Uptake of faecal immunochemical test screening among nonparticipants in a flexible sigmoidoscopy screening programme

Authors

  • Lieke Hol,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    • Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
    • Tel: +31-10-7032983, Fax: +31-10-7034682

  • Ernst J. Kuipers,

    1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    2. Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Marjolein van Ballegooijen,

    1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Anneke J. van Vuuren,

    1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Jaqueline C.I.Y. Reijerink,

    1. Cancer Screening Organisation for Southwest Netherlands, Vlaardingen, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Dik J.F. Habbema,

    1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Monique E. van Leerdam

    1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Screening programmes based on single modality testing may prevent individuals with a preference for a different test from participating. We conducted a population-based trial to determine whether nonparticipants in flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening were willing to attend faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening. In total, 8,407 subjects were invited in a primary FS screening programme. Invitees did not know at the time of FS invitation that nonparticipants would be offered FIT screening. A total of 4,407 nonparticipants of FS screening were invited for FIT screening (cut-off 50 ng haemoglobin/ml). The participation rate to FS screening was 31% [95% confidence interval (CI): 30–32%]. Among the FS nonparticipants 25% (CI: 24–26%) did attended FIT screening. The participation rate of the two-stage recruitment for FS and FIT screening was 45% (CI: 44–46%). FIT screenees were older (p = 0.02), more often women (p < 0.001) and had a lower social economic status (p = 0.01) than FS screenees. The detection rate (DR) for advanced adenoma was 3.5% (CI: 2.5–4.8%), and for colorectal cancer (CRC) it was 0.3% (CI: 0.1–0.8%) among participants to FIT screening. The DR of the two-stage recruitment was 6.1% (n = 202) for an advanced adenoma and 0.5% (n = 16) for a CRC. In conclusion, offering FIT screening to nonparticipants in a FS screening programme increases the overall participation rate considerably, as a quarter of nonparticipants of FS screening was willing to attend FIT screening. The participation rate remains lower for primary FIT screening in the same population (62%). Women in the target population were more likely to refuse FS than FIT screening. Countries introducing FS screening should be aware of these preferences.

Ancillary