following the guidelines?. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 119-127
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 van Heijningen EM, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Steyerberg EW. et al. Adherence to surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomas: a large, community-based study. Gut 2015; 64: 1584-1592
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Djinbachian R, Dubé AJ, Durand M. et al. Adherence to post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 673-683
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Kruse GR, Khan SM, Zaslavsky AM. et al. Overuse of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. J Gen Internal Med 2015; 30: 277-283
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL. et al. Utilization of surveillance colonoscopy in community practice. Gastroenterology 2010; 138: 73-81
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Murphy CC, Sandler RS, Grubber JM. et al. Underuse and overuse of colonoscopy for repeat screening and surveillance in the Veterans Health Administration. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 14: 436-444.e431
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Sundhedsstyrelsen. Anbefalinger vedrørende screening for tyk- & endetarmskræft 2012 [Recommendations regarding colo-rectal cancer screening 2012]. 2012. Contract No.: Report.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Atkin WS, Valori R, Kuipers EJ. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition--Colonoscopic surveillance following adenoma removal. Endoscopy 2012; 44: Se151-163
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Tarmkræftscreeningsdatabase SfD. Årsrapport 2019. Dansk Tarmkræftscreeningsdatabase. RKKP; 2021.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Gjerstorff ML. The Danish Cancer Registry. Scand J Public Health 2011; 39: 42-45
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Bjerregaard B, Larsen OB. The Danish Pathology Register. Scand J Public Health 2011; 39: 72-74
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Schmidt M, Schmidt SAJ, Sandegaard JL. et al. The Danish National Patient Registry: a review of content, data quality, and research potential.(Report). Clin Epidemiol 2015; 7: 449
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Sahl Andersen J, De Fine Olivarius N, Krasnik A. The Danish National Health Service Register. Scand J Public Health 2011; 39: 34-37
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Danish Pathology Association. Screenings – og adenomkontrolprogram for colorectal cancer [in Danish]: Danish Pathology Association; 2014. https://danskpatologi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Screenings-og-adenomkontrol-program-tyk-og-endtarmskr%C3%A6ft.pdf.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Klabunde CN, Zheng Y, Quinn VP. et al. Influence of age and comorbidity on colorectal cancer screening in the elderly. Am J Prevent Med 2016; 51: e67-e75
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Thomsen MK, Rasmussen M, Njor SH. et al. Demographic and comorbidity predictors of adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy in the Danish Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: a nationwide cross-sectional study. (ORIGINAL RESEARCH). Clin Epidemiol 2018; 10: 1733
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Juul FE, Garborg K, Nesbakken E. et al. Rates of repeated colonoscopies to clean the colon from low-risk and high-risk adenomas: results from the EPoS trials. Gut 2023; 72: 951-957
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Toes-Zoutendijk E, van Leerdam ME, Dekker E. et al. Real-time monitoring of results during first year of Dutch colorectal cancer screening program and optimization by altering fecal immunochemical test cut-off levels. Gastroenterology 2017; 152: 767-775.e762
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Binefa G, Garcia M, Milà N. et al. Colorectal cancer screening programme in Spain: Results of key performance indicators after five rounds (2000–2012). Scientific Rep 2016; 6: 19532
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Gingold-Belfer R, Leibovitzh H, Boltin D. et al. The compliance rate for the second diagnostic evaluation after a positive fecal occult blood test: A systematic review and meta-analysis. United Europ Gastroenterol J 2019; 7: 424-448
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Doubeni CA, Fedewa SA, Levin TR. et al. Modifiable failures in the colorectal cancer screening process and their association with risk of death. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 63-74.e66
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Chubak J, McLerran D, Zheng Y. et al. Receipt of colonoscopy following diagnosis of advanced adenomas: an analysis within integrated healthcare delivery systems. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2019; 28: 91-98
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Gauci C, Lendzion R, Phan-Thien K-C. et al. Patient compliance with surveillance colonoscopy: patient factors and the use of a graded recall system. ANZ Journal of Surgery 2018; 88: 311-315
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Bülow Therkildsen S, Larsen PT, Njor S. Subsequent participation in organized FIT based screening following screen-derived colonoscopy – A Danish nationwide cohort study. Prev Med Rep 2023; 32: 102125
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Clark GR, Fraser CG, Strachan JA. et al. Comparison with first round findings of faecal haemoglobin concentrations and clinical outcomes in the second round of a biennial faecal immunochemical test based colorectal cancer screening programme. J Med Screening 2022; 29: 249-254
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Larsen MB, Njor SH, Jensen TM. et al. Potential for prevention: a cohort study of colonoscopies and removal of adenomas in a FIT-based colorectal cancer screening programme. Scand J Gastroenterol 2019; 54: 1008-1014
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Cross AJ, Robbins EC, Pack K. et al. Long-term colorectal cancer incidence after adenoma removal and the effects of surveillance on incidence: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study. Gut 2020; 69: 1645-1658
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Anderson JC, Baron JA, Ahnen DJ. et al. Factors associated with shorter colonoscopy surveillance intervals for patients with low-risk colorectal adenomas and effects on outcome. Gastroenterology 2017; 152: 1933-1943.e1935
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Hassan C, Antonelli G, Dumonceau JM. et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2020. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 687-700
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar

• Supplementary Material