The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Randomized Trial of Different Screening Strategies for Colorectal Cancer: Patient Response and Detection Rates
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although there is general consensus concerning the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening, there is a lack of agreement about which routine screening strategy should be adopted. We compared the participation and detection rates achievable through different strategies of colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: From November 1999 through June 2001 we conducted a multicenter, randomized trial in Italy among a sample of 55-64 year olds in the general population who had an average risk of colorectal cancer. People with previous colorectal cancer, adenomas, inflammatory bowel disease, a recent (< or =2 years) colorectal endoscopy or fecal occult blood test (FOBT), or two first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer were excluded. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned, within the roster of their general practitioner, to 1) biennial FOBT (delivered by mail), 2) biennial FOBT (delivered by general practitioner or a screening facility), 3) patient's choice of FOBT or "once-only" sigmoidoscopy, 4) "once-only" sigmoidoscopy, or 5) sigmoidoscopy followed by biennial FOBT. An immunologic FOBT was used. Participation and detection rates of the strategies tested were compared using multivariable logistic regression models that adjusted for age, sex, and screening center. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Of 28 319 people sampled, 1637 were excluded and 26 682 were randomly assigned to a screening arm. After excluding undelivered letters (n = 427), the participation rates for groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were 30.1% (682/2266), 28.1% (1654/5893), 27.1% (970/3579), 28.1% (1026/3650), and 28.1% (3049/10 867), respectively. Of the 2858 subjects screened by FOBT, 122 (4.3%) had a positive test result, 10 (3.5 per 1000) had colorectal cancer, and 39 (1.4%) had an advanced adenoma. Among the 4466 subjects screened by sigmoidoscopy, 341 (7.6%) were referred for colonoscopy, 18 (4 per 1000) had colorectal cancer, and 229 (5.1%) harbored an advanced adenoma. CONCLUSIONS: The participation rates were similar for sigmoidoscopy and FOBT. The detection rate for advanced neoplasia was three times higher following screening by sigmoidoscopy than by FOBT.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Lin, J. S., Bowles, E. J. A., Williams, S. B., & Morrison, C. C. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.0562 · Cited by 1,082
ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021
Shaukat, A., Kahi, C. J., Burke, C. A., Rabeneck, L., Sauer, B. G., & Rex, D. K. (2021) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000001122 · Cited by 853
Lin, J. S., Perdue, L. A., Henrikson, N. B., Bean, S. I., & Blasi, P. R. (2021) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2021.4417 · Cited by 650
Effectiveness of Interventions to Increase Screening for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancers
Sabatino, S. A., Lawrence, B., Elder, R., Mercer, S. L., Wilson, K. M., DeVinney, B., Melillo, S., Carvalho, M., Taplin, S., Bastani, R., et al. (2012) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.04.009 · Cited by 470
Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening – An overview
Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I., Knudsen, A. B., & Brenner, H. (2010) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/j.bpg.2010.04.004 · Cited by 438
Metadata
- Authors
- Segnan, N., Senore, C., Andreoni, B., Arrigoni, A., Bisanti, L., Cardelli, A., Castiglione, G., Crosta, C., DiPlacido, R., Ferrari, A., Ferraris, R., Ferrero, F., Fracchia, M., Gasperoni, S., Malfitana, G., Recchia, S., Risio, M., Rizzetto, M., Saracco, G., Spandre, M., Turco, D., Turco, P., Zappa, M., & SCORE2 Working Group-Italy
- Venue
- JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-03-01
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 347-357
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2146900818
- Cited by
- 194
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Randomized Trial of Different Screening Strategies for Colorectal Cancer: Patient Response and Detection Rates. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/dji050
- The paper
- Segnan, N., Senore, C., Andreoni, B., Arrigoni, A., Bisanti, L., Cardelli, A., Castiglione, G., Crosta, C., DiPlacido, R., Ferrari, A., Ferraris, R., Ferrero, F., Fracchia, M., Gasperoni, S., Malfitana, G., Recchia, S., Risio, M., Rizzetto, M., Saracco, G., . . . SCORE2 Working Group-Italy. (2005). Randomized Trial of Different Screening Strategies for Colorectal Cancer: Patient Response and Detection Rates. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji050
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.