A single flexible sigmoidoscopy at around the age of 60 years has been proposed as an effective strategy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on CRC incidence and mortality. A questionnaire to assess the eligibility and interest in screening was mailed to 236 568 men and women, aged 55–64 years, who were randomly selected from six trial centers in Italy. Of the 56 532 respondents, interested and eligible subjects were randomly assigned to the intervention group (invitation for flexible sigmoidoscopy; n = 17 148) or the control group (no further contact; n = 17 144), between June 14, 1995, and May 10, 1999. Flexible sigmoidoscopy was performed on 9911 subjects. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed to compare the CRC incidence and mortality rates in the intervention and control groups. Per-protocol analysis was adjusted for noncompliance. A total of 34 272 subjects (17 136 in each group) were included in the follow-up analysis. The median follow-up period was 10.5 years for incidence and 11.4 years for mortality; 251 subjects were diagnosed with CRC in the intervention group and 306 in the control group. Overall incidence rates in the intervention and control groups were 144.11 and 176.43, respectively, per 100 000 person-years. CRC-related death was noted in 65 subjects in the intervention group and 83 subjects in the control group. Mortality rates in the intervention and control groups were 34.66 and 44.45, respectively, per 100 000 person-years. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of CRC incidence was statistically significantly reduced in the intervention group by 18% (rate ratio [RR] = 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.69 to 0.96), and the mortality rate was non-statistically significantly reduced by 22% (RR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.56 to 1.08) compared with the control group. In the per-protocol analysis, both CRC incidence and mortality rates were statistically significantly reduced among the screened subjects; CRC incidence was reduced by 31% (RR = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.86) and mortality was reduced by 38% (RR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.40 to 0.96) compared with the control group. A single flexible sigmoidoscopy screening between ages 55 and 64 years was associated with a substantial reduction of CRC incidence and mortality.

Population-based screening for early detection and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) and precursor lesions, using evidence-based methods, can be effective in populations with a significant burden of the disease provided the services are of high quality. Multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidelines for quality assurance in CRC screening and diagnosis have been developed by experts in a project co-financed by the European Union. The 450-page guidelines were published in book format by the European Commission in 2010. They include 10 chapters and over 250 recommendations, individually graded according to the strength of the recommendation and the supporting evidence. Adoption of the recommendations can improve and maintain the quality and effectiveness of an entire screening process, including identification and invitation of the target population, diagnosis and management of the disease and appropriate surveillance in people with detected lesions. To make the principles, recommendations and standards in the guidelines known to a wider professional and scientific community and to facilitate their use in the scientific literature, the original content is presented in journal format in an open-access Supplement of Endoscopy. The editors have prepared the present overview to inform readers of the comprehensive scope and content of the guidelines. ^† Deceased

This overview describes the principles of the 4th edition of the European Code against Cancer and provides an introduction to the 12 recommendations to reduce cancer risk. Among the 504.6 million inhabitants of the member states of the European Union (EU28), there are annually 2.64 million new cancer cases and 1.28 million deaths from cancer. It is estimated that this cancer burden could be reduced by up to one half if scientific knowledge on causes of cancer could be translated into successful prevention. The Code is a preventive tool aimed to reduce the cancer burden by informing people how to avoid or reduce carcinogenic exposures, adopt behaviours to reduce the cancer risk, or to participate in organised intervention programmes. The Code should also form a base to guide national health policies in cancer prevention. The 12 recommendations are: not smoking or using other tobacco products; avoiding second-hand smoke; being a healthy body weight; encouraging physical activity; having a healthy diet; limiting alcohol consumption, with not drinking alcohol being better for cancer prevention; avoiding too much exposure to ultraviolet radiation; avoiding cancer-causing agents at the workplace; reducing exposure to high levels of radon; encouraging breastfeeding; limiting the use of hormone replacement therapy; participating in organised vaccination programmes against hepatitis B for newborns and human papillomavirus for girls; and participating in organised screening programmes for bowel cancer, breast cancer, and cervical cancer.

