National cancer screening program for colorectal cancer in Korea

Seung Min Baik; Ryung-Ah Lee

doi:10.4174/astr.2023.105.6.333

Journal List > Ann Surg Treat Res > v.105(6) > 1516086136

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Baik and Lee: National cancer screening program for colorectal cancer in Korea

Review Article

Colorectal

Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 2023; 105(6): 333-340.

Published online: 29 November 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2023.105.6.333

National cancer screening program for colorectal cancer in Korea

Seung Min Baik¹

, Ryung-Ah Lee²

¹Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Surgery, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

²Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Corresponding Author: Ryung-Ah Lee. Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, 260 Gonghang-daero, Gangseo-gu, Seoul 07804, Korea. Tel: +82-2-2650-5273, Fax: +82-+82-2-2644-7984, ralee@ewha.ac.kr

Received 15 September 2023 Accepted 21 September 2023

The Korean Surgical Society

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research is an Open Access Journal. All articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is the 3rd leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Korea, ranking 4th and 3rd among men and women, respectively. It is also the most common cause of cancer-related deaths in women older than 64 years. This study assessed the National Cancer Screening Program for colorectal cancer and examined its efficacy in enhancing public health. The fecal occult blood test (FOBT), a traditional noninvasive colorectal cancer screening test that can be performed on an outpatient basis was replaced with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) because of the latter’s better predictive value. Since 2004, the Government of South Korea has recommended an annual FIT for people aged 50 years and older as the first step in colorectal cancer screening. Individuals who test positive on the FIT are scheduled for follow-up screening procedures, such as colonoscopy or double-contrast barium enema, whereas those who have a negative FOBT are not recommended for colonoscopy. Colonoscopy, as a screening tool in Korea, has definite merits because it is highly accessible to patients and is performed by qualified specialists. Although the domestic colorectal cancer screening rate is relatively stable, there is scope for improvement. Owing to the low cost of colonoscopy and the wealth of skilled endoscopy specialists, the number of intention-to-screen procedures for colonoscopy has increased. As Korea is rapidly becoming an ultra-elderly society, it is time to reconsider the revision of the classical screening program and recommend region-specific, cost-effective guidelines.

Keywords: Colorectal neoplasms, Early detection of cancer, Endoscopy, Immunohistochemistry, Occult blood

INTRODUCTION

Cancer is the leading cause of death in South Korea, and colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks 3rd among all cancer-related deaths in the country [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]. In 2021, 82,688 people died from cancer (International Classification of Diseases [ICD] C00-C97), accounting for 26.0% of all deaths [8]. To improve cancer survival and facilitate early diagnosis, the Ministry of Health and Welfare of Korea has implemented the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) since 1996 [9]. The NCSP officially aims to detect cancer at an early stage, to guide treatment, improve cure rates, and increase survival rates (Fig. 1). Programs are in place to ensure that people can be examined every year or every 2 years for the early diagnosis of stomach, liver, colon, breast, and cervical cancers.

In general, the classification code for cancer registration uses the ICD for Oncology published by the World Health Organization, and the Korean National Cancer Registry also collects data according to this classification and publishes an annual report. According to the 2020 Cancer Statistics published in December 2022, the number of cancer cases in 2020 was 247,952, with an incidence rate of 482.9 per 100,000. Over the years in which cancer statistics have been collected, cancer prevalence rates have continued to increase. However, unusually, the 2020 statistics showed a slight decrease of 3.6% compared to those from the previous year. We cannot exclude the impact of the unprecedented coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and believe that this decline is a worthy reason to reconsider changes in the national cancer screening rate.

The prevalence of CRC remains high, ranking 3rd among the total population, 4th among men, and 3rd among women. The results show that CRC is the leading cause of cancer among women in the post-64-year age group [10], which is of particular significance considering the continued increase in female life expectancy [6].

This review aimed to investigate the NCSP for CRC and assess its impact in terms of advancing public health. It was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital (No. EUMC 2023-08-038).

