Low adherence to colonoscopy in the screening of first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer

Increased risk of advanced neoplasms among asymptomatic siblings of patients with colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-most common cancer in Hong Kong. Relatives of patients with CRC have an increased risk of colorectal neoplasm. We assessed the prevalence of advanced neoplasms among asymptomatic siblings of patients with CRC.

METHODS

Patients with CRC were identified from the Prince of Wales Hospital CRC Surgery Registry from 2001 to 2011. Colonoscopies were performed for 374 siblings of patients (age, 52.6 ± 7.4 y) and 374 age- and sex-matched siblings of healthy subjects who had normal colonoscopies and did not have a family history of CRC (controls, 52.7 ± 7.4 y). We identified individuals with advanced neoplasms (defined as cancers or adenomas of at least 10 mm in diameter, high-grade dysplasia, with villous or tubulovillous characteristics).

RESULTS

The prevalence of advanced neoplasms was 7.5% among siblings of patients and 2.9% among controls (matched odds ratio [mOR], 3.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-6.3; P = .002). The prevalence of adenomas larger than 10 mm was higher among siblings of patients than in controls (5.9% vs 2.1%; mOR, 3.34; 95% CI, 1.45-7.66; P = .004), as was the presence of colorectal adenomas (31.0% vs 18.2%; mOR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.52-3.17; P < .001). Six cancers were detected among siblings of patients; no cancers were detected in controls. The prevalence of advanced neoplasms among siblings of patients was higher when their index case was female (mOR, 4.95; 95% CI, 1.81-13.55) and had distally located CRC (mOR, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.34-7.14).

CONCLUSIONS

In Hong Kong, siblings of patients with CRC have a higher prevalence of advanced neoplasms, including CRC, than siblings of healthy individuals. Screening is indicated in this high-risk population. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00164944.

Advanced endoscopic technologies for colorectal cancer screening

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in men and the second most common cancer in women worldwide. Diagnosing colorectal has been increasingly successful due to advances in technology. Flexible endoscopy is considered to be an effective method for early diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal cancer, making it a popular choice for screening programs. However, millions of people who may benefit from endoscopic colorectal cancer screening fail to have the procedure performed. Main reasons include psychological barriers due to the indignity of the procedure, fear of procedure related pain, bowel preparation discomfort, and potential need for sedation. Therefore, an urgent need for new technologies addressing these issues clearly exists. In this review, we discuss a set of advanced endoscopic technologies for colorectal cancer screening that are either already available or close to clinical trial. In particular, we focus on visual-inspection-only advanced flexible colonoscopes, interventional colonoscopes with alternative propulsion mechanisms, wireless capsule colonoscopy, and technologies for intraprocedural bowel cleansing. Many of these devices have the potential to reduce exam related patient discomfort, obviate the need for sedation, increase diagnostic yield, reduce learning curves, improve access to screening, and possibly avert the need for a bowel preparation.

A population-based cross-sectional study of colorectal cancer screening practices of first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients

Background

The aim of this study was to determine the proportions and predictors of first-degree relatives (FDRs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients (i) ever receiving any CRC testing and (ii) receiving CRC screening in accordance with CRC screening guidelines.

Methods

Colorectal cancer patients and their FDRs were recruited through the population-based Victorian Cancer Registry, Victoria, Australia. Seven hundred and seven FDRs completed telephone interviews. Of these, 405 FDRs were deemed asymptomatic and eligible for analysis.

Results

Sixty-nine percent of FDRs had ever received any CRC testing. First-degree relatives of older age, those with private health insurance, siblings and FDRs who had ever been asked about family history of CRC by a doctor were significantly more likely than their counterparts to have ever received CRC testing. Twenty-five percent of FDRs “at or slightly above average risk” were adherent to CRC screening guidelines. For this group, adherence to guideline-recommended screening was significantly more likely to occur for male FDRs and those with a higher level of education. For persons at “moderately increased risk” and “potentially high risk”, 47% and 49% respectively adhered to CRC screening guidelines. For this group, guideline-recommended screening was significantly more likely to occur for FDRs who were living in metropolitan areas, siblings, those married or partnered and those ever asked about family history of CRC.

Conclusions

A significant level of non-compliance with screening guidelines was evident among FDRs. Improved CRC screening in accordance with guidelines and effective systematic interventions to increase screening rates among population groups experiencing inequality are needed.

