Screening for colorectal cancer on the front line

Public Awareness of Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Al-Baha Region, Saudi Arabia, 2022

BACKGROUND

According to the WHO, cancer is ranked as the second leading cause of death, accounting for an estimated 9.6 million deaths in 2018. This study aimed to assess public awareness about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and the barriers that prevent Saudi individuals from undergoing CRC screening.  Materials and methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in the Prince Mishari Bin Saud General Baljurashi Hospital, and a supervised self-administered questionnaire was utilized. Sociodemographic data, knowledge about colorectal cancer, and attitude toward screening were included in the survey. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Version 23 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and Pearson's chi-square test. A P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 396 eligible participants completed the survey. About 209 (52%) were female, and 124 (31.3%) belonged to the age group of 18-29 years. Nearly (49.7%) knew that detecting colorectal cancer before symptoms appear is possible. About 64% of the participants cited colonoscopy as the screening method for CRC. More than half of the participants (58.1%) expressed their willingness to be screened for colorectal cancer, while only 2.8% reported that they had undergone screening before. Participants with higher educational status demonstrated better knowledge regarding CRC than others (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

 The overall knowledge of CRC was found to be poor in Al-Baha residents, irrespective of age. Implementing new strategies to increase public awareness about colorectal cancer will aid in the early diagnosis of CRC. We recommend targeted education and screening programs to improve the level of screening awareness and aid in the early diagnosis of colorectal cancer.

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.

Knowledge and practice of colorectal cancer screening in an urban setting: cross-sectional survey of primary care physicians in government clinics in Malaysia

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) was the third most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide in 2008 (1.23 million cases, 9.7%). CRC screening was shown to be effective in reducing 70% of CRC mortality. However, the screening rate for CRC remains poor.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among primary care physicians (PCPs) in public primary care clinics in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. A 30-item self-administered questionnaire was used to assess the knowledge and practice of CRC screening.

RESULTS

The response rate was 86.4% (n = 197/228). Less than half (39.1%) of the respondents answered correctly for all risk stratification scenarios. Mean knowledge score on CRC screening modalities was 48.7% ± 17.7%. The knowledge score was positively associated with having postgraduate educational qualification and usage of screening guidelines. Overall, 69.9% of PCPs reported that they practised screening. However, of these, only 25.9% of PCPs screened over 50% of all eligible patients. PCPs who agreed that screening was cost-effective (odds ratio [OR] 3.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.69‒6.59) and those who agreed that they had adequate resources in their locality (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.01‒3.68) were more likely to practise screening. Knowledge score was not associated with the practice of screening (p = 0.185).

CONCLUSION

Knowledge and practice of CRC screening was inadequate among PCPs. Knowledge of screening did not translate into its practice. PCPs' perceptions about cost-effectiveness of screening and adequate resources were important determinants of the practice of screening.

Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary Care Settings: Attitudes and Knowledge of Nurses and Physicians

Objective:

Healthcare providers (HCPs) play a critical role in reducing colorectal cancer (CRC) related morbidity and mortality. This study aimed at exploring the attitudes and knowledge of nurses and physicians working in primary care settings regarding CRC screening.

Methods:

A total of 142 HCPs (57.7% nurses and 42.3% physicians) participated in a cross-sectional survey. Data were collected using a Self-administered Questionnaire. The participants were clinically experienced (mean = 9.39 years; standard deviation [SD] = 6.13), regularly taking care of adults eligible for CRC screening (62%) and had positive attitudes toward CRC screening (83.1%). Most participants (57%) had low levels of knowledge about CRC screening (mean = 3.23; SD = 1.50). The participants were most knowledgeable about the recommended age for initiating screening (62.7%) and the procedures not recommended for screening (90.8%).

Results:

More than 55% did not know the frequency of performing specific screening procedures, the upper age limit at which screening is not recommended, and the patients at high-risk for CRC. There were no significant differences between nurses’ and physicians’ attitudes and knowledge. The participants’ perceptions about professional training (odds ratio [OR] = 2.17, P = 0.003), colonoscopy (OR = 2.60, P = 0.014), and double-contrast barium enema (OR = 0.53, P = 0.041), were significantly associated with knowledge about CRC screening.

Conclusions:

The inadequate knowledge levels among nurses and physicians may be one of the barriers affecting CRC screening. Enhancing HCPs knowledge about CRC screening should be considered a primary intervention in the efforts to promote CRC screening and prevention.

