The price of autonomy: should we offer individuals a choice of colorectal cancer screening strategies?

Contents analysis of thyroid cancer-related information uploaded to YouTube by physicians in Korea: endorsing thyroid cancer screening, potentially leading to overdiagnosis

BACKGROUND

Thyroid cancer overdiagnosis is a major public health issue in South Korea, which has the highest incidence rate. The accessibility of information through the Internet, particularly on YouTube, could potentially impact excessive screening. This study aimed to analyze the content of thyroid cancer-related YouTube videos, particularly those from 2016 onwards, to evaluate the potential spread of misinformation.

METHODS

A total of 326 videos for analysis were collected using a video search protocol with the keyword "thyroid cancer" on YouTube. This study classified the selected YouTube videos as either provided by medical professionals or not and used topic clustering with LDA (latent dirichlet allocation), sentiment analysis with KoBERT (Korean bidirectional encoder representations from transformers), and reliability evaluation to analyze the content. The proportion of mentions of poor prognosis for thyroid cancer and the categorization of advertising content was also analyzed.

RESULTS

Videos by medical professionals were categorized into 7 topics, with "Thyroid cancer is not a 'Good cancer'" being the most common. The number of videos opposing excessive thyroid cancer screening decreased gradually yearly. Videos advocating screening received more favorable comments from viewers than videos opposing excessive thyroid cancer screening. Patient experience videos were categorized into 6 topics, with the "Treatment process and after-treatment" being the most common.

CONCLUSION

This study found that a significant proportion of videos uploaded by medical professionals on thyroid cancer endorse the practice, potentially leading to excessive treatments. The study highlights the need for medical professionals to provide high-quality and unbiased information on social media platforms to prevent the spread of medical misinformation and the need for criteria to judge the content and quality of online health information.

Offering disinclined people the choice between different screening appointments: a randomised online survey

OBJECTIVES

An invitation to cancer screening with a single (fixed) appointment time has been shown to be a more effective way at increasing uptake compared with an invitation with an open (unscheduled) appointment. The present study tested whether offering more than one fixed appointment could further enhance this effect or be detrimental to people's intention.

DESIGN

Experimental online hypothetical vignette survey.

METHODS

1,908 respondents who stated that they did not intend to participate in Bowel Scope Screening (BSS) were offered either one, two, four or six hypothetical fixed BSS appointments (all of which covered the same time of day to control for individual preferences).

RESULTS

Participants who were given more than one appointment to choose from were less likely to intend to book an appointment despite multiple appointments being perceived as more convenient.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that when it comes to offering people appointments for cancer screening, less (choice) is more, at least if alternatives fail to serve an inherent preference.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Testing Provision of Fecal and Blood Test Options on Participation for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Suboptimal participation is commonly observed in colorectal cancer screening programs utilizing fecal tests. This randomized controlled trial tested whether the offer of a blood test as either a "rescue" strategy for fecal test nonparticipants or an upfront choice, could improve participation. A total of 1,800 people (50-74 years) were randomized to control, rescue, or choice groups (n = 600/group). All were mailed a fecal immunochemical test (FIT, OC-Sensor, Eiken Chemical Company) and a survey assessing awareness of the screening tests. The rescue group was offered a blood test 12 weeks after FIT nonparticipation. The choice group was given the opportunity to choose to do a blood test (Colvera, Clinical Genomics) instead of FIT at baseline. Participation with any test after 24 weeks was not significantly different between groups (control, 37.8%; rescue, 36.9%; choice, 33.8%; P > 0.05). When the rescue strategy was offered after 12 weeks, an additional 6.5% participated with the blood test, which was greater than the blood test participation when offered as an upfront choice (1.5%; P < 0.001). Awareness of the tests was greater for FIT than for blood (96.2% vs. 23.1%; P < 0.0001). In a population familiar with FIT screening, provision of a blood test either as a rescue of FIT nonparticipants or as an upfront choice did not increase overall participation. This might reflect a lack of awareness of the blood test for screening compared with FIT.