Trial Registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12609000628246

Practice patterns for the management of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: a mixed methods analysis

PURPOSE

The optimal management of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRC-LM) has changed during the past two decades. However, clinical practice lags behind best evidence recommendations. We sought to characterize the gap between current practice and best evidence for the management of these patients and to identify barriers that hamper effective utilization of metastasectomy.

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach was used. A survey was mailed to all general surgeons (GS) and medical oncologists (MO) in Ontario, Canada. Domains examined included: physician/practice characteristics, indications for hepatectomy, use of multi-modality therapy and referral patterns. Physician focus groups were conducted that explored issues relating to access to care.

RESULTS

The survey was mailed to 942 physicians with a response rate of 68 % (n = 348; GS n = 295, 69 %; MO n = 53, 63 %). Current practice patterns demonstrated that 97 % of physicians refer patients with low tumor burden (e.g., solitary CRC-LM), but referral rates for hepatectomy decreased as the tumor burden increased. Physicians still consider extrahepatic disease as a strong contraindication to metastasectomy. Barriers to care included: economic, time, and resource constraints; lack of physician engagement, local medical expertise, and high-quality guidelines. Multidisciplinary cancer conferences were identified as an enabler of clinical care and a potential platform for the acquisition of new medical knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

Current management of CRC-LM does not reflect best evidence. Patients who may benefit from surgery are not being referred for metastasectomy. We have identified an evidence-practice gap at the level of physician, which should be targeted with novel quality improvement strategies.

[Development of indicators to evaluate colorectal cancer prevention programs in the high-risk population: the experience of a high-risk colorectal cancer clinic]

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

In 2006, the High-Risk Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Clinic was set up in Barcelona, a new healthcare model aimed at individuals and/or patients with an increased risk of developing CRC. The aim of this study was to develop a set of indicators to evaluate CRC prevention programs in the high-risk population and to implement them in the CRC to confirm their feasibility and validity in identifying areas for improvement.

METHODS

A literature search was performed and consensus techniques were applied with experts linked to the prevention programs in the distinct autonomous regions in Spain to propose a conceptual model for the evaluation and indicators. Users' opinions were introduced through focus groups for the proposed set of indicators. All experts participating in the consensus meetings and Delphi study evaluated the importance of each indicator (from 1 to 10) and their degree of agreement (agree strongly, agree with modifications, or eliminate this indicator). Expert consensus was considered to have been reached when 80% strongly agreed or agreed with the inclusion of the indicator. In the implementation phase, we included users (with advanced colorectal adenocarcinoma, polyposis syndrome, CRC or a familial history of CRC) attending the program. Information was obtained from computerized medical histories and clinical documentation. In addition, health professionals linked to the program were surveyed. To calculate each indicator, its formula was computed and the indicator was then compared with a standard previously agreed on by the experts in the first phase.

RESULTS

Expert consensus was reached in 30 indicators. In the implementation phase, 21 feasible indicators that showed the greatest simplicity and validity in identifying areas for improvement were calculated. Of these, two measured aspects related to accessibility, seven measured patient-centered care, five measured continuity of care, one measured patient safety and four evaluated clinical effectiveness. Overall, eight of the 17 indicators achieved the previously agreed standard of quality of care.

CONCLUSIONS

The robustness and importance of the proposed set of indicators is supported by the wide participation of experts from distinct specialties and the adequate agreement reached. The present study serves to identify areas for improvement in the program. Periodic measurement of these indicators will allow the changes produced in this program and their utility to be evaluated and will aid assessment of other CRC prevention programs in the high-risk population.

Colorectal cancer screening in patients at moderately increased risk due to family history

Patients with a positive family history have an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and, in many countries, more intensive screening regimens, sometimes involving the use of colonoscopy as opposed to sigmoidoscopy or fecal occult blood testing, are recommended. This review discusses current screening guidelines in the United States and other countries, data on the magnitude of CRC risk in the presence of a family history and the efficacy of recommended screening programs, as well as ancillary issues such as compliance, cost-effectiveness and accuracy of family history ascertainment. We focus on the relatively common “sporadic” family histories of CRC, which typically imparts a mild to moderate elevation in the risk for CRC development in the proband. Defined familial syndromes associated with extremely high risks of CRC, such as hereditary non-polyposis colorectal syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposis, require specialized management approaches and are beyond the scope of this article. We will also not discuss colonoscopic surveillance in patients with a personal history of adenomas or CRC.

