Risk-Adapted Screening Shows Superior Diagnostic Efficacy Than Fecal Immunochemical Test in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Baseline Results of a Multi-Center Randomized Controlled Trial (TARGET-C)
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,Lanwei Guo,Li Liu,Jiansong Ren,Jufang Shi,Ni Li,Xiaoping Miao,Hermann Brenner,Min Dai
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3514714
2020-01-01
Abstract:Background: In colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, implementing risk-adapted screening might be more effective than traditional screening strategies. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of a risk-adapted screening strategy with colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in CRC screening. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 6 centers 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. All Subjects with positive FIT were referred for diagnostic colonoscopy. The detection rate of advanced neoplasm was the primary outcome. Findings: For baselines screening, the 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 FIT at a similarly low resource load of colonoscopy. Trial Registration: The study is registered with the China Clinical Trial Registry (www.chictr.org.cn Identifier: ChiCTR1800015506). Funding Statement: This work was supported by the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (2017-I2M-1-006, 2019-I2M-2-002), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81703309), and National Key Research and Development Plan Program (2016YFC1302702). Declaration of Interests: The authors stated: "None." Ethics Approval Statement: This study was approved by Ethics Committee of the National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College (approved number: 18-013/1615). All participants provided written informed consent.