NATIONAL CANCER SCREENING PROGRAM IN KOREA

The purpose of cancer screening is to detect cancer at an early stage in the general population who are asymptomatic, to maximize early treatment and cure, reduce the national healthcare cost burden of advanced cancer, and improve public wellness. Considering the high prevalence and severity of CRC, most healthcare providers are concerned about whether screening programs are effective. As screening tests require significant resources and can be costly when implemented nationwide, they are typically adopted after a thorough assessment of their efficacy. Consequently, each country may employ a slightly different screening approach tailored to its specific circumstances (Table 1[11 12 13 14 15 16 17]). In Korea, the NCSP is a nationwide initiative aimed at increasing cancer cure rates and reducing cancer-related mortality. The government is enacting the NCSP for all individuals covered by health insurance and all recipients of medical benefits, with the goal of mitigating societal expenses, including the rising healthcare costs associated with cancer.

The Korea Central Cancer Registry (KCCR) was established at the National Medical Center in 1980, as a hospital-based nationwide cancer registry initiated by the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The KCCR started the cancer registration project with the voluntary participation of hospitals and later expanded this to nationwide medical institutions where cancer can be diagnosed and treated. The KCCR was transferred to the National Cancer Center in September 2000 and was designated the Central Cancer Registry under the Cancer Control Act in December 2004. The goal of the cancer registration project was to calculate cancer registration statistics in Korea and to identify priorities for cancer control policies. Cancer registration statistics offer several valuable applications, including the ability to anticipate future healthcare needs, such as the number of doctors, hospitals, and associated costs required for cancer treatment. They also enable the detection of cancer trends and outbreaks, thereby facilitating the identification of potential cancer causes. These statistics further aid in assessing the cancer burden within specific geographic regions using regional cancer data. Additionally, they serve as means to evaluate the effectiveness of newly implemented cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment initiatives and can be utilized as educational and promotional resources for cancer awareness and education.

For more efficient policy formulation and implementation, the Korean government enacted the Cancer Control Act of 2003, which stated that medical practitioners and heads of medical institutions must actively cooperate with cancer control projects executed by the national and local governments (hereinafter referred to as “cancer control projects”). The NCSP began screening for stomach, breast, and cervical cancers in 1999, followed by liver cancer in 2003, and CRC in 2004. Since July 2019, lung cancer has been included, so the program now screens for 6 cancers. This is conducted every 2 years for stomach and breast cancer patients aged 40 years and older, and once a year for CRC patients aged 50 years and older. Liver cancer screening is performed twice a year for high-risk groups, such as hepatitis carriers over the age of 40 years, and cervical cancer screening is performed once every 2 years from the age of 20 years.

The Ministry of Health and Welfare of Korea has recommended annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for people aged 50 years and older as the first step in CRC screening since 2004. Those with a positive FIT are scheduled to undergo colonoscopy or double-contrast barium enema as the second step, while those with a negative fecal occult blood test (FOBT) are not offered colonoscopy [9].

Recently, Park et al. [18] reported 14 years of NCSP data for CRC in Korea. According to their report, the number of participants screened and invited to undergo CRC screening increased from 6,046,304 and 441,392 in 2004 to 18,929,321 and 5,770,617 in 2017, respectively, while the rate of screening of participants also increased from 7.3% in 2004 to 32.7% in 2011. It decreased to 24.7% in 2012 and increased to 30.5% in 2017 [18]. The number of follow-up screening tests using colonoscopy increased from 6,966 of 33,173 (21.0%) in 2004, to 73,056 of 229,779 (31.8%) in 2017. Participation rates were the highest among those in their 60s. Nevertheless, the participation rate among those in their 50s has been significantly lower than that of participants aged 60–79 years since 2011, which suggests that people in their 50s may not be aware of their risk because they are not as concerned that they may develop CRC. The most efficient approach to promoting active engagement in screening programs is to inform the public about the disease and to convey the effectiveness of these screening programs actively.