Introduction of a colorectal cancer screening programme: results from a single-centre study

AIM

In 2014, a national colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme was launched in the Netherlands. It is difficult to assess for the individual patients with CRC whether the oncological benefits of surgery will outweigh the morbidity of the procedure, especially in early lesions. This study compares patient and tumour characteristics between screen-detected and nonscreen-detected patients. Also, we present an overview of treatment options and clinical dilemmas when treating patients with early-stage colorectal disease.

METHOD

Between January 2014 and December 2016, all patients with nonmalignant polyps or CRC who were referred to the Department of Surgery of the Leiden University Medical Centre in the Netherlands were included. Baseline characteristics, type of treatment and short-term outcomes of patients with screen-detected and nonscreen-detected colorectal tumours were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 426 patients were included, of whom 240 (56.3%) were identified by screening. Nonscreen-detected patients more often had comorbidity (P = 0.03), the primary tumour was more often located in the rectum (P = 0.001) and there was a higher rate of metastatic disease (P < 0.001). Of 354 surgically treated patients, postoperative adverse events did not significantly differ between the two groups (P = 0.38). Of 46 patients with T1 CRC in the endoscopic resection specimen, 23 underwent surgical resection of whom only 30.4% had residual invasive disease at colectomy.

CONCLUSION

Despite differences in comorbidity, stage and surgical outcome of patients with screen-detected tumours compared to nonscreen-detected tumours were not significantly different. Considering its limited oncological benefits as well as the rate of adverse events, surgery for nonmalignant polyps and T1 CRC should be considered carefully.

"They Should Be Asking Us": A Qualitative Decisional Needs Assessment for Women Considering Cervical Cancer Screening

In this study, we examine from multiple perspectives, women's shared decision-making needs when considering cervical screening options: Pap testing, in-clinic human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, self-collected HPV testing, or no screening. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework guided the development of the interview schedule. We conducted semi-structured interviews with seven screen-eligible women and five health care professionals (three health care providers and two health system managers). Women did not perceive that cervical screening involves a "decision," which limited their knowledge of options, risks, and benefits. Women and health professionals emphasized how a trusted primary care provider can support women making a choice among cervical screening modalities. Having all cervical screening options recommended and funded was perceived as an important step to facilitate shared decision making. Supporting women in making preference-based decisions in cervical cancer screening may increase screening among those who do not undergo screening regularly and decrease uptake in women who are over-screened.

Comparative Evaluation of Preliminary Screening Methods for Colorectal Cancer in a Mass Program

BACKGROUND

The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) has been widely used in preliminary screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). The high-risk factor questionnaire (HRFQ) and quantitative risk-assessment method (QRAM) are recommended for estimating the risk of CRC qualitatively and quantitatively in China.

AIM

We aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic values of CRC preliminary screening methods to identify which method is preferable as a screening strategy.

METHODS

Individuals aged 40-74 years old were enrolled in a mass CRC screening program from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2014, in Jiashan County, Zhejiang Province, China. FIT of two stool specimens at 1-week intervals was performed by laboratory personnel and face-to-face interviews were conducted by trained investigators. Screening data in the program were linked to a CRC surveillance and registry system, and CRC cases reported in the system were regarded as true patients.

RESULTS

A total of 96,043 subjects were included. The sensitivity and specificity of FIT for detecting CRC cases were 75.49% (95% CI 69.84-80.39) and 90.36% (95% CI 90.17-90.54), respectively. QRAM was more sensitive (p < 0.001) and less specific (p < 0.001) than HRFQ. The sensitivity and specificity of FIT along with HRFQ were 86.56% (95% CI 81.81-90.22) and 81.37% (95% CI 81.12-81.62), and those of FIT along with QRAM were 88.93% (95% CI 84.47-92.23) and 73.95% (95% CI 73.67-74.23).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that CRC preliminary screening with FIT and QRAM in parallel has high sensitivity and satisfactory specificity, and is a useful strategy in mass screening programs.

Ethical issues with colorectal cancer screening-a systematic review

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely recommended and implemented. However, sometimes CRC screening is not implemented despite good evidence, and some types of CRC screening are implemented despite lack of evidence. The objective of this article is to expose and elucidate relevant ethical issues in the literature on CRC screening that are important for open and transparent deliberation on CRC screening.