Magnetic air capsule robotic system: proof of concept of a novel approach for painless colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Despite being considered the most effective method for colorectal cancer diagnosis, colonoscopy take-up as a mass-screening procedure is limited mainly due to invasiveness, patient discomfort, fear of pain, and the need for sedation. In an effort to mitigate some of the disadvantages associated with colonoscopy, this work provides a preliminary assessment of a novel endoscopic device consisting in a softly tethered capsule for painless colonoscopy under robotic magnetic steering.

METHODS

The proposed platform consists of the endoscopic device, a robotic unit, and a control box. In contrast to the traditional insertion method (i.e., pushing from behind), a "front-wheel" propulsion approach is proposed. A compliant tether connecting the device to an external box is used to provide insufflation, passing a flexible operative tool, enabling lens cleaning, and operating the vision module. To assess the diagnostic and treatment ability of the platform, 12 users were asked to find and remove artificially implanted beads as polyp surrogates in an ex vivo model. In vivo testing consisted of a qualitative study of the platform in pigs, focusing on active locomotion, diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities, safety, and usability.

RESULTS

The mean percentage of beads identified by each user during ex vivo trials was 85 ± 11%. All the identified beads were removed successfully using the polypectomy loop. The mean completion time for accomplishing the entire procedure was 678 ± 179 s. No immediate mucosal damage, acute complications such as perforation, or delayed adverse consequences were observed following application of the proposed method in vivo.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the proposed platform in ex vivo and preliminary animal studies indicates that it is safe and operates effectively in a manner similar to a standard colonoscope. These studies served to demonstrate the platform's added advantages of reduced size, front-wheel drive strategy, and robotic control over locomotion and orientation.

Colorectal cancer screening among primary care patients: does risk affect screening behavior?

Lifestyle factors including smoking, obesity, and diabetes can increase colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. Controversy exists regarding screening rates in individuals at increased CRC risk. To examine the effect of risk on CRC screening in primary care, cross-sectional data collected during January 2006-July 2007 from 720 participants in 24 New Jersey primary care practices were analyzed. Participants were stratified by risk: high (personal/family history of CRC, history of polyps, inflammatory bowel disease), increased (obesity, Type II diabetes, current/former smokers), and average. Outcomes were up-to-date with CRC screening, receiving a physician recommendation for screening, and recommendation adherence. Chi-square and generalized linear modeling were used to determine the effect of independent variables on risk group and risk group on outcomes. Thirty-seven percent of participants were high-risk, 46% increased-risk, and 17% average-risk. Age, race, insurance, education, and health status were related to risk. High-risk participants had increased odds of being up-to-date with screening (OR 3.14 95% CI 1.85-5.32) and adhering to physician recommendation (OR 7.18 95% CI 3.58-14.4) compared to average-risk. Increased-risk participants had 32% decreased odds of screening (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.42-1.08). Low screening rates among increased-risk individuals highlight the need for screening interventions targeting these patients.

Colorectal cancer screening in first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer: participation, knowledge, and barriers against screening

BACKGROUND

Family history is one of the most important risk factors for developing colorectal cancer (CRC), and medical organizations recommend CRC screening in this population. However, the use of CRC screening is still low in our country.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the use of CRC screening, knowledge about CRC and screening tests, and factors related to screening in a family-risk population.

METHODS

A total of 334 family-risk participants answered a questionnaire to assess the use of CRC screening tests, knowledge about CRC, risk perception, and barriers against screening.

RESULTS

In total, 22% of participants had undergone at least one of the recommended tests for CRC screening. Furthermore, indication for screening was found in only 8% of participants. Use of CRC screening tests was significantly lower than mammography for breast cancer detection in women (20 vs. 82%, P<0.001) and use of serum prostate-specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in men (27 vs. 46%, P<0.001). Most participants (59%) knew that being elderly was a risk factor and only about half (47%) had knowledge about any of the recommended examinations. Only in about half of the cases (47%) was subjective risk perception higher than in the general population. In the logistic regression analysis, having more than one affected relative (odds ratio= 2.63, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-6.68; P=0.03) and a high subjective perception of risk (odds ratio= 2.87, 95% confidence interval: 1.10-7.46; P=0.03) were independent predictors for CRC screening.

CONCLUSION

Less than 25% of the family-risk population has undergone a CRC screening test. Family history and subjective risk perception of CRC are the strongest predictors of CRC screening.

Effectiveness of a colonoscopic screening programme in first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer

AIM

The study aimed to assess the diagnostic yield of a colonoscopy screening programme in first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and to identify factors associated with advanced neoplasia.