Objective: Quantitative information on adverse reactions associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests is useful to estimate the balance between benefit and risk in different strategies. Setting: Six Italian screening centres. Methods: Thirty-day active follow-up (interview about side-effects and acceptability of the screening procedure and review of hospital admissions) among average-risk people undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), total colonoscopy (TC), fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in a multicentre randomized trial of CRC screening. Multivariable logistic models were used to assess determinants of completion rate and self-reported pain. Results: The attendance rate following the first invitation and mail reminder was 28.2% (1696/6018) in the FS and 23.0% (1382/6021) in the TC arm. Response rate to the 30-day follow-up questionnaire was 88.6% (1502/1696) among people undergoing FS, and 86.7% (1198/1382) among those undergoing TC. The proportion of people complaining of serious reactions following bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR], 5.17; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.70–7.24) or reporting severe pain immediately after the exam (OR, 1.86; 95% CI 1.47–2.34) was higher for TC than for FS. The most common post-procedural complaints were abdominal distension and pain. People mentioning pain or bowel distension following preparation were more likely to report severe pain both after FS (OR, 2.13; 95% CI 1.52–2.97) and TC (OR: 2.03; 95% CI 1.41–2.90). The 30-day hospitalization rate was similar after FS, TC and FIT. Conclusions: Screenees reported higher pain levels after TC than FS. The proportion of people complaining of severe side effects after discharge was similar. Bowel preparation was poorly tolerated by people undergoing TC. Subjects’ reactions to the bowel preparation was predictive of post-procedural discomfort. A commitment of at least 48 hours was required of people undergoing TC, compared with 3–4 for FS.

In order to update the previous version of the European Code against Cancer and formulate evidence-based recommendations, a systematic search of the literature was performed according to the methodology agreed by the Code Working Groups. Based on the review, the 4th edition of the European Code against Cancer recommends: "Take part in organized cancer screening programmes for: Bowel cancer (men and women); Breast cancer (women); Cervical cancer (women)." Organized screening programs are preferable because they provide better conditions to ensure that the Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Screening are followed in order to achieve the greatest benefit with the least harm. Screening is recommended only for those cancers where a demonstrated life-saving effect substantially outweighs the potential harm of examining very large numbers of people who may otherwise never have, or suffer from, these cancers, and when an adequate quality of the screening is achieved. EU citizens are recommended to participate in cancer screening each time an invitation from the national or regional screening program is received and after having read the information materials provided and carefully considered the potential benefits and harms of screening. Screening programs in the European Union vary with respect to the age groups invited and to the interval between invitations, depending on each country's cancer burden, local resources, and the type of screening test used For colorectal cancer, most programs in the EU invite men and women starting at the age of 50-60 years, and from then on every 2 years if the screening test is the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test, or every 10 years or more if the screening test is flexible sigmoidoscopy or total colonoscopy. Most programs continue sending invitations to screening up to the age of 70-75 years. For breast cancer, most programs in the EU invite women starting at the age of 50 years, and not before the age of 40 years, and from then on every 2 years until the age of 70-75 years. For cervical cancer, if cytology (Pap) testing is used for screening, most programs in the EU invite women starting at the age of 25-30 years and from then on every 3 or 5 years. If human papillomavirus testing is used for screening, most women are invited starting at the age of 35 years (usually not before age 30 years) and from then on every 5 years or more. Irrespective of the test used, women continue participating in screening until the age of 60 or 65 years, and continue beyond this age unless the most recent test results are normal.

The objective of this study was to study predictors of patients’ participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Men and women, aged 55–64 years, were randomized to the following: (i) biennial fecal occult blood test (FOBT) delivered by mail (n=2,266); (ii) FOBT delivered by a general practitioner (GP)/screening facility (n=5,893); (iii) “once-only” sigmoidoscopy (FS) (n=3,650); (iv) FS followed by FOBT for screenees with negative FS (n=10,867); and (v) patient's choice between FS and FOBT (n=3,579). A stratified (by screening arm) random sample of attenders and nonattenders was contacted by trained interviewers 4 months after the initial invitation. Subjects giving their consent were administered a questionnaire (available online) investigating perceptions of individual CRC risk, attitudes toward prevention, adoption of health protective behaviors, and reasons for attendance/nonattendance. Adjusted prevalence odds ratios (ORs) were computed by multivariable logistic regression. The response rate was 71.9% (701 of 975) among nonattenders and 88.9% (773 of 870) among attenders. Adjusting for screening arm, center, gender, age, and education, participation was significantly higher among people who consulted their GP before undergoing screening (OR: 4.24; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.11–5.78), who mentioned one first-degree relative with CRC (OR: 3.62; 95% CI: 2.02–6.49), who reported regular physical activity (OR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.33–2.55), and who read the mailed information (letter only: OR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.23–2.78; letter+leaflet: OR: 3.18; 95% CI: 2.12–4.76). People who considered screening to be ineffective (OR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.08–0.19), those who considered it to be effective but reported even moderate levels of anxiety (OR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.23–0.45), and those who mentioned previous knowledge of CRC screening tests were less likely to accept the invitation (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.34–0.70). Adoption of health protective behaviors is associated with a higher attendance rate, whereas anxiety represents a strong barrier, even among people who deemed screening to be effective. Increasing the proportion of people who consult their GP when making a decision regarding screening might enhance participation.