Promoting Chinese-speaking primary care physicians' communication with immigrant patients about colorectal cancer screening: a cluster randomized trial design

Chinese Americans underutilize colorectal cancer screening. This study evaluated a physician-based intervention guided by social cognitive theory (SCT) to inform future research involving minority physicians and patients. Twenty-five Chinese-speaking primary care physicians were randomized into intervention or usual care arms. The intervention included two 45-minute in-office training sessions paired with a dual-language communication guide detailing strategies in addressing Chinese patients' screening barriers. Physicians' feedback on the intervention, their performance data during training, and pre-post intervention survey data were collected and analyzed. Most physicians (~85%) liked the intervention materials but ~84% spent less than 20 minutes reading the guide and only 46% found the length of time for in-office training acceptable. Despite this, the intervention increased physicians' perceived communication self-efficacy with patients (p<.01). This study demonstrated the feasibility of enrolling and intervening with minority physicians. Time constraints in primary care practice should be considered in the design and implementation of interventions.

Robotics in Colonoscopy

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of mortality in men and women in the United States. While there is a definite advantage regarding the use of colonoscopies in screening, there is still a lack of widespread acceptance of colonoscopy use in the general public. This is evident by the fact that up to 75% of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer present with locally advanced disease. In order to make colonoscopy and in turn colorectal cancer screening a patient friendly and a comfortable test some changes in tool are necessary. The conventional colonoscope has not changed much since its development. There are several new advances in colorectal screening practices. One of the most promising new advances is the advent of robotic endoscopic techniques.

Suture marker lesion detection in the colon by self-stabilizing and unmodified capsule endoscopes: pilot study in acute canine models

BACKGROUND

Capsule endoscopy is a noninvasive method for examining the small intestine. Recently, this method has been used to visualize the colon. However, the capsule often tumbles in the wider colon lumen, resulting in potentially missed pathology. In addition, the capsule does not have the ability to distend collapsed segments of the organ. Self-stabilizing capsule endoscopy is a new method of visualizing the colon without tumbling and with the ability to passively distend colon walls.

OBJECTIVE

To quantitatively compare the detection rate of intraluminal suture marker lesions for colonoscopy by using a custom-modified, self-stabilizing capsule endoscope (SCE); an unmodified capsule endoscope (CE) of the same brand; and a standard colonoscope.

DESIGN

Four mongrel dogs underwent laparotomy and the implantation of 5 to 8 suture markers to approximate colon lesions. Each dog had both capsule endoscopy and self-stabilizing capsule endoscopy, administered consecutively in random order. In each case, the capsule was inserted endoscopically into the proximal lumen of the colon followed by pharmacologically induced colon peristalsis to propel it distally through the colon. Blinded standard colonoscopy was performed by an experienced gastroenterologist after the capsule endoscopies.

SETTING

Experimental study in a live canine model.

SUBJECTS

Four dogs.

INTERVENTION

Laparotomy, capsule endoscopy, colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Comparison of the marker detection rate of the SCE to that of the unmodified MiroCam CE and a colonoscope.

RESULTS

The average percentages of the marker detection rate for unmodified capsule endoscopy, self-stabilizing capsule endoscopy, and colonoscopy, respectively, were 31.1%, 86%, and 100% (P < .01), with both self-stabilizing capsule endoscopy and colonoscopy performing significantly better than the unmodified capsule endoscopy.

LIMITATIONS

Acute canine model, suture markings poorly representative of epithelial polyps, limited number of animals.

CONCLUSION

The proposed self-stabilizing capsule endoscope delivered a significant improvement in detection rates of colon suture markings when compared with the unmodified capsule endoscope.

Primary care perspectives on prostate cancer screening

Although the effectiveness of prostate cancer screening is controversial, screening rates have risen dramatically among primary care providers in the United States. The authors' findings suggest more collaboration among primary care and specialty organizations, especially with respect to decision aid endorsement, is needed to achieve more discriminatory and patient-centered prostate cancer screening.