NONINVASIVE SCREENING TESTS FOR COLORECTAL CANCER

For an effective screening program, tests should be conducted at the most effective frequency in populations with a high incidence of CRC. The test method should ideally be simple to perform, simple to interpret, and inexpensive, to facilitate mass tests.

The adenoma-carcinoma sequence in the development of CRC is generally accepted, with most agreeing that the removal of adenomas reduces the frequency of CRC. This indicates that CRC screening should encompass the identification of both carcinomas and adenomas to be considered comprehensive and meaningful.

Guaiac FOBT (gFOBT) is the most commonly used noninvasive screening method for CRC [19]. FOBT is simple and reasonably acceptable for screening in outpatient settings. An individual undergoing screening typically collects a stool sample at home and sends it to a laboratory. This test identifies hemoglobin molecules in the exfoliation of abnormally sloughed epithelial cells. This is one of the initial methods employed for CRC screening and remains the primary approach used. It operates by detecting changes in color when hemoglobin in the feces undergoes oxidation, relying on the pseudoperoxidase activity of hemoglobin, which promotes the oxidation of guaiac upon the addition of H₂O₂.

Based on evidence from randomized controlled trials, a screening program using a gFOBT decreased CRC mortality when used with repeated applications over time and endoscopic follow-up of positive results [20]. Hu et al. [21], in their systematic review of the FOBT, reported that the FOBT had a cost-effective impact, resulting in a reduction in CRC mortality ranging from 8% to 16%. A major limitation of the gFOBT is that the amount of oxidized hemoglobin must be detectable for the test to be reliable, and false positivity caused by substances that can cause similar oxidation reactions, such as medicines or food, cannot be excluded [22 23].

To compensate for the weaknesses of the FOBT, the FIT has recently been actively adopted and recommended [23 24 25]. The FIT has been validated by the detection of antibodies specific to the globin portion of human hemoglobin [26 27]. Since globin in the upper gastrointestinal tract is degraded by gastric juice, it is not only sensitive to bleeding in the lower gastrointestinal tract, but also has a low false-positive rate, because the test results do not change depending on the type of food. Current screening recommendations indicate a stronger preference for the FIT [28]. Table 2 presents the accuracy of the FOBT and FIT in CRC screening [29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36].

The sensitivities for detecting colorectal neoplasia and CRC ranged from 25% to 27% and 74% to 81%, respectively. This is a satisfactory screening test result [28]. Many countries have investigated the performance of the FIT in CRC screening in large patient populations. The results showed a sensitivity of approximately 47.1%–93.3% and a specificity of 83.5%–96.3%, although the performance varied slightly by country (Fig. 2) [37 38 39 40 41 42 43].

Denmark’s CRC screening program began using the FIT in 2014, offering tests every 4 years for adults aged 50–74 years, which was changed to every 2 years starting in 2018. A FIT score of 20 g/g feces was deemed positive, and citizens with positive FITs were offered colonoscopy. Recent reports have indicated a direct correlation between FIT results and the risk of CRC, suggesting that FIT results can be used to tailor screening programs on an individual basis [44].

However, false-positive and false-negative results persist. Law et al. [45] reported that female sex and hemorrhoids were associated with increased odds (with odds ratios [ORs] of 1.59 and 1.89, respectively) in relation to false-positive FITs, while increasing age and body mass index were associated with decreased odds (with ORs of 0.94 and 0.96, respectively). Niedermaier et al. [46] reported the estimated stage- and location-specific sensitivities of quantitative FIT in a large cohort of patients with CRC. They collected fecal samples from 435 CRC patients, calculated the sensitivity of the quantitative FIT, and analyzed the results based on tumor characteristics. The FIT demonstrated the following sensitivity rates for detecting different tumor stages: 52% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 37%–67%) for T1 tumors, 79% sensitivity (95% CI, 68%–88%) for T2 tumors, 93% sensitivity (95% CI, 89%–95%) for T3 tumors, and 84% sensitivity (95% CI, 72%–92%) for T4 tumors. FIT-detection of stage I cancers had 68% sensitivity (95% CI, 57%–78%), that of stage II cancers had 92% sensitivity (95% CI, 87%–96%), and that of stage III cancers had 82% sensitivity (95% CI, 73%–89%).