METHOD

We conducted a cross-sectional study. Individual characteristics, family trees and colonoscopy findings of asymptomatic first-degree relatives of CRC patients were collected. The findings were classified into cancer (invasive carcinoma and/or non-invasive high-grade neoplasia), high-risk adenomas (≥ 10 mm and/or a villous component) and low-risk adenomas (tubular < 10 mm). The dependent variable was the presence of advanced neoplasia, defined as cancer and/or high-risk adenoma.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixty-three relatives (147 females), 50.0 ± 11.5 (range, 25-75) years of age, agreed to participate out of a total of 618 who were invited (acceptance rate 42.5%). Index cases were diagnosed at 63.8 ± 12.4 (range, 37-88) years of age. The closest familial relationship was parent/offspring in 168 (63.9%) participants and sibling in 95 (36.1%) participants; 14.8% had three or more relatives with CRC/cancer associated with Lynch syndrome, and two or more affected generations were identified in 24.0%. Advanced neoplasia was found in 56 (21.3%) participants. Of these, invasive cancer, non-invasive high-grade neoplasia and high-risk adenomas were detected in five (1.9%), six (2.3%) and 45 (17.1%) participants, respectively. Low-risk adenomas were detected in 20 (7.6%) participants. Male sex (odds ratio, 2.59; P = 0.003) and sibling relationship (odds ratio, 2.74; P = 0.001) were independently associated with advanced neoplasia.

CONCLUSION

We detected advanced neoplasia in a considerable number of participants. Our data support colonoscopy screening in first-degree relatives of patients with CRC at an earlier age than in the medium-risk population. Male sex and sibling relationship were predictors of advanced neoplasia.

Colonoscopic findings in first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer: a population-based screening program

BACKGROUND

A screening colonoscopy is recommended in first-degree relatives (FDRs) of colorectal cancer patients; few prospective, controlled studies have evaluated colorectal findings in a population-based screening program.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia (adenomas and adenocarcinomas) in this increased-risk population, to compare it with that of average-risk individuals, and to identify features that might allow risk stratification for neoplasia among FDRs.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Population-based screening program in Trentino, Italy.

PATIENTS

FDRs of colorectal cancer patients between 45 and 75 years of age with no history of hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes or inflammatory bowel disease.

CONTROLS

Average-risk individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy.

INTERVENTION

Screening colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Neoplasia was found in 33.4% of 1252 FDRs and in 30.3% of 765 controls; advanced neoplasia was found in 11.3% of FDRs and in 6.3% of controls. Odds ratios (ORs) from the multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, cecal intubation rates, and colon cleansing showed an increased risk of advanced neoplasia (OR 2.41; 95% CI, 1.69-3.43; P < .0001) in FDRs. Age older than 56 years (OR 1.83; 95% CI, 1.15-2.99; P = .013) and male sex (OR 2.17; 95% CI, 1.39-3.10; P < .001) are independent predictors of advanced neoplasia.

LIMITATIONS

Italian subjects living in the same geographic area; of 4301 FDRs, 2521 were excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased risk of advanced neoplasia supports the current recommendation for colonoscopic screening in this group; age and sex may assist in risk stratification of these individuals.

Long-term compliance with endoscopic surveillance for familial adenomatous polyposis

AIM

The study assessed compliance of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) with endoscopic surveillance.

METHOD

In this nationwide, cross-sectional study, individuals from FAP families registered with the Netherlands Foundation for the Detection of Hereditary Tumours were invited to complete a questionnaire on endoscopic screening experiences.

RESULTS

 A total of 328 individuals were eligible for the study of whom 85 were at risk for FAP, 108 had an intact rectum after a colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis (IRA), and 135 had had a pouch following a proctocolectomy with ileoanal anastomosis (IPAA). Based on medical record data, 20% of the at-risk group and 26% of the IRA-group were found to be undercompliant with surveillance advice which was associated significantly with perceived self-efficacy, use of sedatives during surveillance, pain after surveillance and low perceived benefits of surveillance (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

One in five individuals at risk for FAP and one in four with a retained rectum are undercompliant with screening advice. We recommend that sedatives should be patient-tailored for FAP individuals undergoing surveillance and that adequate pain medication be provided after endoscopy.