Sex differences in epidemiological, clinical and pathological characteristics of colorectal cancer

Sex significantly influences the clinical and pathological characteristics of colorectal cancer (CRC). These include differences in incidence and mortality rates, clinical presentations including age, emergency surgery for complications from CRC, screening participation rates, site, stage and treatment utilization, histopathology and survival. Environmental, behavioral and biological factors contribute to the differential risk. Recent advances in the molecular biology of CRC, specifically in microsatellite status, estrogen hormone and estrogen receptor beta, have led to greater understanding of the effect of estrogen in colorectal carcinogenesis. Estrogen may preferentially protect against microsatellite unstable cancers through its effect on selected molecular targets; however, the exact pathways have not been elucidated. Recognition of important sex disparities in these areas may lead to the implementation of specific measures to diminish these differences and facilitate equitable distribution of health resources. Identifying specific molecular targets on CRC that interact with estrogen may stimulate research to improve the overall outcomes of all patients with CRC.

Colorectal cancer screening in Europe: differences in approach; similar barriers to overcome

Worldwide diagnoses of bowel cancer approximate an estimated one million new cases per year, comprising 9% of all cancer cases, and this has continued to increase over the last 25 years. With the association between cancer risk and increasing age, together with the suggestion that by 2015 there will be a 22% increase in the proportion of the population aged over 65 years and a 50% increase in the proportion of people aged over 80 years, there is likely to be a significant increase in the demand on cancer services throughout Europe and the rest of the world. This article discusses the current state of bowel cancer screening within Europe.

Knowledge, Perceptions, and Communication about Colorectal Cancer Screening among Chinese American Primary Care Physicians

Objective

To assess Chinese American primary care physicians' knowledge, attitude, and barriers to recommending colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to their Chinese American patients.

Methods

Chinese American primary care physicians serving Chinese American patients in two metropolitan areas were invited to complete a mailed survey on CRC screening knowledge, attitudes toward shared decision making and CRC screening, and CRC screening recommendation patterns.

Results

About half of the 56 respondents did not know CRC incidence and mortality figures for Chinese Americans. Those aged 50 and younger, graduating from U.S. medical schools, or working in non-private settings had higher knowledge scores (p < 0.01). Physicians graduating from U.S. medical schools had more favorable attitudes toward shared decision making (p < 0.01). Lack of health insurance, inconsistent guidelines, and insufficient time were the most frequently cited barriers to recommending CRC screening.

Conclusions

Most Chinese American physicians had knowledge, attitude, and communication barriers to making optimal CRC screening recommendations.

Acceptance of colonoscopy requires more than test tolerance

BACKGROUND

Colon cancer screening, including colonoscopy, lags behind other forms of cancer screening for participation rates. The intrinsic nature of the endoscopic procedure may be an important barrier that limits patients from finding this test acceptable and affects willingness to undergo screening. With colon cancer screening programs emerging in Canada, test characteristics and their impact on acceptance warrant consideration.

OBJECTIVES

To measure the acceptability of colonoscopy and define factors that contribute to procedural acceptability, in relation to another invasive gastrointestinal scope procedure, gastroscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing a colonoscopy (n=55) or a gastroscopy (n=33) were recruited. Their procedural experience was evaluated and compared pre-endoscopy, immediately before testing and postendoscopy. Questionnaires were used to capture multiple domains of the endoscopy experience and patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Patient scope groups did not differ preprocedurally for general or procedure-specific anxiety. However, the colonoscopy group did anticipate more pain. Those who had a gastroscopy demonstrated higher preprocedural acceptance than those who had a colonoscopy. The colonoscopy group had a significant decrease in scope concerns and anxiety postprocedurally. As well, they reported less pain than they anticipated. Regardless, postprocedurally, the colonoscopy group's acceptance did not increase significantly, whereas the gastroscopy group was almost unanimous in their test acceptance. The best predictor of pretest acceptability of colonoscopy was anticipated pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate that concerns that relate specifically to colonoscopy, including anticipated pain, influence acceptability of the procedure. However, the experience of a colonoscopy does not lead to improved test acceptance, despite decreases in procedural anxiety and pain. Patients' preprocedural views of the test are most important and should be addressed directly to potentially improve participation in colonoscopy.

