Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Trial Review
The ANZCTR website will be unavailable from 1pm until 3pm (AEDT) on Wednesday the 30th of October for website maintenance. Please be sure to log out of the system in order to avoid any loss of data.
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Download to PDF
Trial registered on ANZCTR
Registration number
ACTRN12606000227594
Ethics application status
Approved
Date submitted
1/06/2006
Date registered
5/06/2006
Date last updated
5/06/2006
Type of registration
Prospectively registered
Titles & IDs
Public title
The effect of simplified stool sampling on participation in colon cancer screening
Query!
Scientific title
Rate of participation in faecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening: The impact of one-stool versus two-stool sampling
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
264
0
Bowel Health Service, Repatriation General Hospital (RGH): 2006-902
Query!
Secondary ID [2]
265
0
Repatriation General Hospital (RGH) Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC): 08/06
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Query!
Trial acronym
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Colorectal cancer
1205
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Cancer
1290
1290
0
0
Query!
Bowel - Back passage (rectum) or large bowel (colon)
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
Participation at 12 weeks from offer of screening for colorectal cancer in the intervention group using a screening test requiring only a single stool sample to be collected for testing for occult blood.
Query!
Intervention code [1]
1084
0
Early detection / Screening
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
Participation at 12 weeks from offer in a control group using the same test in standard mode where two stool samples are collected from consecutive bowel motions.
Query!
Control group
Active
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
1756
0
Participation (yes or no)
Query!
Assessment method [1]
1756
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
1756
0
At 12 weeks from postal offer of colorectal cancer screening
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
3105
0
Population participation
Query!
Assessment method [1]
3105
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
3105
0
At 2 weeks from offer
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
3106
0
Population participation
Query!
Assessment method [2]
3106
0
Query!
Timepoint [2]
3106
0
At 6 weeks
Query!
Secondary outcome [3]
3107
0
Test positivity rates
Query!
Assessment method [3]
3107
0
Query!
Timepoint [3]
3107
0
At 12 weeks from offer,
Query!
Secondary outcome [4]
3108
0
Yield of neoplasia
Query!
Assessment method [4]
3108
0
Query!
Timepoint [4]
3108
0
From all tests positive 12 weeks from offer of screening.
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
Residing in specific postcodes in southern Adelaide.
Query!
Minimum age
50
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
74
Years
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
No
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
Specified pre-existing clinical conditions that makes FOBT-screening uninformative or that preclude follow-up colonoscopy, people already participating in other Bowel Health Service research studies.
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Diagnosis
Query!
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
Query!
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Subjects obtained fron Australian electoral roll, allocated to group by central adminisration
Query!
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Simple randomisation by computer software
Query!
Masking / blinding
Open (masking not used)
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Parallel
Query!
Other design features
Query!
Phase
Phase 3
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Efficacy
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Not yet recruiting
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
8/06/2006
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Sample size
Target
1200
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Funding source category [1]
1416
0
Commercial sector/Industry
Query!
Name [1]
1416
0
Enterix Inc
Query!
Address [1]
1416
0
Query!
Country [1]
1416
0
United States of America
Query!
Primary sponsor type
Individual
Query!
Name
Prof Graeme Young, Dept of Medicine, Flinders University of South Australia
Query!
Address
Query!
Country
Australia
Query!
Secondary sponsor category [1]
1242
0
Individual
Query!
Name [1]
1242
0
Mr Stephen Cole, Bowel Health Service, Repartiation General Hospital Daw Park
Query!
Address [1]
1242
0
Query!
Country [1]
1242
0
Australia
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Approved
Query!
Ethics committee name [1]
2772
0
Repatriation General Hospital Daw Park
Query!
Ethics committee address [1]
2772
0
Daws Road Daw Park SA 5041
Query!
Ethics committee country [1]
2772
0
Australia
Query!
Date submitted for ethics approval [1]
2772
0
Query!
Approval date [1]
2772
0
Query!
Ethics approval number [1]
2772
0
08/06
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
There has been limited uptake of population screening for colorectal cancer in Australia and other western countries, using faecal occult blood testing. We have previously determined that the InSure faecal immunochemical test (FIT) used in single sample format has similar sensitivity for significant colorectal neoplasia (cancer and significant adenomas) relative to the standard two stool sample test. Our hypothesis is that single stool sampling will result in improved population participation in screening compared to the standard InSure test. This study will compare population participation in screening in two groups, one offered the screening test in single stool sample format, compared to the control (standard InSure test, 2 stool sample format).
Query!
Trial website
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
35997
0
Query!
Address
35997
0
Query!
Country
35997
0
Query!
Phone
35997
0
Query!
Fax
35997
0
Query!
Email
35997
0
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
10273
0
Mr Stephen Cole
Query!
Address
10273
0
Bowel Health Service
Repatriation General Hospital Daw Park
Daws Road
Daw Park SA 5041
Query!
Country
10273
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
10273
0
+61 8 82751838
Query!
Fax
10273
0
+61 8 82751083
Query!
Email
10273
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
Name
1201
0
Mr Stephen Cole
Query!
Address
1201
0
Repatriation General Hospital Daw Park
Daws Road
Daw Park SA 5041
Query!
Country
1201
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
1201
0
+61 8 82751838
Query!
Fax
1201
0
+61 8 82751083
Query!
Email
1201
0
[email protected]
Query!
No information has been provided regarding IPD availability
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Results publications and other study-related documents
Documents added manually
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.
Documents added automatically
No additional documents have been identified.
Download to PDF