METHODS

An axiological question-based method is used for exposing and elucidating ethical issues relevant in HTA. A literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed Bioethics subset, ISI Web of Knowledge, Bioethics Literature Database (BELIT), Ethics in Medicine (ETHMED), SIBIL Base dati di bioetica, LEWI Bibliographic Database on Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities, and EUROETHICS identified 870 references of which 114 were found relevant according to title and abstract. The content of the included papers were subject to ethical analysis to highlight the ethical issues, concerns, and arguments.

RESULTS

A wide range of important ethical issues were identified. The main benefits are reduced relative CRC mortality rate, and potentially incidence rate, but there is no evidence of reduced absolute mortality rate. Potential harms are bleeding, perforation, false test results, overdetection, overdiagnosis, overtreatment (including unnecessary removal of polyps), and (rarely) death. Other important issues are related to autonomy and informed choice equity, justice, medicalization, and expanding disease.

CONCLUSION

A series of important ethical issues have been identified and need to be addressed in open and transparent deliberation on CRC screening.

Variable Quality and Readability of Patient-oriented Websites on Colorectal Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The efficacy of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is dependent on participation and subsequent adherence to surveillance. The internet increasingly is used for health information and is important to support decision making. We evaluated the accuracy, quality, and readability of online information on CRC screening and surveillance.

METHODS

A Website Accuracy Score and Polyp Score were developed, which awarded points for various aspects of CRC screening and surveillance. Websites also were evaluated using validated internet quality instruments (Global Quality Score, LIDA, and DISCERN), and reading scores. Two raters independently assessed the top 30 websites appearing on Google.com. Portals, duplicates, and news articles were excluded.

RESULTS

Twenty websites were included. The mean website accuracy score was 26 of 44 (range, 9-41). Websites with the highest scores were www.cancer.org, www.bowelcanceraustralia.org, and www.uptodate.com. The median polyp score was 3 of 10. The median global quality score was 3 of 5 (range, 2-5). The median overall LIDA score was 74% and the median DISCERN score was 45, both indicating moderate quality. The mean Flesch-Kincaid grade level was 11th grade, rating the websites as difficult to read, 30% had a reading level acceptable for the general public (Flesch Reading Ease > 60). There was no correlation between the Google rank and the website accuracy score (r_s = -0.31; P = .18).

CONCLUSIONS

There is marked variation in quality and readability of websites on CRC screening. Most websites do not address polyp surveillance. The poor correlation between quality and Google ranking suggests that screenees will miss out on high-quality websites using standard search strategies.

Decision-making in rectal and colorectal cancer: systematic review and qualitative analysis of surgeons' preferences

Surgeons are experiencing difficulties implementing recommendations not only owing to incomplete, confusing or conflicting information but also to the increasing involvement of patients in decisions relating to their health. This study sought to establish which common factors including heuristic factors guide surgeons' decision-making in colon and rectal cancers. We conducted a systematic literature review of surgeons' decision-making factors related to colon and rectal cancer treatment. Eleven of 349 identified publications were eligible for data analyses. Using the IRaMuTeQ (Interface of R for the Multidimensional Analyses of Texts and Questionnaire), we carried out a qualitative analysis of the significant factors collected in the studies reviewed. Several validation procedures were applied to control the robustness of the findings. Five categories of factors (i.e. patient, surgeon, treatment, tumor and organizational cues) were found to influence surgeons' decision-making. Specifically, all decision criteria including biomedical (e.g. tumor information) and heuristic (e.g. surgeons' dispositional factors) criteria converged towards the factor 'age of patient' in the similarity analysis. In the light of the results, we propose an explanatory model showing the impact of heuristic criteria on medical issues (i.e. diagnosis, prognosis, treatment features, etc.) and thus on decision-making. Finally, the psychosocial complexity involved in decision-making is discussed and a medico-psycho-social grid for use in multidisciplinary meetings is proposed.

