1
|
Sijben J, Peters Y, van der Velden K, Rainey L, Siersema PD, Broeders MJ. Public acceptance and uptake of oesophageal adenocarcinoma screening strategies: A mixed-methods systematic review. EClinicalMedicine 2022; 46:101367. [PMID: 35399814 PMCID: PMC8987366 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101367] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2022] [Revised: 03/14/2022] [Accepted: 03/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
UNLABELLED Oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) is increasingly diagnosed and often fatal, thus representing a growing global health concern. Screening for its precursor, Barrett's oesophagus (BO), combined with endoscopic surveillance and treatment of dysplasia might prevent OAC. This review aimed to systematically explore the public's acceptance and uptake of novel screening strategies for OAC. We systematically searched three electronic databases (Ovid Medline/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE and PsycINFO) from date of inception to July 2, 2021 and hand-searched references to identify original studies published in English on acceptability and uptake of OAC screening. Two reviewers independently reviewed and appraised retrieved records and two reviewers extracted data (verified by one other reviewer). Of the 3674 unique records, 19 studies with 15 249 participants were included in the review. Thematic analysis of findings showed that acceptability of OAC screening is related to disease awareness, fear, belief in benefit, practicalities and physical discomfort. The findings were mapped on the Integrated Screening Action Model. Minimally invasive screening tests are generally well-tolerated: patient-reported outcomes were reported for sedated upper endoscopy (tolerability ++), transnasal endoscopy (tolerability +), tethered capsule endomicroscopy (tolerability +/-), and the Cytosponge-TFF3 test (acceptability ++). In discrete choice experiments, individuals mainly valued screening test accuracy. OAC screening has been performed in trials using conventional upper endoscopy (n = 231 individuals), transnasal endoscopy (n = 966), capsule endoscopy (n = 657) and the Cytosponge-TFF3 test (n = 9679), with uptake ranging from 14·5% to 48·1%. Intended participation in OAC screening in questionnaire-based studies ranged from 62·8% to 71·4%. We conclude that the general public seems to have interest in OAC screening. The findings will provide input for the design of a screening strategy that incorporates the public's values and preferences to improve informed participation. Identification of a screening strategy effective in reducing OAC mortality and morbidity remains a crucial prerequisite. FUNDING This study was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) under grant 555,004,206.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jasmijn Sijben
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 8, Nijmegen 6500 HB, the Netherland
- Corresponding author.
| | - Yonne Peters
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 8, Nijmegen 6500 HB, the Netherland
| | - Kim van der Velden
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 8, Nijmegen 6500 HB, the Netherland
| | - Linda Rainey
- Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 8, Nijmegen 6500 HB, the Netherland
| | - Peter D. Siersema
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 8, Nijmegen 6500 HB, the Netherland
| | - Mireille J.M. Broeders
- Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 8, Nijmegen 6500 HB, the Netherland
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Wijchenseweg 101, Nijmegen 6538 SW, the Netherland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
McGoran J, Bennett A, Cooper J, De Caestecker J, Lovat LB, Guha N, Ragunath K, Sami SS. Acceptability to patients of screening disposable transnasal endoscopy: qualitative interview analysis. BMJ Open 2019; 9:e030467. [PMID: 31831531 PMCID: PMC6924752 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030467] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2019] [Revised: 10/27/2019] [Accepted: 11/01/2019] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Screening in selected high risk populations for Barrett's oesophagus (BO) and oesophageal varices (OVs) has been proposed, but there are obstacles with conventional oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (C-OGD), including patient acceptability. Portable and disposable office-based transnasal endoscopy (TNE) is a feasible and accurate alternative to C-OGD that may have use in primary and secondary care. This article outlines a qualitative analysis of patient experiences of TNE and C-OGD in order to gain an insight into an acceptable delivery of an endoscopic screening service. DESIGN Purposeful sampling identified 23 participants who then underwent semi-structured interviews to determine their experiences of both procedures. Thematic analysis was conducted to derive meaning from their lived experiences. SETTING A secondary care endoscopy unit, clinic room and interview room. PARTICIPANTS Patients referred for BO or OV surveillance and for endoscopy to investigate dyspepsia underwent unsedated TNE using the EG Scan II device followed by C-OGD with or without sedation (patient choice), as part of a clinical trial. RESULTS The themes that arose from our analysis were: inclusivity in one's own healthcare, comfort level and convenience, validity of the procedure and application to a screening population and a sense of altruism and reciprocity. Positive aspects of TNE included participant empowerment, reduced discomfort and avoidance of conscious sedation. Participants felt that if TNE screening was of proven efficacy it would be welcomed, though views on use in a community setting were mixed. CONCLUSIONS Most patients preferred TNE to unsedated C-OGD and the reasons they gave featured strongly in the emerging themes. Preferences between TNE and sedated C-OGD were more subtle, with equivalent comfort scores but merits and drawbacks of both being discussed. This information identifies opportunities and challenges in establishing an endoscopic screening service. Trial registration number ISRCTNregistry identifier: 70595405; Pre-results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John McGoran
- Digestive Diseases Centre, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK
| | - Andrea Bennett
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Center in Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Joanne Cooper
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Center in Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - John De Caestecker
- Digestive Diseases Centre, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK
| | - Laurence B Lovat
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, London, UK
| | - Neil Guha
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Center in Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Krish Ragunath