Heer et al. [47] conducted a systematic review of 3 relevant studies on the performance of FIT in CRC. In individuals under the age of 50 years, the overall sensitivity of FIT for advanced neoplasia was found to be 0.23 (95% CI, 0.17–0.30), with a corresponding specificity of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94–0.98). Additionally, the sensitivity and specificity for detecting advanced adenoma among individuals under 50 years of age were 23% and 96%, respectively, based on data from 3 studies.

ENDOSCOPIC SCREENING OF COLORECTAL CANCER

In many countries, the primary screening approach for CRC involves stool tests. Individuals identified through this initial screening may be recommended to undergo further evaluation through endoscopic procedures, such as colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy. Endoscopy is limited when performed for screening purposes in asymptomatic populations. While stool tests can be gathered as an outpatient procedure and are comparatively straightforward to collect independently, endoscopy necessitates a preparatory phase (typically, sigmoidoscopy involves an enema and colonoscopy entails thorough bowel cleansing), which can be time-consuming and uncomfortable [48]. Colonoscopy-associated complications are frequently encountered. Another noteworthy limitation is that the accuracy of the test relies on the proficiency of the operator [5]. However, endoscopy offers the clear advantage of enabling the direct inspection of lesions and potential biopsy of suspicious regions. Furthermore, endoscopic resection allows the removal of polyps, thus enabling a combination of diagnosis and treatment. However, whether these advantages render it an effective method for screening the general asymptomatic population remains uncertain.

Recently, Dominitz and Robertson [49] published an editorial on screening colonoscopy. In this enlightening editorial, the authors summarized the results of the Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) trial and the Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO) trial. The NordICC trial [50] involved nearly 84,585 participants from Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands, who were randomly assigned to be invited to undergo either screening colonoscopy or to receive usual care. The risk of CRC decreased by 18% over 10 years (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70–0.93). However, the reduction in the mortality risk due to CRC remains unsatisfactory. Recently, the results of a modeling study of the NordICC trial were released [51]. With a participation rate of 42% and a 10-year follow-up period, the models projected reductions in CRC incidence ranging from 11% to 28% and in mortality from 24% to 32%. Additionally, they noted that the predicted incidence reduction with a 42% uptake increased from 18% to 33% and from 19% to 35% at the 15- and 20-year follow-ups, respectively. Furthermore, with 100% participation, these reductions rose significantly from 40% to 73% for incidence and from 43% to 77% for mortality. Combining full participation with a 15-year follow-up resulted in anticipated incidence and mortality reductions from 40% to 73% and from 59% to 79%, respectively. Consequently, they recommended a 10-yearly colonoscopy screening interval to achieve the desired reduction in the incidence and mortality.

The SCREESCO trial [52 53] involved a comparison of 16,552 individuals who underwent colonoscopy every 2 years with those who underwent usual care (no screening). In the preliminary report of this trial, only 35% of the participants invited to undergo colonoscopy actually underwent the procedure. Additionally, endoscopists had a median adenoma detection rate of 20%. Forsberg et al. [52] presented comparative data on the choice between a once-only colonoscopy and a biennial FIT for CRC screening. Among the 30,400 individuals invited to undergo colonoscopy, 10,679 (35%) participated. In the FIT arm, 33,383 of 60,137 individuals (56%) who underwent a mailed FIT test participated. According to the intention-to-screen analysis, 49 participants (1.6 per 1,000) with CRC were included in the colonoscopy arm, as opposed to 121 (2.0 per 1000) in the FIT arm (relative risk, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.56–1.09). The study concluded that population-based screening services could potentially offer benefits in disease-specific mortality if demonstrated subsequently. Strömberg et al. [54] also demonstrated a significant socioeconomic gradient in the attendance proportion for colonoscopy in the primary colonoscopy arm.