Valuing personalized medicine: willingness to pay for genetic testing for colorectal cancer risk

Objectives: Personalized medicine using genetic information is increasing in cancer screening and treatment; however, little is known about perceived value of genetic testing for cancer risk in a general population. The objectives of this report are: to identify a general population’s willingness to pay for genetic testing that provids colorectal cancer risk information; examine whether screening intentions (likelihood of testing and test choice) change based on risk; and identify providers’ beliefs about patients’ perceived value. Methods: A survey of US general (n = 1087) and physician (n = 100) populations using the willingness-to-pay method was carried out. Physicians responded from the perspective of a typical patient. χ2 tests, t-tests and ordered logistic regression were used to examine factors associated with willingness to pay and intentions to be screened. Results: General population respondents’ average willingness to pay for a genetic test for colorectal cancer risk was US$150. Higher willingness to pay was significantly associated with being male, having higher income and education, having private health insurance and reporting a greater likelihood of getting colorectal cancer screening when due. Physicians’ beliefs about patients were different than general population responses: physicians believed patients would be willing to pay more (US$212; p < 0.001), fewer believed patients would not pay (1 vs 17%; p<0.001), and if a genetic test indicated higher than average risk, physicians believed patients would be more likely to get screened (65 vs 46%; p < 0.001) and would choose alternative screening tests (62 vs 22%; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Respondents valued genetic tests to inform screening decisions and indicated that tests may influence screening choices. Additional studies are needed to examine the implications of physicians’ beliefs about patients’ choices for screening.

Colorectal cancer screening among men and women in the United States

BACKGROUND

A few previous studies have shown that men were more likely than women to be screened for colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

The 2000 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) was administered to 32,374 adults > or = 18 years of age. Participants were asked if they ever had a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy and if they ever had a home fecal occult blood test (FOBT). Men and women > or = 50 years were eligible for analysis. Participants were considered to be current in testing if they reported sigmoidoscopy in the last 5 years, colonoscopy in the last 10 years, or home FOBT in the last 1 year.

RESULTS

Overall, 62.9% of adults had ever had CRC testing, and 37.1% were current for testing. Compared to older men, a greater proportion of older women were not current for testing (62.6% for women vs. 56.7% for men > 75 years). In multivariate analysis, women were not less likely than men to be current in CRC testing (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88-1.08). When compared with white women, black women were less likely to be current for CRC screening (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

CRC screening is underused. Targeting interventions to improve CRC screening for all appropriate patients will be important.

Delivery of cancer screening: how important is the preventive health examination?

BACKGROUND

Patients and physicians strongly endorse the importance of preventive or periodic health examinations (PHEs). However, the extent to which PHEs contribute to the delivery of cancer screening is uncertain.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study, we determined the association between receipt of a PHE and cancer testing in a population-based sample of enrollees in a Washington State health plan who were aged 52 to 78 years and eligible for colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer screening in 2002-2003 (N = 64 288). Outcomes included completion of any colorectal cancer testing (fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, or barium enema), screening mammography, and prostate-specific antigen testing.

RESULTS

More than half (52.4%) of the enrollees received a PHE during the study period. After adjusting for demographics, comorbidity, number of outpatient visits, and historical preventive service use before January 1, 2002, receipt of a PHE was significantly associated with completion of colorectal cancer testing (incidence difference, 40.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 39.4%-41.3%]; relative incidence, 3.47 [95% CI, 3.34-3.59]), screening mammography [incidence difference, 14.2% [95% CI, 12.7%-15.7%]; relative incidence, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.20-1.25]), and prostate-specific antigen testing (incidence difference, 39.4% [95% CI, 38.3%-40.5%]; relative incidence, 3.06 [95% CI, 2.95-3.18]).

CONCLUSIONS

Among managed care enrollees eligible for cancer screening, PHE receipt is associated with completion of colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer testing. In similar populations, the PHE may serve as a clinically important forum for the promotion of evidence-based colorectal cancer and breast cancer screening and of screening with relatively less empirical support, such as prostate cancer screening.

Racial disparities in colon cancer. Primary care endoscopy as a tool to increase screening rates among minority patients

Colon cancer is a condition whose far-reaching effects have been well documented nationally and within the state of South Carolina. Fortunately, the disease is amenable to both primary and secondary prevention through screening colonoscopy. Despite the conceptual simplicity of recommending colonoscopy, barriers exist to universal (or even widespread) screening. Currently the infrastructure necessary to achieve screening goals set by the American Cancer Society (ACS), the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) has not been established. At current rates of training gastroenterologists, the medical community will not be able to come close to achieving widespread screening. Given the discrepancy between the public health benefit of achieving the goals and the deaths that have occurred because of the resource shortfall, we propose alternative measures to screen the at-risk population for consideration. This need is most acute in the black community, in which where screening rates tend to be lower and polyps have been found to progress more quickly than among white populations. In South Carolina, one model has used primary care physicians as the labor force to provide routine screening colonoscopy for their own patients. This model makes screening much more accessible to minority patients, as the wait is shorter and the cost typically lower. In combination with a faith-based partnership with minority religious organizations, this model has begun to make needed inroads toward addressing the disparities associated with colon cancer. Cancer 2007. (c) 2006 American Cancer Society.

