To the Editor: The recent withdrawal of faulty faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) kits by the government highlights the flaws in the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP), with 475 000 kits needing to be replaced. In their recent editorial,1 Ee and Olynyk attempted to persuade us that the NBCSP, which has now temporarily suspended the issuing of new invitations to participate, is both rational and appropriate for an affluent country such as Australia.

The facts about bowel cancer mortality are not disputed — it is second only to lung cancer, equating to about 12 Australian deaths per day from a potentially preventable cancer. There are only two serious contenders for bowel cancer screening: FOBT and colonoscopy. Annual FOBT has the potential to reduce mortality by 15% (realistic) to 33% (optimistic).2 Colonoscopy is both diagnostic and preventive, with a predicted reduction in mortality of 76% (realistic) to 90% (optimistic).3 Recent United States guidelines advocate colonoscopy at 10-yearly intervals as the test of choice.3

Cost and potential mortality are two major issues raised by proponents of FOBT versus colonoscopy. However, Australian data using all costs, including infrastructure, colonoscopy, surgery, pathology, anaesthesia, chemotherapy and disinfection, have shown that 10-yearly colonoscopy is of equal cost–benefit to annual FOBT.4

A recent publication from Germany highlights some important facts.5 In a study of 269 144 colonoscopies, the completion rate (ie, reaching the caecum) was high, at 97.3%. The perforation rate was low (0.02%), as was the incidence of bleeding (0.16%), though this was predictably greater in those requiring polypectomy (0.8%). There were no deaths attributable to perforation or bleeding. Colonoscopy is therefore a rational option for screening, with the potential for prevention — a feature not shared by FOBT.

The NBCSP’s letter of invitation and FOBT kit are sent only to individuals aged 50, 55 and 65 years. It ignores other age groups and gives no educational advice about alternative strategies such as colonoscopy. Ee and Olynyk1 clearly believe that centrally organised government screening programs are to be preferred, and they disapprove of colonoscopy screening “driven by patients”.

Recent case series show colonoscopy to be safe and to have a higher completion rate than older series.5 Current initiatives in Australian colonoscopy training programs should improve safety and completion rates further.

For those with no active interest in their health, centralised, directive programs are likely to be the most effective. For the informed, however, discussion about lifestyle changes, screening programs and healthy dietary alternatives should be their right.