Considering these points, we contend that the effectiveness of colonoscopy as an noninvasive colorectal cancer screening test warrants additional scrutiny. In the United States and Europe, where colonoscopies are not as prevalent, the issue extends beyond cost and involves the availability of proficient endoscopists to conduct the procedure and ensure the quality of colonoscopy examinations. The task was to motivate and inform the public effectively to undergo colonoscopy.

In Korea, the situation regarding colonoscopies differs somewhat from that in Western countries. Although colonoscopies are recommended by the National Health Insurance system and are in line with disease-specific guidelines, it is relatively straightforward for patients to undergo colonoscopies based on their own preferences. This is primarily because Korean colonoscopists are highly specialized professionals who have undergone rigorous qualification examinations, which is well-recognized by the public. Consequently, the perceived risk associated with the procedure is low and the cost of colonoscopy is affordable, making it easily accessible. Considering the healthcare landscape in Korea and cost-effectiveness of medical resources, the implementation of a 10-yearly colonoscopy-based CRC screening program is worth considering.

CONCLUSION

The primary objectives of the NCST are to detect cancer in its early asymptomatic stages, thereby increasing cure rates and ensuring health for individuals. Simultaneously, it aims to mitigate the escalating healthcare costs attributed to advanced cancer cases, safeguard national health by securing a workforce, and promote a healthier society. To achieve these objectives, funding for screening programs is essential, and the availability of sensitive and cost-effective tests is crucial. Above all, the active engagement of the population, due to their conviction of the significance of the screening program, is paramount to its success.

Although the CRC screening rate in Korea has remained relatively stable at 30.5% in 2017, there is scope for improvement. It is worth noting that elective endoscopy rates are presumed to be high in Korea, largely because of the comparatively lower cost of endoscopy as compared to that in Western countries. This will play a pivotal role in evaluating and sustaining the effectiveness of future screening programs. Considering Korea’s swift transition to an ultra-aging society [55], establishing guidelines that efficiently address the medical cost burden associated with the older population is imperative.

Notes

Fund/Grant Support: None.

Conflict of Interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Author Contribution:

Conceptualization: RL.
Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology: SMB, RL.
Writing – Original Draft: SMB, RL.
Writing – Review & Editing: SMB, RL.

References

1. Choo JM, Baek SJ, Kwak JM, Kim J, Kim SH. Clinical characteristics and oncologic outcomes in patients with preoperative clinical T3 and T4 colon cancer who were staged as pathologic T3. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2020; 99:37–43. PMID: 32676480.

2. Paik JH, Ryu CG, Hwang DY. Risk factors of recurrence in TNM stage I colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2023; 104:281–287. PMID: 37179701.

3. Cho JR, Lee KW, Oh HK, Kim JW, Kim JW, Kim DW, et al. Effectiveness of oral fluoropyrimidine monotherapy as adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk stage II colon cancer. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2022; 102:271–280. PMID: 35611086.

4. Kang MY, Paik JH, Ryu CG, Hwang DY. Adjuvant oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy effect after treatment of colorectal hepatic metastasis. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2021; 101:160–166. PMID: 34549039.

5. Shin R, Lee S, Han KS, Sohn DK, Moon SH, Choi DH, et al. Guidelines for accreditation of endoscopy units: quality measures from the Korean Society of Coloproctology. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2021; 100:154–165. PMID: 33748029.

6. Yang IJ, Oh HK, Lee J, Suh JW, Ahn HM, Shin HR, et al. Efficacy of geriatric multidisciplinary oncology clinic in the surgical treatment decision-making process for frail elderly patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2022; 103:169–175. PMID: 36128034.

7. National Cancer Center. Annual report of cancer statistics in Korea in 2020 [Internet]. National Cancer Center;2020. cited 2023 Aug 10. Available from: https://ncc.re.kr/cancerStatsView.ncc?bbsnum=638&searchKey=total&searchValue=&pageNum=1 .

