José Cruzado

Bio: José Cruzado is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Colonoscopy & Colorectal cancer. The author has an hindex of 7, co-authored 7 publications receiving 804 citations.

Colonoscopy versus Fecal Immunochemical Testing in Colorectal-Cancer Screening

Abstract: The rate of participation was higher in the FIT group than in the colonoscopy group (34.2% vs. 24.6%, P<0.001). Colorectal cancer was found in 30 subjects (0.1%) in the colonoscopy group and 33 subjects (0.1%) in the FIT group (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 1.64; P = 0.99). Advanced adenomas were detected in 514 subjects (1.9%) in the colonoscopy group and 231 subjects (0.9%) in the FIT group (odds ratio, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.97 to 2.69; P<0.001), and nonadvanced adenomas were detected in 1109 subjects (4.2%) in the colonoscopy group and 119 subjects (0.4%) in the FIT group (odds ratio, 9.80; 95% CI, 8.10 to 11.85; P<0.001). Conclusions Subjects in the FIT group were more likely to participate in screening than were those in the colonoscopy group. On the baseline screening examination, the numbers of subjects in whom colorectal cancer was detected were similar in the two study groups, but more adenomas were identified in the colonoscopy group. (Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00906997.)

Participation and detection rates by age and sex for colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal cancer screening

Abstract: To compare two strategies for colorectal cancer screening: one-time colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) (and colonoscopy for positive) every 2 years, in order to determine which strategy provides the highest participation and detection rates in groups of sex and age. This analysis was performed with data from the first screening round within the COLONPREV study, a population-based, multicenter, nationwide trial carried out in Spain. Several logistic regression models were applied to identify the influence of the screening test on participation rates and detection of proximal and distal neoplasms, as well to identify the influence of age and sex: women aged 50–59 years, women aged 60–69 years, men aged 50–59 years, and men aged 60–69 years. Participation was higher in women than in men, especially among women aged 50–59 years (25.91 % for colonoscopy and 35.81 % for FIT). Crossover from colonoscopy to FIT was higher among women than men, especially among those aged 60–69 years (30.37 %). In general, detection of any neoplasm and advanced adenoma was higher with colonoscopy than with FIT, but no significant differences were found between the two strategies for colorectal cancer detection. Detection of advanced adenoma in both arms was lower in women [specifically in women aged 50–59 years (OR 0.31; 95 % CI 0.25–0.38) than in men aged 60–69 years]. Women aged 50–59 years in the colonoscopy arm had a higher probability of detection of advanced adenoma (OR 4.49; 95 % CI 3.18–6.35), as well as of detection of neoplasms in proximal and distal locations (proximal OR 19.34; 95 % CI 12.07–31.00; distal OR 11.04; 95 % CI 8.13–15.01) than women of the same age in the FIT arm. These differences were also observed in the remaining groups but to a lesser extent. Women were more likely to participate in a FIT-based strategy, especially those aged 50–59 years. The likelihood of detection of any neoplasm was higher in the colonoscopy arm for all the population groups studied, especially in women aged 50–59 years. Distinct population groups should be informed of the benefits of each screening strategy so that they may take informed decisions.

Risk of Advanced Proximal Neoplasms According to Distal Colorectal Findings: Comparison of Sigmoidoscopy-Based Strategies

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Screening for colorectal cancer with sigmoidoscopy benefits from the fact that distal findings predict the risk of advanced proximal neoplasms (APNs). This study was aimed at comparing the existing strategies of postsigmoidoscopy referral to colonoscopy in terms of accuracy and resources needed. METHODS: Asymptomatic individuals aged 50-69 years were eligible for a randomized controlled trial designed to compare colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test. Sigmoidoscopy yield was estimated from results obtained in the colonoscopy arm according to three sets of criteria of colonoscopy referral (from those proposed in the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy, Screening for COlon REctum [SCORE], and Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention [NORCCAP] trials). Advanced neoplasm detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, and number of individuals needed to refer for colonoscopy to detect one APN were calculated. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify distal findings associated with APN. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: APN was found in 255 of 5059 (5.0%) individuals. Fulfillment of UK (6.2%), SCORE (12.0%), and NORCCAP (17.9%) criteria varied statistically significantly (P < .001). The NORCCAP strategy obtained the highest sensitivity for APN detection (36.9%), and the UK approach reached the highest specificity (94.6%). The number of individuals needed to refer for colonoscopy to detect one APN was 6 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4 to 7), 8 (95% CI = 6 to 9), and 10 (95% CI = 8 to 12) when the UK, SCORE, and NORCCAP criteria were used, respectively. The logistic regression analysis identified distal adenoma ≥10 mm (odds ratio = 3.77; 95% CI = 2.52 to 5.65) as the strongest independent predictor of APN. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas the NORCCAP criteria achieved the highest sensitivity for APN detection, the UK recommendations benefited from the lowest number of individuals needed to refer for colonoscopy.