Colorectal cancer screening education, prioritization, and self-perceived preparedness among primary care residents: data from a national survey

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underutilized in the United States. We conducted a national survey of CRC screening education, prioritization, and self-perceived preparedness among resident physicians in Family Practice (FP), Internal Medicine (IM), and Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB/GYN) training programs.

METHODS

Directors/administrators from 1085 FP, IM, and OB/GYN training programs were contacted by e-mail with a request to forward an invitation to participate in our Web-based CRC screening education survey to all residents in their program. Willing residents submitted responses in anonymous fashion. Data were analyzed using chi2 tests and analysis of variance methods.

RESULTS

In total, 243 program directors/administrators forwarded our invitation, and 835 residents responded (384 FP, 266 IM, 177 OB/GYN, 8 undesignated specialty). Nearly all resident responders (89%) had received CRC screening education, but few content delivery methods were reported. Most felt at least somewhat comfortable or somewhat knowledgeable with respect to advising patients about CRC screening (90%), currently endorsed CRC screening guidelines (89%), and criteria used to identify familial CRC syndromes (50%). However, substantially fewer respondents reported feeling very comfortable or very knowledgeable in these areas (45%, 23%, and 5%, respectively). Program specialty, level of training, and gender were the strongest indicators of self-perceived preparedness.

CONCLUSIONS

Although based on a relatively small sample of all FP, IM, and OB/GYN residents, these data suggest tangible opportunities to improve the CRC screening curriculum in primary care residency programs.

Colorectal cancer screening: physicians' knowledge of risk assessment and guidelines, practice, and description of barriers and facilitators

BACKGROUND

Physician nonadherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations contributes to underuse of screening.

OBJECTIVE

To assess physicians' knowledge of CRC screening guidelines for average-risk individuals, perceived barriers to screening and practice behaviours.

METHODS

Between October 2004 and March 2005, staff physicians working in three university-affiliated hospitals in Montreal, Quebec, were surveyed. Self-administered questionnaires assessed knowledge of risk classification and current guidelines for average-risk individuals, as well as perceptions of barriers to screening and practice behaviours.

RESULTS

All 65 invited physicians participated in the survey, including 46 (70.8%) family medicine physicians and 19 (29.2%) general internists. Most physicians knew that screening should begin at 50 years of age, all knew to screen men and women and 92% said they screened average-risk patients. Fifty-seven (87.7%) physicians correctly identified three common characteristics associated with high risk for developing CRC. Physicians who screened average-risk patients preferred fecal occult blood testing (88.3%) and colonoscopy (88.3%) to flexible sigmoidoscopy (10.0%) and double-contrast barium enema (30.0%). Most physicians knew the correct screening periodicity for fecal occult blood testing (87.6%), but only 40% or fewer could identify correct screening periodicities for the other modalities. Barriers and facilitators focused on health care delivery system improvements, better evidence on which to base recommendations and development of practical screening modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians lacked knowledge of the recommended screening modalities and periodicities to appropriately screen average-risk individuals. Because CRC screening can reduce mortality, efforts to improve physician delivery should focus on physician knowledge and changes to the health care delivery system.

Promoting culturally appropriate colorectal cancer screening through a health educator: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer mortality in the US. Surveys reveal low CRC screening levels among Asians in the US, including Chinese Americans.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted with Chinese patients to evaluate a clinic-based, culturally and linguistically appropriate intervention promoting fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening. The multifaceted intervention included a trilingual and bicultural health educator, bilingual materials (a video, a motivational pamphlet, an informational pamphlet, and FOBT instructions), and three FOBT cards. Patients in the control arm received usual care. Our primary outcome measure was FOBT screening within 6 months after randomization. The proportion of FOBT completion in the intervention and control arms was compared by using a chi-square test, and logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust for the effects of sociodemographic variables and prior screening history. Potential effect modifications were also tested by using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Our intervention had a strong effect on FOBT completion (intervention group, 69.5%; control group, 27.6%), and the adjusted odds of FOBT slightly increased to over 6-fold greater in the intervention arm compared with the control arm. No effect modification by age, gender, language, insurance, or prior FOBT was found.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' multifaceted, culturally appropriate intervention significantly increased FOBT screening in a group of low-income and less-acculturated minority patients. Given the large effect size, future research should determine the effective core component(s) that can increase CRC screening in both the general and minority populations.