Eliciting women's cervical screening preferences: a mixed methods systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

With the accumulation of evidence regarding potential harms of cancer screening in recent years, researchers, policy-makers, and the public are becoming more critical of population-based cancer screening. Consequently, a high-quality cancer screening program should consider individuals' values and preferences when determining recommendations. In cervical cancer screening, offering women autonomy is considered a "person-centered" approach to health care services; however, it may impact the effectiveness of the program should women choose to not participate. As part of a larger project to investigate women's cervical screening preferences and correlates of these preferences, this systematic review will capture quantitative and qualitative investigations of women's cervical screening preferences and the methods used to elicit them.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This mixed methods synthesis will use a thematic analysis approach to synthesize qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods evidence. This protocol describes the methods that will be used in this investigation. A search strategy has been developed with a health librarian and peer reviewed using PRESS. Based on this strategy, five databases and the gray literature will be searched for studies that meet the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included individual studies will be examined using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Three reviewers will extract data from the primary studies on the tools or instruments used to elicit women's preferences regarding cervical cancer screening, theoretical frameworks used, outcomes measured, the outstanding themes from quantitative and qualitative evidence, and the identified preferences for cervical cancer screening. We will describe the relationships between study results and the study population, "intervention" (e.g., tool or instrument), and context. We will follow the PRISMA reporting guideline. We will compare findings across studies and between study methods (e.g., qualitative versus quantitative study designs). The strength of the synthesized findings will be assessed using the validated GRADE and CERQual tool.

DISCUSSION

This review will inform the development of a tool to elicit women's cervical screening preferences. Understanding the methods used to elicit women's preferences and what is known about women's cervical screening preferences will be useful for guideline developers who wish to incorporate a woman-centered approach specifically for cervical screening guidelines.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016035737.

Colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer had a low incidence several decades ago. However, it has become a predominant cancer and now accounts for approximately 10% of cancer-related mortality in western countries. The 'rise' of colorectal cancer in developed countries can be attributed to the increasingly ageing population, unfavourable modern dietary habits and an increase in risk factors, such as smoking, low physical exercise and obesity. New treatments for primary and metastatic colorectal cancer have emerged, providing additional options for patients; these treatments include laparoscopic surgery for primary disease, more-aggressive resection of metastatic disease (such as liver and pulmonary metastases), radiotherapy for rectal cancer, and neoadjuvant and palliative chemotherapies. However, these new treatment options have had limited impact on cure rates and long-term survival. For these reasons, and the recognition that colorectal cancer is long preceded by a polypoid precursor, screening programmes have gained momentum. This Primer provides an overview of the current state of the art of knowledge on the epidemiology and mechanisms of colorectal cancer, as well as on diagnosis and treatment.

Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments

BACKGROUND

It is well established that screening is effective in reducing the incidence and mortality associated with colorectal cancer (CRC). National screening programs have been implemented in many countries; however, uptake remains an issue. Understanding patient preferences may assist in shaping screening programs and tailoring information about screening tests.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to undertake a systematic review of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) of CRC screening.

METHODS

A systematic review of DCEs of CRC screening was undertaken in an average-risk general population. The methodological qualities of the studies were assessed using a standard checklist outlining best practice for conjoint studies.

RESULTS

Nine studies met the selection criteria. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the data and methods. However, in eight studies, attributes describing accuracy and/or clinical effectiveness were reported to be statistically significant. We also found that individuals were willing to trade-off other attributes such as an increased risk of complications to gain greater clinical benefits. Screening was also preferred to non-screening by the majority of respondents, regardless of the test used.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding and incorporating individuals' preferences in decision making is increasingly considered essential in the health field. Data from DCEs can provide valuable insights into the trade-offs individuals are willing to undertake in respect to CRC screening. Such insights can be used by decision makers to identify screening tests that could maximize informed uptake. It is likely that, with better reporting and evolving methodology, the contribution that DCEs can make to such debates will increase.

Ethical issues in colorectal cancer screening

In many countries, colorectal cancer screening is currently an established population screening program due to the evidence on its reduction of colorectal cancer mortality. There is general consensus that colorectal cancer screening meets the screening criteria as proposed by Wilson and Jungner. However, as for all population screening programs, colorectal cancer screening also has disadvantages and thereby entails ethical issues. There are the general issues concerning the introduction of screening programs (e.g. medicalization, overdiagnosis and overtreatment, information provision to screenees), evaluation of cancer screening programs (e.g. lead time and length bias), chosen screening method (e.g. false-positive and false-negative test results, reduction of all-cause mortality, choice between different screening methods). The different colorectal cancer screening methods and the ethical issues concerning colorectal cancer screening will be discussed in this review.

