Is discussion of colorectal cancer screening options associated with heightened patient confusion?

Early colorectal cancer detection-Current and evolving challenges in evidence, guidelines, policy, and practices

The understanding at the beginning of the last century that colorectal cancer began as a localized disease that progressed and became systemic, and that most colorectal cancer arose from adenomatous polyps gave rise to aggressive attempts at curative treatment and eventually attempts to detect advanced lesions before they progressed to invasive disease. In the last four decades, steadily greater uptake of screening has led to reductions in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. However, the fullest potential of screening is not being met due to the lack of organized screening, where a systems approach could lead to higher rates of screening of average and high risk groups, higher quality screening, and prompt followup of adults with positive screening tests. ABSTRACT: Since the beginning of the 20th century, there has been a general understanding that colorectal cancer is a clonal disease that progresses from a localized stage with a favorable prognosis through progressively more advanced stages which have progressively worse prognosis. That understanding led first to determined efforts to detect and treat early stage symptomatic disease, and then to detect pre-symptomatic colorectal cancer and precursor lesions, where there was hope that the natural history of the disease could be arrested and the incidence and premature mortality of colorectal cancer averted. Toward the end of the last century, guidelines for colorectal cancer screening, growth in the number of technical options for screening, and a steady increase in the proportion of the adult population who attended screening contributed to the beginning of a significant decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Despite this progress, colorectal cancer remains the third leading cause of death among men and women in the United States. Screening for early detection of precursor lesions and localized cancer offers the single most productive opportunity to further reduce the burden of disease, and yet nearly four in five deaths from colorectal cancer are associated with having never been screened, not recently screened, or not followed up for an abnormal screening test. This simple observation is a call to action in all communities to apply existing knowledge to fulfill the potential to prevent avertable incidence and mortality.

Effects of an entertaining, culturally targeted narrative and an appealing expert interview on the colorectal screening intentions of African American women

Universal screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is recommended for individuals 50-75 years of age, but screening uptake is suboptimal and African Americans have suffered persistent racial disparities in CRC incidence and deaths. We compared a culturally tailored fictional narrative and an engaging expert interview on the ability to increase intentions to be screened for CRC among African American women. In a post-only experiment, women (N = 442) in face-to-face listening groups in African American churches heard audio recordings of either a narrative or an expert interview. Questionnaires were completed immediately afterward and 30 days later. Women who heard narratives reported stronger intentions to be screened with a home stool blood test than women who heard the interview; the effect lasted at least 30 days. Culturally tailored, fictional narratives appear to be an effective persuasive strategy for reducing racial disparities in CRC outcomes.

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

A novel multitarget stool DNA test for colorectal cancer screening

Review of: Imperiale TF, Ransohoff DF, Itzkowitz SH, Levin TR, Lavin P, Lidgard GP, Ahlquist DA, Berger BM. Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2014;370(14):1287-97. This Practice Pearl reviews the results of a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional clinical study that evaluated the performance of a new multitarget stool DNA (or mt-sDNA) screening test for colorectal cancer (CRC) and compared it with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in individuals at average risk for CRC. The potential impact of this test on the future of CRC screening is also discussed in a brief commentary. mt-sDNA testing is a noninvasive screening test designed to detect DNA biomarkers associated with colorectal neoplasia and occult hemoglobin in the stool. The sensitivity of mt-sDNA testing for detection of CRC was 92.3%, compared with 73.8% for FIT (p = 0.002). Sensitivity for detecting advanced precancerous lesions was 42.4% for mt-sDNA testing and 23.8% for FIT (p < 0.001). The specificities of mt-sDNA testing and FIT were 86.6% and 94.9%, respectively (p < 0.001). mt-sDNA testing thus may be a first-line screening option for asymptomatic individuals at average risk for CRC who do not want to have a colonoscopy.

Comparison of patient preferences for fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy using the analytic hierarchy process

Background

In average-risk individuals aged 50 to 75 years, there is no difference in life-years gained when comparing colonoscopy every 10 years vs. annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colorectal cancer screening. Little is known about the preferences of patients when they have experienced both tests.

Methods

The study was conducted with 954 patients from the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics during 2010 to 2011. Patients scheduled for a colonoscopy were asked to complete a FIT before the colonoscopy preparation. Following both tests, patients completed a questionnaire which was based on an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) decision-making model.