Risk stratification for colon neoplasia: screening strategies using colonoscopy and computerized tomographic colonography

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We developed a risk index to identify low-risk patients who may be screened for colorectal cancer with computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) instead of colonoscopy.

METHODS

Asymptomatic persons aged 50 years or older who had undergone screening colonoscopy were randomized retrospectively to derivation (n = 1512) and validation (n = 1493) subgroups. We developed a risk index (based on age, sex, and family history) from the derivation group. The expected results of 3 screening strategies--universal colonoscopy, universal CTC, and a stratified strategy of colonoscopy for high-risk and CTC for low-risk patients--were then compared. Outcomes for the 3 strategies were extrapolated from the known colonic findings in each patient, using sensitivity/specificity values for CTC from the medical literature. Results were validated in the validation subgroup.

RESULTS

In the derivation subgroup, universal colonoscopy detected 94% of advanced neoplasia and universal CTC detected only 70% and resulted in the largest total number of procedures and number of patients undergoing both procedures. The stratified strategy detected 92% of advanced neoplasia, requiring colonoscopy in 68% and CTC in 36% of patients, with only 4% having to undergo both procedures. In the validation subgroup, universal colonoscopy detected 94% and universal CTC detected 71% of advanced neoplasia, whereas the stratified strategy detected 89%, requiring colonoscopy in 64% and CTC in 40%. Unlike universal CTC, the stratified strategy was independent of assumptions for CTC sensitivity, specificity, and threshold for colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The stratified strategy based on our risk index may optimize the yield of colonoscopic resources and reduce the number of patients undergoing colonoscopy.

The role of GPs in increasing compliance to colorectal cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial (Italy)

AIMS

To assess the effect of the provider (GPs versus hospital) on the compliance in returning the faecal occult blood test. To analyse the characteristics of the GP associated with high compliance among his beneficiaries.

METHODS

A questionnaire about screening attitudes was mailed to the 1192 GPs working in 13 districts of the Lazio region. We asked the GPs to participate in a randomised trial, we sampled 130 GPs and about 1/10 of the GPs' 50-75 year old beneficiaries (n = 3657) were invited to be screened at the GP office and 1/10 (3675) at the nearest gastroenterology centre.

RESULTS

58.5% of the GPs completed the questionnaire and 22.7% agreed to participate in the trial. The compliance in the GP arm was 50%, in the hospital arm 16% (RR 3.4; 95% CI: 3.13-3.70). There was a high variability in the compliance obtained by the GPs. GPs with more than 25 patients visited/day and those incorrectly recommended screening of colorectal cancer obtained a lower compliance (OR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.57-0.95 and OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.59-0.97, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The involvement of GPs in colorectal cancer screening can be very effective to enhance the compliance, but the effectiveness is dependent on their willingness to be involved.

Colorectal cancer screening awareness in European primary care

BACKGROUND

Adjustment for stage at diagnosis markedly reduces USA versus European colorectal cancer survival differences and a screening bias was therefore suspected. Moreover, little is known about colorectal cancer screening habits in European primary care and the history of guidelines implementation. The purpose of the study was to index the overall colorectal cancer screening attitudes of European physicians involved in primary care activities.

METHODS

A systematic literature-search was performed in three major medical libraries: PubMed/MEDLINE, ISI web of science, and COCHRANE.

RESULTS

We found only five eligible studies, but valuable data were presented only in four. Colorectal cancer screening was recommended by 65-95% of physicians, but the major part of them implemented it only among high-risk individuals; stool occult blood testing was advised by 42-83% and prescription of screening endoscopic modalities was inconsistent. Most European reports found were not eligible and were mainly focused on diagnostic delay in symptomatic subjects rather than on screening procedures among asymptomatic individuals.

CONCLUSION

In comparison with European practice, colorectal cancer screening habits of American physicians are to a greater extent rational, evidence-based and well monitored and have a longer tradition in medical care thus allowing better prevention services for asymptomatic individuals.

