The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Screening for colorectal cancer: randomised trial comparing guaiac-based and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy
Abstract
Background: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is widely accepted, but there is no consensus on the preferred strategy. We conducted a randomised trial comparing participation and detection rates (DR) per screenee of guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBT), immunochemical FOBT (FIT), and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) for CRC screening. Methods: A representative sample of the Dutch population (n = 15 011), aged 50–74 years, was 1:1:1 randomised prior to invitation to one of the three screening strategies. Colonoscopy was indicated for screenees with a positive gFOBT or FIT, and for those in whom FS revealed a polyp with a diameter ⩾10 mm; adenoma with ⩾25% villous component or high grade dysplasia; serrated adenoma; ⩾3 adenomas; ⩾20 hyperplastic polyps; or CRC. Results: The participation rate was 49.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 48.1 to 50.9%) for gFOBT, 61.5% (CI, 60.1 to 62.9%) for FIT and 32.4% (CI, 31.1 to 33.7%) for FS screening. gFOBT was positive in 2.8%, FIT in 4.8% and FS in 10.2%. The DR of advanced neoplasia was significantly higher in the FIT (2.4%; OR, 2.0; CI, 1.3 to 3.1) and the FS arm (8.0%; OR, 7.0; CI, 4.6 to 10.7) than the gFOBT arm (1.1%). FS demonstrated a higher diagnostic yield of advanced neoplasia per 100 invitees (2.4; CI, 2.0 to 2.8) than gFOBT (0.6; CI, 0.4 to 0.8) or FIT (1.5; CI, 1.2 to 1.9) screening. Conclusion: This randomised population-based CRC-screening trial demonstrated superior participation and detection rates for FIT compared to gFOBT screening. FIT screening should therefore be strongly preferred over gFOBT screening. FS screening demonstrated a higher diagnostic yield per 100 invitees than both FOBTs.
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
Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes
Schreuders, E. H., Ruco, A., Rabeneck, L., Schoen, R. E., Sung, J. J. Y., Young, G. P., & Kuipers, E. J. (2015) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2014-309086 · Cited by 1,328
Self-citationPotential of fecal microbiota for early-stage detection of colorectal cancer
Zeller, G., Tap, J., Voigt, A. Y., Sunagawa, S., Kultima, J. R., Costea, P. I., Amiot, A., Böhm, J., Brunetti, F., Habermann, N., et al. (2014) · Molecular Systems Biology · doi:10.15252/msb.20145645 · Cited by 1,375
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
Colorectal-Cancer Incidence and Mortality with Screening Flexible Sigmoidoscopy
Schoen, R. E., Pinsky, P. F., Weissfeld, J. L., Yokochi, L. A., Church, T., Laiyemo, A. O., Bresalier, R., Andriole, G. L., Buys, S. S., Crawford, E. D., et al. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1114635 · Cited by 1,021
Colonoscopy versus Fecal Immunochemical Testing in Colorectal-Cancer Screening
Quintero, E., Castells, A., Bujanda, L., Cubiella, J., Salas, D., Lanas, Á., Andreu, M., Carballo, F., Morillas, J. D., Hernández, C., et al. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1108895 · Cited by 916
Metadata
- Authors
- Hol, L., van Leerdam, M. E., van Ballegooijen, M., van Vuuren, A. J., van Dekken, H., Reijerink, J. C. I. Y., van der Togt, A. C. M., Habbema, J. D. F., & Kuipers, E. J.
- Venue
- Gut
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2009-08-10
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 01
- Pages
- 62-68
- ISSN
- 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3288
- OpenAlex
- W2113414502
- Cited by
- 481
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.50
- 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: Screening for colorectal cancer: randomised trial comparing guaiac-based and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.2009.177089
- The paper
- Hol, L., van Leerdam, M. E., van Ballegooijen, M., van Vuuren, A. J., van Dekken, H., Reijerink, J. C. I. Y., van der Togt, A. C. M., Habbema, J. D. F., & Kuipers, E. J. (2010). Screening for colorectal cancer: randomised trial comparing guaiac-based and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2009.177089
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.