Results

In the AHP analysis, the test accuracy was given the highest priority (0.457), followed by complications (0.321), and test preparation (0.223). Patients preferred colonoscopy (0.599) compared with FIT (0.401) when considering accuracy; preferred FIT (0.589) compared with colonoscopy (0.411) when considering avoiding complications; and preferred FIT (0.650) compared with colonoscopy (0.350) when considering test preparation. The overall aggregated priorities were 0.517 for FIT, and 0.483 for colonoscopy, indicating patients slightly preferred FIT over colonoscopy. Patients’ preferences were significantly different before and after provision of detailed information on test features (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

AHP analysis showed that patients slightly preferred FIT over colonoscopy. The information provided to patients strongly affected patient preference. Patients’ test preferences should be considered when ordering a colorectal cancer screening test.

Physician use of persuasion and colorectal cancer screening

The impact of patient-physician communication on subsequent patient behavior has rarely been evaluated in the context of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening discussions. We describe physicians' use of persuasive techniques when recommending CRC screening and evaluate its association with patients' subsequent adherence to screening. Audio recordings of N = 414 periodic health examinations were joined with screening use data from electronic medical records and pre-/post-visit patient surveys. The association between persuasion and screening was assessed using generalized estimating equations. According to observer ratings, primary care physicians frequently use persuasive techniques (63 %) when recommending CRC screening, most commonly argument or refutation. However, physician persuasion was not associated with subsequent screening adherence. Physician use of persuasion may be a common vehicle for information provision during CRC screening discussions; however, our results do not support the sole reliance on persuasive techniques if the goal is to improve adherence to recommended screening.

Explaining persistent under-use of colonoscopic cancer screening in African Americans: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Although African Americans have the highest incidence and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC), they are less likely than other racial groups to undergo CRC screening. Previous research has identified barriers to CRC screening among African Americans. However we lack a systematic review that synthesizes contributing factors and informs interventions to address persistent disparities.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to evaluate barriers to colonoscopic CRC screening in African Americans. We developed a conceptual model to summarize the patient-, provider-, and system-level barriers and suggest strategies to address these barriers.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies met inclusion criteria. Patient barriers to colonoscopy included fear, poor knowledge of CRC risk, and low perceived benefit of colonoscopy. Provider-level factors included failure to recommend screening and knowledge deficits about guidelines and barriers to screening. System barriers included financial obstacles, lack of insurance and access to care, and intermittent primary care visits.

CONCLUSIONS

There are modifiable barriers to colonoscopic CRC screening among African Americans. Future interventions should confront patient fear, patient and physician knowledge about barriers, and access to healthcare services. As the Affordable Care Act aims to improve uptake of preventive services, focused interventions to increase CRC screening in African Americans are essential and timely.

Influence of provider discussion and specific recommendation on colorectal cancer screening uptake among U.S. adults

OBJECTIVES

It is unclear if provider recommendations regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modalities affect patient compliance. We evaluated provider-patient communications about CRC screening with and without a specific screening modality recommendation on patient compliance with screening guidelines.

METHODS

We used the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) and identified 4283 respondents who were at least 50 years of age and answered questions about their communication with their care providers and CRC screening uptake. We defined being compliant with CRC screening as the use of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) within 1 year, sigmoidoscopy within 5 years, or colonoscopy within 10 years. We used survey weights in all analyses.

RESULTS

CRC screening discussions occurred with 3320 (76.2%) respondents. Approximately 95% of these discussions were with physicians. Overall, 2793 (62.6%) respondents were current with CRC screening regardless of the screening modality. Discussion about screening (odds ratio (OR)=8.83; 95% confidence interval (CI): 7.20-10.84) and providers making a specific recommendation about screening modality rather than leaving it to the patient to decide (OR=2.04; 95% CI: 1.54-2.68) were associated with patient compliance with CRC screening guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Compliance with CRC screening guidelines is improved when providers discuss options and make specific screening test recommendations.

Informed choice vs. no choice in colorectal cancer screening tests: a prospective cohort study in real-life screening practice

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare the level of adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs among screening participants offered vs. not offered informed choices on screening modality.

METHODS

We recruited 10,606 screening participants aged 50-70 years, including 6,397 subjects who were offered a choice of yearly fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for up to 3 years vs. one colonoscopy, and 4,209 subjects who were offered either FIT or colonoscopy without choice. They were prospectively followed up for 3 years. The proportion of screening participants who returned their specimens in all subsequent years (FIT group) and the attendance rate of scheduled endoscopy appointment (colonoscopy group) were compared between those with vs. without choice.