The intelligent, painless, "germ-free" colonoscopy: A Columbus' egg for increasing population adherence to colorectal cancer screening?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Although it is widely accepted that CRC screening in average risk populations lowers CRC incidence and mortality, a disappointedly low adherence rate to both faecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy-based screening programs has been observed in Italy and in other European countries. Main reasons for the low acceptance of colonoscopy-based CRC screening has been ascribed to lack of recommendations given by general practitioners, fear of discomfort or complications, embarrassment, and avoidance of unpleasant preparation. New advances in endoscopic technology such as colon capsule and robotic colonoscopy might represent the ideal tool for CRC screening since they reduce or eliminate procedure-related pain and discomfort. Moreover, no disinfection between procedures is required. Motion of the new probes along the gastrointestinal tract is achieved either in passive modality by utilizing the gut peristalsis (colon capsule) or in active "intelligent" modality by means of computer-assisted propulsion (robotic colonoscopy). In this review, the preliminary clinical results obtained with the new devices are summarized. It is expected that the new instruments will be soon available in clinical practice with the hope of increasing adherence to CRC screening programs.

Endotics system vs colonoscopy for the detection of polyps

AIM

To compare the endotics system (ES), a set of new medical equipment for diagnostic colonoscopy, with video-colonoscopy in the detection of polyps.

METHODS

Patients with clinical or familial risk of colonic polyps/carcinomas were eligible for this study. After a standard colonic cleaning, detection of polyps by the ES and by video-colonoscopy was performed in each patient on the same day. In each single patient, the assessment of the presence of polyps was performed by two independent endoscopists, who were randomly assigned to evaluate, in a blind fashion, the presence of polyps either by ES or by standard colonoscopy. The frequency of successful procedures (i.e. reaching to the cecum), the time for endoscopy, and the need for sedation were recorded. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the ES were also calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 71 patients (40 men, mean age 51.9 ± 12.0 years) were enrolled. The cecum was reached in 81.6% of ES examinations and in 94.3% of colonoscopies (P = 0.03). The average time of endoscopy was 45.1 ± 18.5 and 23.7 ± 7.2 min for the ES and traditional colonoscopy, respectively (P < 0.0001). No patient required sedation during ES examination, compared with 19.7% of patients undergoing colonoscopy (P < 0.0001). The sensitivity and specificity of ES for detecting polyps were 93.3% (95% CI: 68-98) and 100% (95% CI: 76.8-100), respectively. PPV was 100% (95% CI: 76.8-100) and NPV was 97.7% (95% CI: 88-99.9).

CONCLUSION

The ES allows the visualization of the entire colonic mucosa in most patients, with good sensitivity/specificity for the detection of lesions and without requiring sedation.

Knowledge about hereditary colorectal cancer among colorectal cancer survivors

AIM

Little is known about colorectal cancer (CRC) patients' knowledge regarding hereditary CRC (HCRC). The primary aim of this study was to evaluate CRC survivors' level of knowledge about HCRC and determine if this knowledge varies by demographic or clinical characteristics.

METHODS

Data were obtained using a cross-sectional survey of CRC patients at low, moderate, and high risk for HCRC seen at a comprehensive cancer center over a 5-year period (n = 93). Seven items (with potential responses of yes/no/don't know) assessed patients' knowledge. A t-test was conducted to compare composite knowledge among individuals at increased risk for CRC to those who were not at increased risk.

RESULTS

For all but one of seven questions, most individuals reported that they did not know the answer to the question. Knowledge among participants at increased risk for HCRC (mean = 2.46, standard deviation = 1.93) was greater than those who were not at increased risk (mean = 1.51, standard deviation = 1.84). There was a statistically significant difference in knowledge between the groups, t(90) = 2.40, p = 0.018.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest an overall deficit of knowledge among CRC patients. More efforts should focus on increasing knowledge about HCRC prevention among patients and family members. With a better understanding of knowledge gaps, researchers and health-care providers can reevaluate how to better inform CRC patients about HCRC risks.

Participation in colorectal cancer screening with FOBT and colonoscopy: an Italian, multicentre, randomized population study

BACKGROUND

Data on the adherence rate to screening colonoscopy (OC) in the average-risk general population are limited and variable. Aim of this study was to compare the uptake of OC screening with that of fecal occult blood (FOBT).

METHODS

A nationwide, population-based, multicentre, randomized trial comparing attendance to OC with that to FOBT was performed. Sixty-four general practitioners (GPs), overall including in their lists 9889 average-risk subjects aged 55-64 years, were randomized between OC and FOBT screening programs. Eligible subjects were mailed a personal invitation letter co-signed by their GP and the coordinator of the area-reference GI centre. Attendance rate and detection rate for advanced neoplasia (colorectal cancer, adenoma >10mm or with villous histology or high-grade dysplasia) for each arm of the study were assessed.