A model of stage of change to recommend colonoscopy among urban primary care physicians

Theory is little used in the prediction of physician cancer screening stage of change. Structural equation modeling was used to evaluate the theoretical predictors of stage of change to recommend colonoscopy among 235 urban physicians. Constructs from the theory of planned behavior, social-cognitive theory, and the transtheoretical model were systematically tested. As predicted, contextual factors, such as the physicians' ages, their race-ethnicities, patient race-ethnicity, and office-related barriers to preventive care were associated with stage of change through self-efficacy, normative beliefs, and negative behavioral beliefs. The findings demonstrate the relevance of these models to studying the behavior of physicians and support the development of interventions that are tailored to normative beliefs and specific physician cognitions for colonoscopy recommendation.

Barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of reports from primary care physicians and average-risk adults

BACKGROUND

Barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are not well understood.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to compare barriers to CRC screening reported by primary care physicians (PCPs) and by average-risk adults, and to examine characteristics of average-risk adults who identified lack of provider recommendation as a major barrier to CRC screening.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This was a comparative study using data from the 1999-2000 Survey of Colorectal Cancer Screening Practices and the 2000 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS).

SUBJECTS

We recruited nationally representative samples of PCPs (n= 1235) from the SCCSP and average-risk adults (n = 6497) from the NHIS.

MEASURES

We measured barriers to CRC screening identified by PCPs and average-risk adults who were not current with screening.

RESULTS

Both PCPs and average-risk adults identified lack of patient awareness and physician recommendation as key barriers to obtaining CRC screening. PCPs also frequently cited patient embarrassment/anxiety about testing and test cost/lack of insurance coverage, but few adults identified these as major barriers. Of adults not current with testing, those who had visited a doctor in the past year or had health insurance were more likely to report lack of physician recommendation as the main reason they were not up-to-date compared with their counterparts with no doctor visit or health insurance. Only 10% of adults not current with testing and who had a doctor visit in the past year reported receiving a screening recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

A need exists for continued efforts to educate the public about CRC and the important role of screening in preventing this disease. Practice-based strategies to systematically prompt health care providers to discuss CRC screening with eligible patients also are required.

Colorectal cancer screening in average risk individuals

Colorectal cancer is the third leading type of cancer, and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Prevention of colorectal cancer should be achievable by screening programs that detect adenomas in asymptomatic patients and lead to their removal. In this manuscript, we review the major screening modalities, the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, the data supporting their use, and various issues affecting the implementation of each test. Screening guidelines will be reviewed, and future techniques for colorectal cancer screening examined.

Associations in breast and colon cancer screening behavior in women

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Gender-based psychosocial factors appear to influence colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence. Given its near-universal acceptance by the public, screening mammography represents a potential "teachable moment" for educating patients about the risk of CRC. Accordingly, to better understand screening behaviors among women, data from the Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance Survey (BRFSS) were analyzed to identify potential relationships that would allow interventions to enhance CRC screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Women 50 years and older who participated in the BRFSS 2001 survey were included in the analysis. Colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening adherence with American Cancer Society guidelines was determined. We identified the association between breast and cervical cancer screening adherence and general health and demographic characteristics with CRC screening adherence.

RESULTS

After adjustment for sociodemographic factors in a multivariate analysis, women 60-69 years old (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.50; P < .01) and 70-79 years old (adjusted OR, 1.39; P < .01), having achieved at least some high school (adjusted OR, 1.62; P < .01) or college (adjusted OR, 2.11; P < .01) education, having health coverage (adjusted OR, 1.67; P < .01) or a personal physician (adjusted OR, 1.60; P < .01), and adherence to screening mammography (adjusted OR, 2.42; P < .01) and Pap smear (adjusted OR, 1.70; P < .01) were independently associated with an increased likelihood CRC screening adherence. Women in self-reported good general health were less likely to have adhered to CRC screening guidelines (adjusted OR, 0.79; P < .01). Current smokers were also less likely to have adhered to CRC screening guidelines than were women who never smoked or formerly smoked (adjusted OR, 0.76; P < .01). Participants who adhered to both mammography and Pap smear guidelines were significantly more likely to adhere to CRC screening (51.5% CRC screening adherence) compared with women who adhered to neither screening test (8.2% CRC screening adherence), with an adjusted OR of 5.67 (P < .001). Participants who adhered to both mammography and Pap smear guidelines were significantly more likely to adhere to CRC screening than were women who adhered to either screening test (38.0% CRC screening adherence) with an adjusted OR of 1.94 (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Women with up-to-date mammography and cervical cancer screening were more likely to be up-to-date with CRC screening. Regardless of the increased association between non-CRC-related cancer screening and CRC screening, rates of CRC screening utilization remained low in these otherwise compliant populations.

