Title: Evaluation of the “Burgenland PREvention trial of colorectal cancer Disease with
ImmunologiCal Testing” (B-PREDICT) - a population-based colorectal cancer screening
program
Version: 2 Date: 25 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors conducted an analysis to compare the efficacy of a population based FIT
based screening using annual FIT, using a low positivity cut-off level, with the nationwide
opportunistic colonoscopy program.
Available comparative evidence of FIT and colonoscopy based programs is limited to a single
round. The comparative analysis of a the neoplasia yield of single colonoscopy screening with
the yield of a FIT triggered colonoscopy does not provide novel results. The long-term analysis
of incidence trends in the organized and opportunistic setting could instead provide additional
relevant information.
However, a more careful and detailed description of the methods would be needed to interpret
the reported results.
Was FIT the only screening test offered in Burgenland over the study period, or was a parallel
opportunistic offer of colonoscopy screening was maintained?
How many screening rounds were performed during the period considered in the study? The
authors report the proportion of subjects performing at least one test, but it would be useful, for
example, to report also the average number of FIT tests performed by each subject as well as
the participation rate in the different rounds
Which was the compliance with TC referral among subjects with positive FIT test?
Study population: after having defined whether the stud includes opportunistic screening
Burgerland or in the rest of Austria only, it should be useful to present a table with actual figures
about the size and characteristics of the two populations compared, including baseline CRC
incidence rates.
Which is the method adopted to assess the annual percent changes in CRC incidence?
Could the authors provide comparative estimates by different age ranges, including the age range
recommended by the EU council recommendations (i.e. 50 to 74)?
Title: Evaluation of the “Burgenland PREvention trial of colorectal cancer Disease with
ImmunologiCal Testing” (B-PREDICT) - a population-based colorectal cancer screening
program
Version: 2 Date: 25 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors conducted an analysis to compare the efficacy of a population based FIT
based screening using annual FIT, using a low positivity cut-off level, with the nationwide
opportunistic colonoscopy program.
Available comparative evidence of FIT and colonoscopy based programs is limited to a single
round. The comparative analysis of a the neoplasia yield of single colonoscopy screening with
the yield of a FIT triggered colonoscopy does not provide novel results. The long-term analysis
of incidence trends in the organized and opportunistic setting could instead provide additional
relevant information.
However, a more careful and detailed description of the methods would be needed to interpret
the reported results.
Was FIT the only screening test offered in Burgenland over the study period, or was a parallel
opportunistic offer of colonoscopy screening was maintained?
How many screening rounds were performed during the period considered in the study? The
authors report the proportion of subjects performing at least one test, but it would be useful, for
example, to report also the average number of FIT tests performed by each subject as well as
the participation rate in the different rounds
Which was the compliance with TC referral among subjects with positive FIT test?
Study population: after having defined whether the stud includes opportunistic screening
Burgerland or in the rest of Austria only, it should be useful to present a table with actual figures
about the size and characteristics of the two populations compared, including baseline CRC
incidence rates.
Which is the method adopted to assess the annual percent changes in CRC incidence?
Could the authors provide comparative estimates by different age ranges, including the age range
recommended by the EU council recommendations (i.e. 50 to 74)?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Evaluation of the “Burgenland PREvention trial of colorectal cancer Disease with
ImmunologiCal Testing” (B-PREDICT) - a population-based colorectal cancer screening
program
Version: 2 Date: 25 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors conducted an analysis to compare the efficacy of a population based FIT
based screening using annual FIT, using a low positivity cut-off level, with the nationwide
opportunistic colonoscopy program.
Available comparative evidence of FIT and colonoscopy based programs is limited to a single
round. The comparative analysis of a the neoplasia yield of single colonoscopy screening with
the yield of a FIT triggered colonoscopy does not provide novel results. The long-term analysis
of incidence trends in the organized and opportunistic setting could instead provide additional
relevant information.
However, a more careful and detailed description of the methods would be needed to interpret
the reported results.
Was FIT the only screening test offered in Burgenland over the study period, or was a parallel
opportunistic offer of colonoscopy screening was maintained?
How many screening rounds were performed during the period considered in the study? The
authors report the proportion of subjects performing at least one test, but it would be useful, for
example, to report also the average number of FIT tests performed by each subject as well as
the participation rate in the different rounds
Which was the compliance with TC referral among subjects with positive FIT test?
Study population: after having defined whether the stud includes opportunistic screening
Burgerland or in the rest of Austria only, it should be useful to present a table with actual figures
about the size and characteristics of the two populations compared, including baseline CRC
incidence rates.
Which is the method adopted to assess the annual percent changes in CRC incidence?
Could the authors provide comparative estimates by different age ranges, including the age range
recommended by the EU council recommendations (i.e. 50 to 74)?
assistant