8. Kim MH, Park S, Yi N, Kang B, Park IJ. Colorectal cancer mortality trends in the era of cancer survivorship in Korea: 2000-2020. Ann Coloproctol. 2022; 38:343–352. PMID: 36353833.

9. National Cancer Center. National cancer screening program [Internet]. National Cancer Center;2023. cited 2023 Aug 10. Available from: https://www.ncc.re.kr/main.ncc?uri=english/sub04_ControlPrograms03 .

10. Chang MC, Choo YJ, Kim S. Effect of prehabilitation on patients with frailty undergoing colorectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2023; 104:313–324. PMID: 37337603.

11. Sohn DK, Kim MJ, Park Y, Suh M, Shin A, Lee HY, et al. The Korean guideline for colorectal cancer screening. J Korean Med Assoc. 2015; 58:420–432.

12. Saito Y, Oka S, Kawamura T, Shimoda R, Sekiguchi M, Tamai N, et al. Colonoscopy screening and surveillance guidelines. Dig Endosc. 2021; 33:486–519. PMID: 33713493.

13. Shaukat A, Kahi CJ, Burke CA, Rabeneck L, Sauer BG, Rex DK. ACG clinical guidelines: colorectal cancer screening 2021. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021; 116:458–479. PMID: 33657038.

14. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Recommendations on screening for colorectal cancer in primary care. CMAJ. 2016; 188:340–348. PMID: 26903355.

15. GOV.UK. NHS bowel cancer screening (BCSP) programme: detailed information. Bowel cancer screening: programme overview [Internet]. GOV.UK;2021. cited 2023 Aug 10. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/bowel-cancer-screening-programme-overview .

16. Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). Colorectal cancer screening programme [Internet]. RIVM;2022. cited 2023 Aug 10. Available from: https://www.rivm.nl/en/colorectal-cancer-screening-programme .

17. Brinkmann M, Diedrich L, Krauth C, Robra BP, Stahmeyer JT, Dreier M. General populations’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening: rationale and protocol for the discrete choice experiment in the SIGMO study. BMJ Open. 2021; 11:e042399.

18. Park B, Her EY, Lee K, Nari F, Jun JK, Choi KS, et al. Overview of the National Cancer Screening Program for Colorectal Cancer in Korea over 14 Years (2004-2017). Cancer Res Treat. 2023; 55:910–917. PMID: 36915246.

19. Li JN, Yuan SY. Fecal occult blood test in colorectal cancer screening. J Dig Dis. 2019; 20:62–64. PMID: 30714325.

20. Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Irwig L, Towler B, Watson E. Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; 2007:CD001216. PMID: 17253456.

21. Hu LF, Yue QQ, Tang T, Sun YX, Zou JY, Huang YT, et al. Knowledge and belief of fecal occult blood screening: a systematic review. Public Health Nurs. 2023; 40:782–789. PMID: 37177843.

22. Meklin J, Syrjänen K, Eskelinen M. Colorectal cancer screening with traditional and new-generation fecal immunochemical tests: a critical review of fecal occult blood tests. Anticancer Res. 2020; 40:575–581. PMID: 32014898.

23. Tinmouth J, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Allison JE. Faecal immunochemical tests versus guaiac faecal occult blood tests: what clinicians and colorectal cancer screening programme organisers need to know. Gut. 2015; 64:1327–1337. PMID: 26041750.

24. Shaukat A, Levin TR. Current and future colorectal cancer screening strategies. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022; 19:521–531. PMID: 35505243.

25. Williams JR, Ayscue JM. Colorectal cancer screening: a review of current screening options, timing, and guidelines. J Surg Oncol. 2023; 127:1236–1246. PMID: 37222695.

26. Doubeni CA, Levin TR. In screening for colorectal cancer, is the FIT right for the right side of the colon? Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169:650–651. PMID: 30285038.