RESULTS

The adherence rate with FIT was 97.6%, 84.1%, and 72.6% in the first 3 years of follow-up, respectively, among those who were offered a choice. The adherence rate with FIT was 97.5%, 78.4%, and 62.8%, respectively, among those without choices. The proportion of subjects attending colonoscopy was 95.7% (choice offered) and 90.6% (no choice). From binary logistic regression analysis, participants who were offered informed choice were significantly more likely to adhere to the program when compared with those without test choices (odds ratio (OR)=2.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.30-2.82, P<0.001). The respective adjusted OR for the FIT and colonoscopy groups was 1.60 (95% CI: 1.42-1.80, P<0.001) and 2.53 (95% CI: 1.94-3.31, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that patients who were offered an informed choice for screening had higher adherence rates than patients who were not offered a choice in real-life practices, suggesting that providing screening test options for CRC screening is preferred.

The effects of test preference, test access, and navigation on colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how colorectal cancer screening test preferences operate together with test access and navigation to influence screening adherence in primary care.

METHODS

We analyzed data from a randomized trial of 945 primary care patients to assess the independent effects of screening test preference for fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy, mailed access to FIT and colonoscopy, and telephone navigation for FIT and colonoscopy, on screening.

RESULTS

Preference was not associated with overall screening, but individuals who preferred FIT were more likely to complete FIT screening (P = 0.005), whereas those who preferred colonoscopy were more likely to perform colonoscopy screening (P = 0.032). Mailed access to FIT and colonoscopy was associated with increased overall screening (OR = 2.6, P = 0.001), due to a 29-fold increase in FIT use. Telephone navigation was also associated with increased overall screening (OR = 2.1, P = 0.005), mainly due to a 3-fold increase in colonoscopy performance. We estimated that providing access and navigation for both screening tests may substantially increase screening compared with a preference-tailored approach, mainly due to increased performance of nonpreferred tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Preference influences the type of screening tests completed. Test access increases FIT and navigation mainly increases colonoscopy. Screening strategies providing access and navigation to both tests may be more effective than preference-tailored approaches.

IMPACT

Preference tailoring in colorectal cancer screening strategies should be avoided if the objective is to maximize screening rates, although other factors (e.g., costs, necessary follow-up) should also be considered.

Provider perspectives on the utility of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid for facilitating shared decision making

BACKGROUND

Decision aids for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have been shown to enable patients to identify a preferred screening option, but the extent to which such tools facilitate shared decision making (SDM) from the perspective of the provider is less well established.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to elicit provider feedback regarding the impact of a CRC screening decision aid on SDM in the primary care setting.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Primary care providers participating in a clinical trial evaluating the impact of a novel CRC screening decision aid on SDM and adherence.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Perceptions of the impact of the tool on decision-making and implementation issues.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine of 42 (71%) eligible providers responded, including 27 internists and two nurse practitioners. The majority (>60%) felt that use of the tool complimented their usual approach, increased patient knowledge, helped patients identify a preferred screening option, improved the quality of decision making, saved time and increased patients' desire to get screened. Respondents were more neutral is their assessment of whether the tool improved the overall quality of the patient visit or patient satisfaction. Fewer than 50% felt that the tool would be easy to implement into their practices or that it would be widely used by their colleagues.

CONCLUSION

Decision aids for CRC screening can improve the quality and efficiency of SDM from the provider perspective but future use is likely to depend on the extent to which barriers to implementation can be addressed.

Risk assessment and clinical decision making for colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) related to test preference has been advocated as a potentially effective strategy for increasing adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet primary care providers (PCPs) are often reluctant to comply with patient preferences if they differ from their own. Risk stratification advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) provides a rational strategy for reconciling these differences.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the importance of risk stratification in PCP decision making related to test preference for average-risk patients and receptivity to use of an electronic risk assessment tool for ACN to facilitate SDM.

DESIGN

Mixed methods, including qualitative key informant interviews and a cross-sectional survey.

PARTICIPANTS

PCPs at an urban, academic safety-net institution.

MAIN MEASURES

Screening preferences, factors influencing patient recommendations and receptivity to use of a risk stratification tool.

