Does the location of colorectal carcinoma differ between screened and unscreened populations?

Aim  Screening for colorectal malignancy using faecal occult blood testing is established across the UK. In NHS Grampian the programme was introduced in 2007. Previous studies have reported no difference in anatomical locations of cancers detected by screening programmes compared with those in unscr...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Colorectal disease 2012-10, Vol.14 (10), p.e689-e691
Hauptverfasser: Mackay, C. D., Ramsay, G., Rafferty, A., Loudon, M. A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e691
container_issue 10
container_start_page e689
container_title Colorectal disease
container_volume 14
creator Mackay, C. D.
Ramsay, G.
Rafferty, A.
Loudon, M. A.
description Aim  Screening for colorectal malignancy using faecal occult blood testing is established across the UK. In NHS Grampian the programme was introduced in 2007. Previous studies have reported no difference in anatomical locations of cancers detected by screening programmes compared with those in unscreened populations. This study aims to review the location of tumours detected in an established screening programme compared with those diagnosed through symptomatic presentation within the same population. Method  All patients discussed at the regional multidisciplinary meeting between June 2007 and August 2011 were included. Data were collated prospectively from multidisciplinary team records while site of tumour was documented from radiology, endoscopy, operative and pathology reports. Comparative statistics (χ2) were performed using spss 19. Results  Of 1487 patients included 255 were detected via the screening programme and 1232 from symptomatic presentation. More left sided tumours (splenic flexure to rectosigmoid) were detected via screening (P = 0.005). Of non‐screened patients (n = 1232), 456 (37%) tumours were right sided (caecum to distal transverse colon), 419 (34%) were left sided and 357 (29%) were in the rectum. This compares with the screened group (n = 255): right sided 74 (29%), left sided 113 (44%) and rectal 68 (27%). Conclusion  More left sided tumours appear to be detected in screened patients compared with symptomatic presentation, contrary to previously published work. These results may be worthy of further consideration given the ongoing debate on the optimal means of screening.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03134.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1039344144</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1039344144</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4084-376aa70e2eb96a0020ab59439cff14d23f11a23e4e857091bea1201d25f9f0813</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkE1P4zAQhi3Eiq_dv4B85JLgsZ2vCwgVKEhVEWJX7GVlOc5YpKRxsRNR_j1JCz2vLzOW33lGfgihwGIYzvkiBpmKCATkMWfAYyZAyHi9R452D_ubnkd5AeyQHIewYAzSDPIDcsh5xlOe5kfk37XDQLsXpI0zuqtdS52lxjXOo-l0Q432pm7dUtOqthY9LbF7R2xpMH4oWFHdVrRvd9eVW_XNhhQuf5IfVjcBf33VE_Ln9ub35C6aPUzvJ1ezyEiWy0hkqdYZQ45lkWrGONNlUkhRGGtBVlxYAM0FSsyTjBVQoobh2xVPbGFZDuKEnG25K-_eegydWtbBYNPoFl0fFDBRCClByiGab6PGuxA8WrXy9VL7jyGkRrlqoUaHanSoRrlqI1eth9HTry19ucRqN_htcwhcbAPvdYMf_w1Wk4fr-7EdANEWUIcO1zuA9q8qzUSWqOf5VPEseZo-Pv9Vc_EJ9-iXlg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1039344144</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Does the location of colorectal carcinoma differ between screened and unscreened populations?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Mackay, C. D. ; Ramsay, G. ; Rafferty, A. ; Loudon, M. A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Mackay, C. D. ; Ramsay, G. ; Rafferty, A. ; Loudon, M. A.</creatorcontrib><description>Aim  Screening for colorectal malignancy using faecal occult blood testing is established across the UK. In NHS Grampian the programme was introduced in 2007. Previous studies have reported no difference in anatomical locations of cancers detected by screening programmes compared with those in unscreened populations. This study aims to review the location of tumours detected in an established screening programme compared with those diagnosed through symptomatic presentation within the same population. Method  All patients discussed at the regional multidisciplinary meeting between June 2007 and August 2011 were included. Data were collated prospectively from multidisciplinary team records while site of tumour was documented from radiology, endoscopy, operative and pathology reports. Comparative statistics (χ2) were performed using spss 19. Results  Of 1487 patients included 255 were detected via the screening programme and 1232 from symptomatic presentation. More left sided tumours (splenic flexure to rectosigmoid) were detected via screening (P = 0.005). Of non‐screened patients (n = 1232), 456 (37%) tumours were right sided (caecum to distal transverse colon), 419 (34%) were left sided and 357 (29%) were in the rectum. This compares with the screened group (n = 255): right sided 74 (29%), left sided 113 (44%) and rectal 68 (27%). Conclusion  More left sided tumours appear to be detected in screened patients compared with symptomatic presentation, contrary to previously published work. These results may be worthy of further consideration given the ongoing debate on the optimal means of screening.