27. Santiago L, Toro DH. Effectiveness of multiple consecutive fecal immunohistochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening. P R Health Sci J. 2022; 41:117–122. PMID: 36018738.

28. Jayasinghe M, Prathiraja O, Caldera D, Jena R, Coffie-Pierre JA, Silva MS, et al. Colon cancer screening methods: 2023 update. Cureus. 2023; 15:e37509. PMID: 37193451.

29. Binefa G, Rodríguez-Moranta F, Teule A, Medina-Hayas M. Colorectal cancer: from prevention to personalized medicine. World J Gastroenterol. 2014; 20:6786–6808. PMID: 24944469.

30. Del Vecchio Blanco G, Paoluzi OA, Sileri P, Rossi P, Sica G, Pallone F. Familial colorectal cancer screening: when and what to do? World J Gastroenterol. 2015; 21:7944–7953. PMID: 26185367.

31. Elsafi SH, Alqahtani NI, Zakary NY, Al Zahrani EM. The sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios of fecal occult blood test for the detection of colorectal cancer in hospital settings. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2015; 8:279–284. PMID: 26392783.

32. Shapiro JA, Bobo JK, Church TR, Rex DK, Chovnick G, Thompson TD, et al. A comparison of fecal immunochemical and high-sensitivity guaiac tests for colorectal cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017; 112:1728–1735. PMID: 29016558.

33. Sun J, Fei F, Zhang M, Li Y, Zhang X, Zhu S, et al. The role of mSEPT9 in screening, diagnosis, and recurrence monitoring of colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer. 2019; 19:450. PMID: 31088406.

34. Holtedahl K, Borgquist L, Donker GA, Buntinx F, Weller D, Campbell C, et al. Symptoms and signs of colorectal cancer, with differences between proximal and distal colon cancer: a prospective cohort study of diagnostic accuracy in primary care. BMC Fam Pract. 2021; 22:148. PMID: 34238248.

35. Lee JK, Liles EG, Bent S, Levin TR, Corley DA. Accuracy of fecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014; 160:171. PMID: 24658694.

36. Lin JS, Perdue LA, Henrikson NB, Bean SI, Blasi PR. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2021; 325:1978–1998. PMID: 34003220.

37. Shin A, Choi KS, Jun JK, Noh DK, Suh M, Jung KW, et al. Validity of fecal occult blood test in the national cancer screening program, Korea. PLoS One. 2013; 8:e79292. PMID: 24260189.

38. Selby K, Jensen CD, Lee JK, Doubeni CA, Schottinger JE, Zhao WK, et al. Influence of varying quantitative fecal immunochemical test positivity thresholds on colorectal cancer detection: a community-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169:439–447. PMID: 30242328.

39. Bailey SE, Abel GA, Atkins A, Byford R, Davies SJ, Mays J, et al. Diagnostic performance of a faecal immunochemical test for patients with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer in primary care: an evaluation in the South West of England. Br J Cancer. 2021; 124:1231–1236. PMID: 33462361.

40. Morikawa T, Kato J, Yamaji Y, Wada R, Mitsushima T, Shiratori Y. A comparison of the immunochemical fecal occult blood test and total colonoscopy in the asymptomatic population. Gastroenterology. 2005; 129:422–428. PMID: 16083699.

41. Khan AA, Klimovskij M, Harshen R. Accuracy of faecal immunochemical testing in patients with symptomatic colorectal cancer. BJS Open. 2020; 4:1180–1188. PMID: 32949085.

42. Terhaar sive Droste JS, van Turenhout ST, Oort FA, van der Hulst RW, Steeman VA, Coblijn U, et al. Faecal immunochemical test accuracy in patients referred for surveillance colonoscopy: a multicentre cohort study. BMC Gastroenterol. 2012; 12:94. PMID: 22828158.

43. Uppara M, Adaba F, Askari A, Clark S, Hanna G, Athanasiou T, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of pyruvate kinase M2 isoenzymatic assay in diagnosing colorectal cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2015; 13:48. PMID: 25888768.

