Effectiveness of Colonoscopy Vs Fecal Immunochemical Test Vs Risk-Adapted Screening in Colorectal Cancer Screening (TARGET-C): A Multi-Centre Randomised Controlled Trial

Hongda Chen,Ming Lu,Chengcheng Liu,Shuangmei Zou,Lingbin Du,Xianzhen Liao,Dong,Donghua Wei,Yi Gao,Chen Zhu,Liming Zhu,Weifang Zheng,Haifan Xiao,Yunxin Kong,Huiping Yin,Hai Zhou,Rongbiao Ying,Baoquan Wang,Juan Zhang,Xiaopeng Zhang,Qiang Zhang,Xuan Zhang,Yuhan Zhang,Hong Wang,Li Liu,Jiansong Ren,Jufang Shi,Ni Li,Xiaoping Miao,Min Dai
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3472004
2019-01-01
SSRN Electronic Journal
Abstract:Background & Aims: In colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, utilizing risk prediction models to stratify populations and implementing risk-adapted screening might be more effective than traditional screening strategies. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and a risk-adapted screening strategy in CRC screening.Methods: A randomised controlled trial was conducted in 6 study centres of 5 provinces in China since May, 2018. 19,546 eligible participants aged 50-74 years were recruited and randomly allocated into one of the 3 screening groups in a 1:2:2 ratio: 1) one-time colonoscopy (n=3916); 2) annual FIT (n=7854); 3) annual risk-adapted screening (n=7776). Based on the risk-stratification score, high-risk subjects were referred for colonoscopy, and low-risk ones were referred for FIT. The detection rate of advanced neoplasm (CRC and advanced adenoma) was the primary outcome. Interim analysis of the baseline screening was performed.Findings: The overall participation rates of the colonoscopy, FIT, and risk-adapted screening groups were 42·5% (1665/3916), 94·0% (7386/7854), and 85·2% (6628/7776), respectively. For the intention-to-screen analysis, the detection rates for advanced neoplasm were 2·40% (94/3916), 1·13% (89/7854) and 1·66% (129/7776), with ORs (95% CIs) of 2·16 (1·61- 2·90; P<0.001) for colonoscopy vs. FIT, 1·45 (1·10-1·90; P <0.001) for colonoscopy vs. risk-adapted screening, and 1·49 (1·13-1·97; P <0.001) for risk-adapted screening vs. FIT, respectively. The numbers of subjects who required colonoscopy examination to detect 1 advanced neoplasm were 18 in the colonoscopy group, 10 in the FIT group, and 11 in the risk-adapted screening group.Interpretation: For baseline screening, the risk-adapted screening approach showed a remarkably high participation rate, and its diagnostic yield was superior to the FIT group but inferior to the colonoscopy group.Trial Registration: www.chictr.org.cn Identifier: ChiCTR1800015506.Funding Statement: CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (2017-I2M-1-006); National Natural Science Foundation of China (81703309); National Key Research and Development Plan Program (2016YFC1302702).Declaration of Interests: The authors declare no competing interests.Ethics Approval Statement: The study was approved by the respective institutional ethics committees of the participating centres. All participants provided written informed consent.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?