Opportunities to Expand Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation

Randomized Trial of Facilitated Adherence to Screening Colonoscopy vs Sequential Fecal-Based Blood Test

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines include screening colonoscopy and sequential high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing (HSgFOBT), with expectation of similar effectiveness based on the assumption of similar high adherence. However, adherence to screening colonoscopy compared with sequential HSgFOBT has not been reported. In this randomized clinical trial, we assessed adherence and pathology findings for a single screening colonoscopy vs sequential and nonsequential HSgFOBTs.

METHODS

Participants aged 40-69 years were enrolled at 3 centers representing different clinical settings. Participants were randomized into a single screening colonoscopy arm vs sequential HSgFOBT arm composed of 4-7 rounds. Initial adherence to screening colonoscopy and sequential adherence to HSgFOBT, follow-up colonoscopy for positive HSgFOBT tests, crossover to colonoscopy, and detection of advanced neoplasia or large serrated lesions (ADN-SERs) were measured.

RESULTS

There were 3523 participants included in the trial; 1761 and 1762 participants were randomized to the screening colonoscopy and HSgFOBT arms, respectively. Adherence was 1473 (83.6%) for the screening colonoscopy arm vs 1288 (73.1%) for the HSgFOBT arm after 1 round (relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19; P ≤ .001), but only 674 (38.3%) over 4 sequential HSgFOBT rounds (RR, 2.19; 95% CI, 2.05-2.33). Overall adherence to any screening increased to 1558 (88.5%) in the screening colonoscopy arm during the entire study period and 1493 (84.7%) in the HSgFOBT arm (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07). Four hundred thirty-six participants (24.7%) crossed over to screening colonoscopy during the first 4 rounds. ADN-SERs were detected in 121 of the 1473 participants (8.2%) in the colonoscopy arm who were adherent to protocol in the first 12 months of the study, whereas detection of ADN-SERs among those who were not sequentially adherent (n = 709) to HSgFOBT was subpar (0.6%) (RR, 14.72; 95% CI, 5.46-39.67) compared with those who were sequentially adherent (3.3%) (n = 647) (RR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.61-3.98) to HSgFOBT in the first 4 rounds. When including colonoscopies from HSgFOBT patients who were never positive yet crossed over (n = 1483), 5.5% of ADN-SERs were detected (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.15-1.96) in the first 4 rounds.

CONCLUSIONS

Observed adherence to sequential rounds of HSgFOBT was suboptimal compared with a single screening colonoscopy. Detection of ADN-SERs was inferior when nonsequential HSgFOBT adherence was compared with sequential adherence. However, the greatest number of ADN-SERs was detected among those who crossed over to colonoscopy and opted to receive a colonoscopy. The effectiveness of an HSgFOBT screening program may be enhanced if crossover to screening colonoscopy is permitted.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, Number: NCT00102011.

Exploring non-participation in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review of qualitative studies

INTRODUCTION

Worldwide, colorectal cancer is a major public health issue. Despite the existence of screening programmes in many countries, global uptake remains low. This meta-ethnography aimed to analyse qualitative literature to explore attitudes towards colorectal cancer screening and reasons for non-participation in eligible people that do not participate when invited.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted in five databases in May 2021. Critical appraisal of included studies was performed using the CASP checklist for qualitative studies.

FINDINGS

Thirteen studies were included. Three main themes and eight sub-themes were developed across studies: (1) Differences in motivation, with non-participants expressing a lack of knowledge and varying levels of intention to participate but not feeling screening was personally necessary; (2) Active aversion to screening expressed by fear, discomfort, disgust or not wanting to know; and (3) Contextual barriers of the healthcare system such as practical constraints or poor relationships with healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest multiple pathways to non-participation including ambivalence, aversion to the process and consequences of screening or lack of support. Persuasive messages and prompts to action to target ambivalence, reassurance regarding the screening procedures to target negative reactions, and increased support from healthcare professionals may be beneficial in increasing screening uptake.

Qualitative Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Nebraska

Compared to urban residents, rural populations are less likely to engage in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. As part of a statewide cancer needs assessment, we aimed to elicit rural perspectives about CRC screening and resources. We conducted three focus groups with rural Nebraska cancer survivors and caregivers (N = 20) in Spring 2021 using a collective case study design. Participant awareness of and knowledge about CRC screening methods varied across focus groups; overall, 95% of participants had heard of colonoscopy. Participants were less familiar with fecal tests and had confusion about them. Colonoscopy was associated with negative perceptions regarding the time, cost, and discomfort of the preparation and procedure, but some providers did not discuss alternative methods unless the patient resisted colonoscopy. Healthcare providers played a key role educating rural communities about CRC screening recommendations (age, risk) and testing options and being persistent in those recommendations. CRC awareness campaigns should include a variety of communication channels (TV, radio, billboards, health fairs, churches, healthcare settings). Promotion of CRC screening should include education about screening age guidelines, alternative test types, and informed decision-making between provider and patient regarding preferred screening methods based on the pros and cons of each test type. Individuals with a family history of colon issues (Crohn's disease, CRC) are considered high risk and need to be aware that screening should be discussed at earlier ages.