The European commission

Abstract: 2 1 The innovative transport systems and the CityMobil project 10 1.1 The research questions 10 2 The state of art in the field of automatic transport systems 12 2.1 Case studies and demand studies for innovative transport systems 12 3 The design and implementation of surveys 14 3.1 Definition of experimental design 14 3.2 Questionnaire design and delivery 16 3.3 First analyses on the collected sample 18 4 Calibration of Logit Multionomial demand models 21 4.1 Methodology 21 4.2 Calibration of the “full” model. 22 4.3 Calibration of the “final” model 24 4.4 The demand analysis through the final Multinomial Logit model 25 5 The analysis of interaction between the demand and socioeconomic attributes 31 5.1 Methodology 31 5.2 Application of Mixed Logit models to the demand 31 5.3 Analysis of the interactions between demand and socioeconomic attributes through Mixed Logit models 32 5.4 Mixed Logit model and interaction between age and the demand for the CTS 38 5.5 Demand analysis with Mixed Logit model 39 6 Final analyses and conclusions 45 6.1 Comparison between the results of the analyses 45 6.2 Conclusions 48 6.3 Answers to the research questions and future developments 52

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Abstract: Importance Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. In 2016, an estimated 134 000 persons will be diagnosed with the disease, and about 49 000 will die from it. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among adults aged 65 to 74 years; the median age at death from colorectal cancer is 73 years. Objective To update the 2008 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for colorectal cancer. Evidence Review The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of screening with colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test, the fecal immunochemical test, the multitargeted stool DNA test, and the methylated SEPT9 DNA test in reducing the incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer or all-cause mortality; the harms of these screening tests; and the test performance characteristics of these tests for detecting adenomatous polyps, advanced adenomas based on size, or both, as well as colorectal cancer. The USPSTF also commissioned a comparative modeling study to provide information on optimal starting and stopping ages and screening intervals across the different available screening methods. Findings The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk, asymptomatic adults aged 50 to 75 years is of substantial net benefit. Multiple screening strategies are available to choose from, with different levels of evidence to support their effectiveness, as well as unique advantages and limitations, although there are no empirical data to demonstrate that any of the reviewed strategies provide a greater net benefit. Screening for colorectal cancer is a substantially underused preventive health strategy in the United States. Conclusions and Recommendations The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer starting at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years (A recommendation). The decision to screen for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years should be an individual one, taking into account the patient’s overall health and prior screening history (C recommendation).

Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal-Cancer Screening

Abstract: Background An accurate, noninvasive test could improve the effectiveness of colorectal-cancer screening. Methods We compared a noninvasive, multitarget stool DNA test with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in persons at average risk for colorectal cancer. The DNA test includes quantitative molecular assays for KRAS mutations, aberrant NDRG4 and BMP3 methylation, and β-actin, plus a hemoglobin immunoassay. Results were generated with the use of a logistic-regression algorithm, with values of 183 or more considered to be positive. FIT values of more than 100 ng of hemoglobin per milliliter of buffer were considered to be positive. Tests were processed independently of colonoscopic findings. Results Of the 9989 participants who could be evaluated, 65 (0.7%) had colorectal cancer and 757 (7.6%) had advanced precancerous lesions (advanced adenomas or sessile serrated polyps measuring ≥1 cm in the greatest dimension) on colonoscopy. The sensitivity for detecting colorectal cancer was 92.3% with DNA testing and 73.8% with FIT (P = 0.002). The sensitivity for detecting advanced precancerous lesions was 42.4% with DNA testing and 23.8% with FIT (P<0.001). The rate of detection of polyps with high-grade dysplasia was 69.2% with DNA testing and 46.2% with FIT (P = 0.004); the rates of detection of serrated sessile polyps measuring 1 cm or more were 42.4% and 5.1%, respectively (P<0.001). Specificities with DNA testing and FIT were 86.6% and 94.9%, respectively, among participants with nonadvanced or negative findings (P<0.001) and 89.8% and 96.4%, respectively, among those with negative results on colonoscopy (P<0.001). The numbers of persons who would need to be screened to detect one cancer were 154 with colonoscopy, 166 with DNA testing, and 208 with FIT. Conclusions In asymptomatic persons at average risk for colorectal cancer, multitarget stool DNA testing detected significantly more cancers than did FIT but had more false positive results. (Funded by Exact Sciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01397747.)

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

Abstract: In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes

Abstract: Colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks third among the most commonly diagnosed cancers worldwide, with wide geographical variation in incidence and mortality across the world. Despite proof that screening can decrease CRC incidence and mortality, CRC screening is only offered to a small proportion of the target population worldwide. Throughout the world there are widespread differences in CRC screening implementation status and strategy. Differences can be attributed to geographical variation in CRC incidence, economic resources, healthcare structure and infrastructure to support screening such as the ability to identify the target population at risk and cancer registry availability. This review highlights issues to consider when implementing a CRC screening programme and gives a worldwide overview of CRC burden and the current status of screening programmes, with focus on international differences.