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1462-8910</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1463-1318</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03134.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22726268</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Aged ; Colon - pathology ; Colonoscopy ; Colorectal carcinoma ; Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology ; Early Detection of Cancer - methods ; Female ; Humans ; location ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Occult Blood ; Rectum - pathology ; Retrospective Studies ; Scotland ; screening</subject><ispartof>Colorectal disease, 2012-10, Vol.14 (10), p.e689-e691</ispartof><rights>2012 The Authors. Colorectal Disease © 2012 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland</rights><rights>2012 The Authors. Colorectal Disease © 2012 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4084-376aa70e2eb96a0020ab59439cff14d23f11a23e4e857091bea1201d25f9f0813</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4084-376aa70e2eb96a0020ab59439cff14d23f11a23e4e857091bea1201d25f9f0813</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1463-1318.2012.03134.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1463-1318.2012.03134.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22726268$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mackay, C. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramsay, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rafferty, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loudon, M. A.</creatorcontrib><title>Does the location of colorectal carcinoma differ between screened and unscreened populations?</title><title>Colorectal disease</title><addtitle>Colorectal Dis</addtitle><description>Aim  Screening for colorectal malignancy using faecal occult blood testing is established across the UK. In NHS Grampian the programme was introduced in 2007. Previous studies have reported no difference in anatomical locations of cancers detected by screening programmes compared with those in unscreened populations. This study aims to review the location of tumours detected in an established screening programme compared with those diagnosed through symptomatic presentation within the same population. Method  All patients discussed at the regional multidisciplinary meeting between June 2007 and August 2011 were included. Data were collated prospectively from multidisciplinary team records while site of tumour was documented from radiology, endoscopy, operative and pathology reports. Comparative statistics (χ2) were performed using spss 19. Results  Of 1487 patients included 255 were detected via the screening programme and 1232 from symptomatic presentation. More left sided tumours (splenic flexure to rectosigmoid) were detected via screening (P = 0.005). Of non‐screened patients (n = 1232), 456 (37%) tumours were right sided (caecum to distal transverse colon), 419 (34%) were left sided and 357 (29%) were in the rectum. This compares with the screened group (n = 255): right sided 74 (29%), left sided 113 (44%) and rectal 68 (27%). Conclusion  More left sided tumours appear to be detected in screened patients compared with symptomatic presentation, contrary to previously published work. These results may be worthy of further consideration given the ongoing debate on the optimal means of screening.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Colon - pathology</subject><subject>Colonoscopy</subject><subject>Colorectal carcinoma</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Early Detection of Cancer - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>location</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Occult Blood</subject><subject>Rectum - pathology</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Scotland</subject><subject>screening</subject><issn>1462-8910</issn><issn>1463-1318</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkE1P4zAQhi3Eiq_dv4B85JLgsZ2vCwgVKEhVEWJX7GVlOc5YpKRxsRNR_j1JCz2vLzOW33lGfgihwGIYzvkiBpmKCATkMWfAYyZAyHi9R452D_ubnkd5AeyQHIewYAzSDPIDcsh5xlOe5kfk37XDQLsXpI0zuqtdS52lxjXOo-l0Q432pm7dUtOqthY9LbF7R2xpMH4oWFHdVrRvd9eVW_XNhhQuf5IfVjcBf33VE_Ln9ub35C6aPUzvJ1ezyEiWy0hkqdYZQ45lkWrGONNlUkhRGGtBVlxYAM0FSsyTjBVQoobh2xVPbGFZDuKEnG25K-_eegydWtbBYNPoFl0fFDBRCClByiGab6PGuxA8WrXy9VL7jyGkRrlqoUaHanSoRrlqI1eth9HTry19ucRqN_htcwhcbAPvdYMf_w1Wk4fr-7EdANEWUIcO1zuA9q8qzUSWqOf5VPEseZo-Pv9Vc_EJ9-iXlg</recordid><startdate>201210</startdate><enddate>201210</enddate><creator>Mackay, C. D.