Invitation strategies for colorectal cancer screening programmes: The impact of an advance notification letter.

AIM: To estimate the impact of an advance notification letter on participation in sigmoidoscopy (FS) and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening. METHODS: Eligible subjects, invited in 3 Italian population based programmes using FS and in 5 using FIT, were randomised (1:1:1), within GP, to: A) standard invitation letter; B) advance notification followed after 1month by the standard invitation; and C) B+indication to contact the general practitioner (GP) to get advice about the decision to be screened. We calculated the 9-month attendance and the incremental cost of each strategy. We conducted a phone survey to assess GP's utilization and predictors of participation. RESULTS: The advance notification was associated with a 20% increase in the attendance among 15,655 people invited for FS (B vs A - RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.10-1.25; C vs A - RR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.12-1.27); the incremental cost ranged between 10 and 9 Euros. Participation in FIT screening (N=23,543) was increased only with simple pre-notification (B vs A - RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.02-1.10); the incremental cost was 22.5 Euros. GP consultation rate was not increased in group C. CONCLUSIONS: An advance notification represents a cost-effective strategy to increase participation in FS screening; its impact on the response to FIT screening was limited.

Can colorectal cancer mass-screening organization be evidence-based? Lessons from failures: the experimental and pilot phases of the Lazio program.

BACKGROUND: Screening programmes should be organized to translate theoretical efficacy into effectiveness. An evidence-based organizational model of colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) should assure feasibility and high compliance. METHODS: A multidisciplinary Working Group (WG), reviewed literature and guidelines to define evidence-based recommendations. The WG identified the need for further local studies: physicians' CRCS attitudes, the effect of test type and provider on compliance, and individual reasons for non-compliance. A survey of digestive endoscopy services was conducted. A feasibility study on a target population of 300.000 has begun. RESULTS: Based on the results of population trials and on literature review the screening strategy adopted was Faecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) every two years for 50-74 year olds and, for positives, colonoscopy. The immunochemical test was chosen because it has 20% higher compliance than the Guaiac. GPs were chosen as the preferred provider also for higher compliance. Since we observed that distance is the major determinant of non-compliance, we choose GPs because they are the closest providers, both geographically and emotionally, to the public. The feasibility study showed several barriers: GP participation was low, there were administrative problems to involve GPs; opportunistic testing by the GPs; difficulties in access to Gastroenterology centres; difficulties in gathering colonoscopy results; little time given to screening activity by the gastroenterology centre. CONCLUSION: The feasibility study highlighted several limits of the model. Most of the barriers that emerged were consequences of organisational choices not supported by evidence. The principal limit was a lack of accountability by the participating centres.