Effect of physician recommendation and patient adherence on rates of colorectal cancer testing

This study explored: (1) patient characteristics associated with physician recommendation for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and patient adherence to recommendation, and (2) the combined effect of recommendation and adherence on CRC testing, broadly defined. Data were from the 1999 MA BRFSS and a call-back survey of 869 BRFSS participants, age 50 and older. Logistic regression was used to identify correlates of recommendation, adherence, and testing. Patient-physician factors were positively associated with recommendation, adherence and testing. Inadequate health insurance was negatively associated with recommendation (OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.27-0.78) and testing (OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.38-1.1). Men were not more likely to be recommended (OR = 1.1, 95% CI = 0.78-1.5), but were more likely to adhere (OR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.2-2.0) and to be tested (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.0-1.9). There were gender differences in recommendation when considering health and risk factor measures. Research is needed to understand differences in recommendation and adherence. Greater encouragement and follow-through may be needed for groups less likely to adhere.

Prospective evaluation of screening colonoscopy: who is being screened?

BACKGROUND

Universal access to medical procedures is deemed an advantage of the Canadian health care system. The purposes of this prospective study were to determine the degree to which the practice of colon cancer screening by colonoscopy differed among socioeconomic classes and to assess adherence to screening guidelines.

METHODS

Consecutive patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy at a single center between August 2000 and August 2002 completed a questionnaire that determined patient characteristics and indications for the procedure. The patients were divided into two groups: screening patients, defined as individuals who indicated they were undergoing colonoscopy for screening purposes and were asymptomatic, and a control group, which comprised patients undergoing colonoscopy because of symptoms. Statistical analysis was performed to determine if patients in the screening group had different characteristics with respect to socioeconomic class, compared with the control group.

RESULTS

A total of 1088 patients completed the questionnaire: 707 (65%) had colonoscopy because of symptoms, compared with 381 (35%) who underwent a screening examination. Mean age and marital status were similar in both groups. Of all colonoscopy procedures, there was a significantly greater proportion of men undergoing colonoscopy for screening purposes: 199 (52.2%) vs. 294 (41.6%) in the symptomatic group ( p = 0.001). Based on the Cochran-Armitage test, patients in the screening group had significantly higher education levels ( p = 0.004) and household incomes ( p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Income and education level, two indices of socioeconomic status, are statistically significantly higher in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy compared with those having colonoscopy for any other reason.

A survey of women regarding factors affecting colorectal cancer screening compliance

BACKGROUND

Women participate in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening less often than men. Our study objective was to understand factors related to women's use of CRC screening. We examined the personal health, medical care, and psychosocial responses to CRC and screening use of a community-based sample of women.

METHODS

Women aged 50-80 years at average CRC risk completed a telephone questionnaire. We asked about demographics, past use of CRC and other cancer screening tests, preventive health measures, source of primary care, and comorbidities. We also inquired about attitudes and risk perceptions regarding CRC, knowledge about CRC screening, and other frequent health concerns. Logistic regression identified predictors of screening compliance.

RESULTS

Four hundred six women (52% of women contacted, average age 63 years) provided responses. Sixty-five percent had completed some form of CRC screening in the past 5 years. Four factors were positively related to CRC screening: increasing age [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.05, (95% CI 1.03, 1.08)], perceived CRC risk [AOR = 1.92, (95% CI 1.19, 3.16)], belief that screening reduces CRC risk (AOR = 2.49, 95% CI 1.45, 4.27), and belief in following screening guidelines [AOR = 4.95, (95% CI 2.07, 11.90)]. Belief that screening would be painful [AOR = 0.52, (95% CI 0.32, 0.84)] was inversely related.

CONCLUSIONS

Fear about CRC screening-related pain was the strongest impediment to screening, whereas positive attitudes about the value of CRC screening were strongly related to compliance. Addressing fears and emphasizing positive messages by providers should be included in programs promoting CRC screening in women.