44. Plantener E, Deding U, Madsen JB, Kroijer R, Madsen JS, Baatrup G. Using fecal immunochemical test values below conventional cut-off to individualize colorectal cancer screening. Endosc Int Open. 2022; 10:E413–E419. PMID: 35528219.

45. Law J, Rajan A, Trieu H, Azizian J, Berry R, Beaven SW, et al. Predictive modeling of colonoscopic findings in a fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program. Dig Dis Sci. 2022; 67:2842–2848. PMID: 34350518.

46. Niedermaier T, Tikk K, Gies A, Bieck S, Brenner H. Sensitivity of fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer detection differs according to stage and location. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020; 18:2920–2928. PMID: 31988043.

47. Heer E, Ruan Y, Pader J, Mah B, Ricci C, Nguyen T, et al. Performance of the fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer and advanced neoplasia in individuals under age 50. Prev Med Rep. 2023; 32:102124. PMID: 36875511.

48. Park SS, Park SC, Lee DE, Lee DW, Yu K, Park HC, et al. The risk of surgical site infection of oral sulfate tablet versus sodium picosulfate for bowel preparation in colorectal cancer surgery: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2022; 103:96–103. PMID: 36017141.

49. Dominitz JA, Robertson DJ. Understanding the results of a randomized trial of screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2022; 387:1609–1611. PMID: 36214591.

50. Bretthauer M, Løberg M, Wieszczy P, Kalager M, Emilsson L, Garborg K, et al. Effect of colonoscopy screening on risks of colorectal cancer and related death. N Engl J Med. 2022; 387:1547–1556. PMID: 36214590.

51. van den Berg DM, Nascimento de Lima P, Knudsen AB, Rutter CM, Weinberg D, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, et al. NordICC trial results in line with expected colorectal cancer mortality reduction after colonoscopy: a modeling study. Gastroenterology. 2023; 165:1077–1079. PMID: 37454978.

52. Forsberg A, Westerberg M, Metcalfe C, Steele R, Blom J, Engstrand L, et al. Once-only colonoscopy or two rounds of faecal immunochemical testing 2 years apart for colorectal cancer screening (SCREESCO): preliminary report of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022; 7:513–521. PMID: 35298893.

53. Sekiguchi M, Westerberg M, Ekbom A, Hultcrantz R, Forsberg A. Detection rates of colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopies and their associated factors in the SCREESCO study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022; 37:2120–2130. PMID: 36062316.

54. Stromberg U, Bonander C, Westerberg M, Levin LA, Metcalfe C, Steele R, et al. Colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical testing or primary colonoscopy: an analysis of health equity based on a randomised trial. EClinicalMedicine. 2022; 47:101398. PMID: 35480071.

55. Park JS, Lee KG, Kim MK. Trends and outcomes of emergency general surgery in elderly and highly elderly population in a single regional emergency center. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2023; 104:325–331. PMID: 37337605.

Fig. 1

Annual colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates in South Korea. The number of colorectal cancer patients in Korea has increased from about 10,000 in 1999 to about 30,000 in 2021, but the number of deaths has increased more slowly, from about 3,700 in 1999 to about 8,900 in 2021.

Fig. 2

Screening performance of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer, by country. The sensitivity of the FIT across countries is about 47%–93% and the specificity is about 83%–96%. The sensitivity of FIT in Korea is lower than in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Germany, but the range of 95% confidence intervals is wide enough that it is not considered to be underperforming compared to other countries.

Table 1

Colorectal cancer screening guidelines around the world

FIT, fecal immunochemical test; gFOBT, guaiac fecal occult blood test.

Table 2

A study of the utility of the FOBT and FIT in colorectal cancer screening

FOBT, fecal occult blood test; FIT, fecal immunochemical test; FOBT, fecal occult blood test; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; NA, not available.

TOOLS

Similar articles