RESULTS

The overall attendance rate was 18.7% (1563/8378 eligible subjects). It was markedly lower in the OC than in the FOBT strategy (10% vs. 27.1%; OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.25-0.32; P<0.0001). In particular, participation in OC screening arm was extremely low in South Italy (2.8%), whilst it was higher in North-Central Italy (12.4%; P<0.0001). Compliance to colonoscopy in those with a positive FOBT was only 58%. Advanced neoplasia was detected in 28 (6.8%) patients in the OC arm and in 6 (18%) in those with a positive FOBT submitted to OC.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study underline the difficulties and barriers to implement a OC population screening in Italy, at least through primary care. Although attendance to FOBT was higher, it was disappointingly less than 30%. Significant actions to improve awareness amongst GPs and the population are a high priority.

Performance of CT colonography in clinical trials

The amount of data accumulated in trials of CT colonography (CTC) has greatly increased in the past decade. The information from these studies is shaping clinical practice and public health policy regarding screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). This article examines the performance of CTC in clinical trials for individuals at average risk and increased risk for CRC. It also addresses the efficacy of CTC after incomplete colonoscopy, when colon preparations are reduced or eliminated, and in academic versus nonacademic environments. The data suggest that CTC is effective especially for the detection of larger lesions and when more advanced imaging technology is used.

General practitioner and specialist views on colonoscopic screening of first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Barriers to targeted colonoscopic screening of first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients have been the subject of considerable literature, always as seen from the patient's viewpoint. In the specific context of screening individuals with a family history, physicians may also play a predominant role in motivating their colorectal cancer patients to pass on screening information to their relatives. The aim of this study was to examine the views of general practitioners and specialists regarding barriers and facilitators affecting participation of relatives in colonoscopic screening.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted to collect and analyse information from two focus groups of 4 general practitioners and 9 gastroenterologists respectively, and from semi-structured individual interviews with 10 general practitioners, 2 surgeons and 3 oncologists. An extended focus group of 36 gastroenterologists was organized to validate the results.

RESULTS

The main barriers to colonoscopic screening of FDRs were associated with lack of direct communication between physicians and FDRs. Physicians needed support in the task of informing index patients and persuading them to transfer information on screening to their FDRs. The general practitioners spoke of their expectations in terms of training in and motivation for promoting screening and the gastroenterologists expressed the wish for patient education material specific to colonoscopy and for systematic post-colonoscopy consultations to inform patients about their results, follow-up and screening their relatives.

CONCLUSION

The findings, notably the need for specific education materials and for training to improve the motivation of physicians, will help to develop effective interventions intended to increase participation in screening.

Capsule endoscopy versus colonoscopy for the detection of polyps and cancer

BACKGROUND

An ingestible capsule consisting of an endoscope equipped with a video camera at both ends was designed to explore the colon. This study compared capsule endoscopy with optical colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, multicenter study comparing capsule endoscopy with optical colonoscopy (the standard for comparison) in a cohort of patients with known or suspected colonic disease for the detection of colorectal polyps or cancer. Patients underwent an adapted colon preparation, and colon cleanliness was graded from poor to excellent. We computed the sensitivity and specificity of capsule endoscopy for polyps, advanced adenoma, and cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 328 patients (mean age, 58.6 years) were included in the study. The capsule was excreted within 10 hours after ingestion and before the end of the lifetime of the battery in 92.8% of the patients. The sensitivity and specificity of capsule endoscopy for detecting polyps that were 6 mm in size or bigger were 64% (95% confidence interval [CI], 59 to 72) and 84% (95% CI, 81 to 87), respectively, and for detecting advanced adenoma, the sensitivity and specificity were 73% (95% CI, 61 to 83) and 79% (95% CI, 77 to 81), respectively. Of 19 cancers detected by colonoscopy, 14 were detected by capsule endoscopy (sensitivity, 74%; 95% CI, 52 to 88). For all lesions, the sensitivity of capsule endoscopy was higher in patients with good or excellent colon cleanliness than in those with fair or poor colon cleanliness. Mild-to-moderate adverse events were reported in 26 patients (7.9%) and were mostly related to the colon preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of capsule endoscopy of the colon allows visualization of the colonic mucosa in most patients, but its sensitivity for detecting colonic lesions is low as compared with the use of optical colonoscopy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00604162.)

When even people at high risk do not take up colorectal cancer screening

Despite the most intense efforts by medical professionals, a significant fraction of people who we believe “should” be screened are not being screened