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Center in Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Sarmed S Sami
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
McGoran JJ, McAlindon ME, Iyer PG, Seibel EJ, Haidry R, Lovat LB, Sami SS. Miniature gastrointestinal endoscopy: Now and the future. World J Gastroenterol 2019; 25:4051-4060. [PMID: 31435163 PMCID: PMC6700702 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i30.4051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2019] [Revised: 06/22/2019] [Accepted: 07/03/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Since its original application, gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has undergone many innovative transformations aimed at expanding the scope, safety, accuracy, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of this area of clinical practice. One method of achieving this has been to reduce the caliber of endoscopic devices. We propose the collective term “Miniature GI Endoscopy”. In this Opinion Review, the innovations in this field are explored and discussed. The progress and clinical use of the three main areas of miniature GI endoscopy (ultrathin endoscopy, wireless endoscopy and scanning fiber endoscopy) are described. The opportunities presented by these technologies are set out in a clinical context, as are their current limitations. Many of the positive aspects of miniature endoscopy are clear, in that smaller devices provide access to potentially all of the alimentary canal, while conferring high patient acceptability. This must be balanced with the costs of new technologies and recognition of device specific challenges. Perspectives on future application are also considered and the efforts being made to bring new innovations to a clinical platform are outlined. Current devices demonstrate that miniature GI endoscopy has a valuable place in investigation of symptoms, therapeutic intervention and screening. Newer technologies give promise that the potential for enhancing the investigation and management of GI complaints is significant.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John J McGoran
- Digestive Diseases Centre, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester LE1 5WW, United Kingdom
| | - Mark E McAlindon
- Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield S10 2JF, United Kingdom
| | - Prasad G Iyer
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN 55905, United States
| | - Eric J Seibel
- Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington, 4000 Mason St, Seattle, WA 98195, United States
| | - Rehan Haidry
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom
| | - Laurence B Lovat
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom
| | - Sarmed S Sami
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW There has been an exponential increase in the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) over the last half century. Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the only known precursor lesion of EAC. Screening for BE in high-risk populations has been advocated with the aim of identifying BE, followed by endoscopic surveillance to detect dysplasia and early stage cancer, with the intent that treatment can improve outcomes. We aimed to review BE screening methodologies currently recommended and in development. RECENT FINDINGS Unsedated transnasal endoscopy allows for visualization of the distal esophagus, with potential for biopsy acquisition, and can be done in the office setting. Non-endoscopic screening methods being developed couple the use of swallowable esophageal cell sampling devices with BE specific biomarkers, as well as trefoil factor 3, methylated DNA markers, and microRNAs. This approach has promising accuracy. Circulating and exhaled volatile organic compounds and the foregut microbiome are also being explored as means of detecting EAC and BE in a non-invasive manner. Non-invasive diagnostic techniques have shown promise in the detection of BE and may be effective methods of screening high-risk patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Don C Codipilly
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Prasad G Iyer
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
- Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Honing J, Kievit W, Bookelaar J, Peters Y, Iyer PG, Siersema PD. Endosheath ultrathin transnasal endoscopy is a cost-effective method for screening for Barrett's esophagus in patients with GERD symptoms. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89:712-722.e3. [PMID: 30385112 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.10.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2018] [Accepted: 10/06/2018] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening is currently not considered to be cost effective in the general population but may be effective in high-risk subgroups, such as 50-year-old white men with chronic reflux disease (GERD). A new modality for screening is unsedated transnasal endoscopy using endosheath technology (uTNE), which has been shown to be safe and effective in clinical practice. In this study, we determined the cost-utility of uTNE in a high-risk subgroup compared with no screening or screening with standard endoscopy. METHODS A Markov model was used to simulate screening of 50-year-old white men with symptoms of GERD with either uTNE or standard endoscopy compared with no screening, over a lifetime horizon. Input variables were based on the literature and recent data on uTNE screening for BE. The study was designed from a healthcare payer perspective by using direct costs. Primary outcome measures were costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of uTNE and standard endoscopy compared with no screening. Sensitivity analysis was performed for several factors, such as prevalence of BE. RESULTS Costs of uTNE, standard endoscopy, and no screening were estimated at, $2495, $2957, and $1436, respectively. Compared with no screening, uTNE screening resulted in an overall QALY increase of 0.039 (95% percentile 0.018; 0.063) and an ICUR of $29,446 per QALY gained (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.516-53.091), whereas standard endoscopy compared with no screening resulted in a QALY increase of 0.034 (95% CI, 0.015-0.056) and an ICUR of $47,563 (95% CI, 31,036-82,970). CONCLUSION Both uTNE and standard endoscopy seem to be cost-effective screening methods in a screening cohort of 50-year-old white men with GERD at a willingness-to-pay cutoff of $50,000.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Judith Honing
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Wietske Kievit
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Jan Bookelaar
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Yonne Peters
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Prasad G Iyer
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Peter D Siersema
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|