</creator><creator>Ramsay, G.</creator><creator>Rafferty, A.</creator><creator>Loudon, M. A.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201210</creationdate><title>Does the location of colorectal carcinoma differ between screened and unscreened populations?</title><author>Mackay, C. D. ; Ramsay, G. ; Rafferty, A. ; Loudon, M. A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4084-376aa70e2eb96a0020ab59439cff14d23f11a23e4e857091bea1201d25f9f0813</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Colon - pathology</topic><topic>Colonoscopy</topic><topic>Colorectal carcinoma</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Early Detection of Cancer - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>location</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Occult Blood</topic><topic>Rectum - pathology</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Scotland</topic><topic>screening</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mackay, C. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramsay, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rafferty, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loudon, M. A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Colorectal disease</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mackay, C. D.</au><au>Ramsay, G.</au><au>Rafferty, A.</au><au>Loudon, M. A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Does the location of colorectal carcinoma differ between screened and unscreened populations?</atitle><jtitle>Colorectal disease</jtitle><addtitle>Colorectal Dis</addtitle><date>2012-10</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>e689</spage><epage>e691</epage><pages>e689-e691</pages><issn>1462-8910</issn><eissn>1463-1318</eissn><abstract>Aim  Screening for colorectal malignancy using faecal occult blood testing is established across the UK. In NHS Grampian the programme was introduced in 2007. Previous studies have reported no difference in anatomical locations of cancers detected by screening programmes compared with those in unscreened populations. This study aims to review the location of tumours detected in an established screening programme compared with those diagnosed through symptomatic presentation within the same population. Method  All patients discussed at the regional multidisciplinary meeting between June 2007 and August 2011 were included. Data were collated prospectively from multidisciplinary team records while site of tumour was documented from radiology, endoscopy, operative and pathology reports. Comparative statistics (χ2) were performed using spss 19. Results  Of 1487 patients included 255 were detected via the screening programme and 1232 from symptomatic presentation. More left sided tumours (splenic flexure to rectosigmoid) were detected via screening (P = 0.005). Of non‐screened patients (n = 1232), 456 (37%) tumours were right sided (caecum to distal transverse colon), 419 (34%) were left sided and 357 (29%) were in the rectum. This compares with the screened group (n = 255): right sided 74 (29%), left sided 113 (44%) and rectal 68 (27%). Conclusion  More left sided tumours appear to be detected in screened patients compared with symptomatic presentation, contrary to previously published work. These results may be worthy of further consideration given the ongoing debate on the optimal means of screening.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>22726268</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03134.x</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1462-8910
ispartof Colorectal disease, 2012-10, Vol.14 (10), p.e689-e691
issn 1462-8910
1463-1318
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1039344144
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Aged
Colon - pathology
Colonoscopy
Colorectal carcinoma
Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnosis
Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology
Early Detection of Cancer - methods
Female
Humans
location
Male
Middle Aged
Occult Blood
Rectum - pathology
Retrospective Studies
Scotland
screening
title Does the location of colorectal carcinoma differ between screened and unscreened populations?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T06%3A04%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Does%20the%20location%20of%20colorectal%20carcinoma%20differ%20between%20screened%20and%20unscreened%20populations?&rft.jtitle=Colorectal%20disease&rft.au=Mackay,%20C.%20D.&rft.date=2012-10&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=e689&rft.epage=e691&rft.pages=e689-e691&rft.issn=1462-8910&rft.eissn=1463-1318&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03134.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1039344144%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1039344144&rft_id=info:pmid/22726268&rfr_iscdi=true