Self-Reported Reasons for Inconsistent Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening Using FIT in Flanders, Belgium

Background: In Flanders, the uptake in the population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program (using fecal immunochemical test, FIT) is suboptimal (~50%). This study explored the reasons for inconsistent participation in FIT screening among irregular participants in Flanders. Methods: An online survey with both open questions and fixed statements was sent to irregular participants (2016–2018) in the Flemish CRC screening program. A reminder email followed eight weeks after the first email. Data analysis used both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Post-stratification weights based on gender, age group, and the first two digits of the postcode were employed to reduce non-response bias. Results: In total, 5328 out of 19,592 irregular participants responded to the survey. While the main reasons not to participate were related to ‘postponing participation’ and ‘having other priorities’, the main reasons to participate were related to the importance of (preventive) health checks. The role of general practitioners (GPs) in promoting CRC screening also emerged as an important theme among the respondents’ answers (based on fixed statements). Conclusions: The study reported the main reasons for inconsistent participation in FIT screening for CRC in Flanders. The findings are helpful in guiding tailored interventions to increase FIT screening uptake in the region.

Colorectal cancer knowledge and perceptions among individuals below the age of 50

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) rates are increasing in individuals below the age of 50 and this trend has been projected to continue for the foreseeable future. Health officials are calling for increased awareness of rising rates in affected populations to promote discussion and early detection.

METHODS

In May 2018, we surveyed an online purposive sample of adults below the age of 50 (N = 624). We conducted an exploratory analysis examining knowledge of current CRC screening guidelines, knowledge of available CRC screening methods, perceived risk of CRC, and perceived importance of screening for CRC by gender, race, and previous CRC screening activity.

RESULTS

The sample was 56% female, averaged 36 years of age, largely identified as Caucasian (84%), married (48%), and well educated (70% with some college or a college degree). 36% correctly identified the current age of recommended CRC screening initiation. Few (8%) correctly identified all CRC screening options presented. Genetics was thought to be the most relevant determinant of CRC. African American or black participants perceived themselves to be at lower risk of CRC, while women rated the importance of screening significantly lower than men.

CONCLUSION

We identified a lack of CRC knowledge in individuals below the age of 50. Interventions should correct perceptions of risk of CRC and highlight the importance of screening. Complete knowledge of the range of screening options may reduce barriers to screening while a greater knowledge of modifiable risk factors of CRC can promote healthy behaviors.

Variation in Colorectal Cancer Screening Practices According to Cardiovascular Disease Status and Race/Ethnicity

PURPOSE

To assess current estimates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening practices in relation to cardiovascular disease (CVD) status and whether this association varies by race/ethnicity.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 among US adults aged 50-75 years (n = 807,937). Participants' self-reported CRC screening practices were categorized as being up-to-date, not up-to-date, or never screened. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess whether self-reported prevalent CVD was associated with CRC screening practices after adjusting for several potentially confounding variables; additional analyses were stratified by race/ethnicity.

RESULTS

One-quarter of US adults had never been screened for CRC, while 67.0% reported being up-to-date with CRC screening. The proportion of Hispanics who had never been screened (35.3%) was higher than non-Hispanic Whites (23.5%) and Blacks (20.6%). Adults with CVD were less likely to never have been screened (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.88-0.95) or not to be up-to-date (aOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.94) on CRC screening than those without CVD.

CONCLUSION

The presence of CVD is associated with better adherence to CRC screening guidelines. Poor CRC screening utilization in Hispanics should be a priority for further investigation and intervention.

Awareness of Colorectal Cancer and Attitudes Towards Its Screening Guidelines in Lebanon

Background:

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) provides an effective strategy for early detection and prevention of the disease; however, global screening rates are still low.

Purpose:

This study aims at assessing the awareness of CRC risk factors, warning signs, and attitudes towards CRC guidelines and screening modalities, in order to identify the barriers to and correlates of CRC screening in the Lebanese population.

Methods:

A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 371 participants in the largest health care medical center in Lebanon. A validated 12- and 9-item Cancer Awareness Measurement questionnaire was used to assess participants’ awareness of CRC risk factors and warning signs.

Results:

83% and 67% of participants were not aware of CRC risk factors and warning signs, respectively, 15% have previously undergone CRC screening, 56% were aware of the necessity for screening, and 43% were willing to undergo screening. Factors affecting awareness of the necessity for CRC screening, past screening and willingness to screen included awareness of risk factors and warning signs, undergoing regular physician check-ups, having a family physician as a primary source of knowledge of CRC, and knowing a family member or friend diagnosed with CRC. Barriers to screening were related to participants’ evaluation of the screening technique and misconceptions about this disease.

Conclusion:

Serious active measures should be taken by health care sectors, authoritative groups, primary care physicians, and awareness campaigns to fill the gap in awareness of this disease and to alleviate the barriers and misconceptions around it.