Title: Evaluation of the “Burgenland PREvention trial of colorectal cancer Disease with
ImmunologiCal Testing” (B-PREDICT) - a population-based colorectal cancer screening
program
Version: 4 Date: 13 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for providing clarifications and for changing the report to address reviewers’
comments
I have however some remaining concerns.
Introduction
The European guidelines for quality assurance of CRC screening published by IARC in 2010
and the recently updated EU council recommendations on cancer screening are recommending
FIT at 2-year interval.
You should justify the rationale for the different choice in Austria
Results
I would suggest improving the descriptive analysis of the results
The opp-col and the B-predict results are both referring to the activity in Burgenland. Correct?
If so, it should be stated more explicitly
B-predict
1) It would be useful to have the proportion of people participating at least once (already
indicated) the average number of tests performed by the participants over the entire period
(mentioned in the responses)
2) The number (and %) of subjects with at least one positive test result over the time interval of
the study and the number (and %) of those with a positive FT who performed a colonoscopy
Opp-col
1) The 10045 people having a TC in the Opp-col program were all Burgenland residents?
2) Do you know whether some people undergoing regular FIT in the B-predict program had also
colonoscopy (without having a positive FIT results)?
3) How should the data be interpreted? 10045 people out of the 79809 (2003) to 98810 (2014)
inhabitants aged 50 to 75 had at least a colonoscopy and this number should be added to the
number of those performing FIT in the B-predict program in the same age range (how-many?)?
This latter information is relevant as tis opportunistic screening coverage might have contributed
to the incidence decline
The comparison of the colonoscopy results should refer to the same age range and it should
possibly be presented stratified by sex, given the different target age range of the two groups
(opportunistic TCs and FIT+ TCs). Also, TCs among people aged 40 to 49 are offered within a
surveillance protocol, as indicated by the authors in their response to reviewers, they should not
be included in the comparison. Figures 1 and 2 are already presenting results by age, sex and
program, but they are including surveillance TCs in the younger age groups and are considering
together all cases aged 70 and older, while FIT programs targets people up to age 80 and the TC
program up to age 75. I think a table might be more informative in this case
Discussion
Line 325-26 In Italy screening starts at age 50 and it was never offered at younger ages.
Opportunistic activity in particular in the younger age groups is minimal.
Title: Evaluation of the “Burgenland PREvention trial of colorectal cancer Disease with
ImmunologiCal Testing” (B-PREDICT) - a population-based colorectal cancer screening
program
Version: 4 Date: 13 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for providing clarifications and for changing the report to address reviewers’
comments
I have however some remaining concerns.
Introduction
The European guidelines for quality assurance of CRC screening published by IARC in 2010
and the recently updated EU council recommendations on cancer screening are recommending
FIT at 2-year interval.
You should justify the rationale for the different choice in Austria
Results
I would suggest improving the descriptive analysis of the results
The opp-col and the B-predict results are both referring to the activity in Burgenland. Correct?
If so, it should be stated more explicitly
B-predict
1) It would be useful to have the proportion of people participating at least once (already
indicated) the average number of tests performed by the participants over the entire period
(mentioned in the responses)
2) The number (and %) of subjects with at least one positive test result over the time interval of
the study and the number (and %) of those with a positive FT who performed a colonoscopy
Opp-col
1) The 10045 people having a TC in the Opp-col program were all Burgenland residents?
2) Do you know whether some people undergoing regular FIT in the B-predict program had also
colonoscopy (without having a positive FIT results)?
3) How should the data be interpreted? 10045 people out of the 79809 (2003) to 98810 (2014)
inhabitants aged 50 to 75 had at least a colonoscopy and this number should be added to the
number of those performing FIT in the B-predict program in the same age range (how-many?)?
This latter information is relevant as tis opportunistic screening coverage might have contributed
to the incidence decline
The comparison of the colonoscopy results should refer to the same age range and it should
possibly be presented stratified by sex, given the different target age range of the two groups
(opportunistic TCs and FIT+ TCs). Also, TCs among people aged 40 to 49 are offered within a
surveillance protocol, as indicated by the authors in their response to reviewers, they should not
be included in the comparison. Figures 1 and 2 are already presenting results by age, sex and
program, but they are including surveillance TCs in the younger age groups and are considering
together all cases aged 70 and older, while FIT programs targets people up to age 80 and the TC
program up to age 75. I think a table might be more informative in this case
Discussion
Line 325-26 In Italy screening starts at age 50 and it was never offered at younger ages.
Opportunistic activity in particular in the younger age groups is minimal.
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: 4 Date: 13 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for providing clarifications and for changing the report to address reviewers’
comments
I have however some remaining concerns.
Introduction
The European guidelines for quality assurance of CRC screening published by IARC in 2010
and the recently updated EU council recommendations on cancer screening are recommending
FIT at 2-year interval.
You should justify the rationale for the different choice in Austria
Results
I would suggest improving the descriptive analysis of the results
The opp-col and the B-predict results are both referring to the activity in Burgenland. Correct?
If so, it should be stated more explicitly
B-predict
1) It would be useful to have the proportion of people participating at least once (already
indicated) the average number of tests performed by the participants over the entire period
(mentioned in the responses)
2) The number (and %) of subjects with at least one positive test result over the time interval of
the study and the number (and %) of those with a positive FT who performed a colonoscopy
Opp-col
1) The 10045 people having a TC in the Opp-col program were all Burgenland residents?
2) Do you know whether some people undergoing regular FIT in the B-predict program had also
colonoscopy (without having a positive FIT results)?
3) How should the data be interpreted? 10045 people out of the 79809 (2003) to 98810 (2014)
inhabitants aged 50 to 75 had at least a colonoscopy and this number should be added to the
number of those performing FIT in the B-predict program in the same age range (how-many?)?
This latter information is relevant as tis opportunistic screening coverage might have contributed
to the incidence decline
The comparison of the colonoscopy results should refer to the same age range and it should
possibly be presented stratified by sex, given the different target age range of the two groups
(opportunistic TCs and FIT+ TCs). Also, TCs among people aged 40 to 49 are offered within a
surveillance protocol, as indicated by the authors in their response to reviewers, they should not
be included in the comparison. Figures 1 and 2 are already presenting results by age, sex and
program, but they are including surveillance TCs in the younger age groups and are considering
together all cases aged 70 and older, while FIT programs targets people up to age 80 and the TC
program up to age 75. I think a table might be more informative in this case
Discussion
Line 325-26 In Italy screening starts at age 50 and it was never offered at younger ages.
Opportunistic activity in particular in the younger age groups is minimal.
assistant