'Please, sir, can I have some more?' Food, lifestyle, diets: respect and moral responsibility

This article is about respect for food, responsibility for lifestyle and diet and responsibility for those who suffer from lack of food. After some general reflections on food, feasts, flatulence, taboos and waste, I argue that we have a responsibility to live a healthy lifestyle, but that there are also morally good reasons for taking risks with our health as we cherish other goals and values. Then I discuss situations, using the example of obesity, in which people are not free to choose their lifestyle. Governments and doctors have responsibilities in enabling people to chose healthy eating habits, e.g. by facilitating access to healthy foods and by criticizing scientifically unfounded weight loss diets. I continue to defend that we need to respect food and those who prepare it, and that we have a moral responsibility to contribute to the solution of the food gap in the world.

Progress in the identification of plasma biomarkers of colorectal cancer

Proteomic analysis of human tissue and plasma samples has been a useful tool in recent years for the identification of potential biomarkers to aid in the early diagnosis of colorectal cancer. However, biomarkers relating to the crucial transition between adenomatous lesions and invasive colorectal malignancy have not previously been described. The work of Choi et al. (Proteomics 2013, 13, 2361-2374) attempts to address this issue. Using plasma samples from age-matched patients with colorectal adenomas or invasive disease this group identified a range of plasma proteins and cytokines that were differentially expressed. This information not only provides insights into the biology of the adenoma to carcinoma progression sequence but it also represents a step towards the goal of achieving diagnostically accurate and clinically acceptable biomarkers in early colorectal cancer.

Validation of methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting (MS-HRM) for the detection of stool DNA methylation in colorectal neoplasms

BACKGROUND

Methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting (MS-HRM) is a new technique for assaying DNA methylation, but its feasibility for assaying stool in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) is unknown.

METHODS

First, the MS-HRM and methylation-specific PCR (MSP) detection limits were tested. Second, the methylation statuses of SFRP2 and VIM were analyzed in stool samples by MS-HRM, and in matching tumor and normal colon tissues via bisulfite sequencing PCR (BSP). Third, a case-control study evaluated the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of MS-HRM relative to results obtained with MSP and the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Finally, the linearity and reproducibility of MS-HRM were assessed.

RESULTS

The detection limits of MS-HRM and MSP were 1% and 5%, respectively. The diagnostic sensitivities of MS-HRM (87.3%, 55/63) in stool and BSP in matching tumor tissue (92.1%, 58/63) were highly consistent (κ=0.744). The MS-HRM assay detected 92.5% (37/40) methylation in CRCs, 94.4% (34/36) in advanced adenomas, and 8.8% (5/57) in normal controls. The results of MS-HRM analysis were stable and reliable and showed fairly good linearity for both SFRP2 (P<0.001, R(2)=0.957) and VIM (P<0.001, R(2)=0.954).

CONCLUSIONS

MS-HRM shows potential for CRC screening.

Colorectal cancer screening--optimizing current strategies and new directions

The first evidence that screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) could effectively reduce mortality dates back 20 years. However, actual population screening has, in many countries, halted at the level of individual testing and discussions on differences between screening tests. With a wealth of new evidence from various community-based studies looking at test uptake, screening-programme organization and the importance of quality assurance, population screening for CRC is now moving into a new realm, promising better results in terms of reducing CRC-specific morbidity and mortality. Such a shift in the paradigm requires a change from opportunistic, individual testing towards organized population screening with comprehensive monitoring and full-programme quality assurance. To achieve this, a combination of factors--including test characteristics, uptake, screenee autonomy, costs and capacity--must be considered. Thus, evidence from randomized trials comparing different tests must be supplemented by studies of acceptance and uptake to obtain the full picture of the effectiveness (in terms of morbidity, mortality and cost) the different strategies have. In this Review, we discuss a range of screening modalities and describe the factors to be considered to achieve a truly effective population CRC screening programme.