KEY RESULTS

Nine PCPs participated in interviews and 57 completed the survey. Despite an overwhelming preference for colonoscopy by 95% of respondents, patient risk (67%) and patient preferences (63%) were more influential in their decision making than patient comorbidities (31%; P < 0.001). Age was the single most influential risk factor (excluding family history), with <20% of respondents choosing factors other than age. Most respondents reported that they would be likely to use a risk stratification tool in their practice either 'often' (43%) or sometimes (53%).

CONCLUSIONS

Risk stratification was perceived to be important in clinical decision making, yet few providers considered risk factors other than age for average-risk patients. Providers were receptive to the use of a risk assessment tool for ACN when recommending an appropriate screening test for select patients.

A personalized automated messaging system to improve adherence to prostate cancer screening: research protocol

Background

Public adherence to cancer screening guidelines is poor. Patient confusion over multiple recommendations and modalities for cancer screening has been found to be a major barrier to screening adherence. Such problems will only increase as screening guidelines and timetables become individualized.

Objective

We propose to increase compliance with cancer screening through two-way rich media mobile messaging based on personalized risk assessment.

Methods

We propose to develop and test a product that will store algorithms required to personalize cancer screening in a central database managed by a rule-based workflow engine, and implemented via messaging to the patient’s mobile phone. We will conduct a randomized controlled trial focusing on prostate cancer screening to study the hypothesis that mobile reminders improve adherence to screening guidelines. We will also explore a secondary hypothesis that patients who reply to the messaging reminders are more engaged and at lower risk of non-adherence. We will conduct a randomized controlled trial in a sample of males between 40 and 75 years (eligible for prostate cancer screening) who are willing to receive text messages, email, or automated voice messages. Participants will be recruited from a primary care clinic and asked to schedule prostate cancer screening at the clinic within the next 3 weeks. The intervention group will receive reminders and confirmation communications for making an appointment, keeping the appointment, and reporting the test results back to the investigators. Three outcomes will be evaluated: (1) the proportion of participants who make an appointment with a physician following a mobile message reminder, (2) the proportion of participants who keep the appointment, and (3) the proportion of participants who report the results of the screening (via text or Web).

Results

This is an ongoing project, supported by by a small business commercialization grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health.

Conclusions

We believe that the use of centralized databases and text messaging could improve adherence with screening guidelines. Furthermore, we anticipate this method of increasing patient engagement could be applied to a broad range of health issues, both inside and outside of the context of cancer. This project will be an important first step in determining the feasibility of personalized text messaging to improve long-term adherence to screening recommendations.

Patient-provider discussions about colorectal cancer screening: who initiates elements of informed decision making?

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates remain low among low-income minority populations.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate informed decision making (IDM) elements about CRC screening among low-income minority patients.

DESIGN

Observational data were collected as part of a patient-level randomized controlled trial to improve CRC screening rates. Medical visits (November 2007 to May 2010) were audio-taped and coded for IDM elements about CRC screening. Near the end of the study one provider refused recording of patients' visits (33 of 270 patients). Among all patients in the trial, agreement to be audio taped was 43.5 % (103/237). Evaluable patient (n = 100) visits were assessed for CRC screening discussion occurrence, IDM elements, and who initiated discussion of each IDM element.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients were African American (72.2 %), female (63.7 %), with annual household incomes <$20,000 (60.7 %), without health insurance (57.0 %), and limited health literacy (53.7 %).

KEY RESULTS

Although CRC screening was mentioned during 48 (48 %) visits, no further discussion about screening occurred in 23 visits (19 times mentioned by the participant with no response from providers). During any visit, the maximum number of IDM elements was five; however, only two visits included five elements. The most common IDM element discussed in addition to the nature of the decision was the assessment of the patient's understanding in 16 (33.3 %) of the visits that included a CRC discussion.

CONCLUSIONS

A patient activation intervention initiated CRC screening discussions with health care providers; however, limited IDM occurred about CRC screening during medical visits of minority and low-income patients.

Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: a randomized clinical trial of competing strategies

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence that several colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies can reduce CRC mortality, screening rates remain low. This study aimed to determine whether the approach by which screening is recommended influences adherence.

METHODS

We used a cluster randomization design with clinic time block as the unit of randomization. Persons at average risk for development of CRC in a racially/ethnically diverse urban setting were randomized to receive recommendation for screening by fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), colonoscopy, or their choice of FOBT or colonoscopy. The primary outcome was completion of CRC screening within 12 months after enrollment, defined as performance of colonoscopy, or 3 FOBT cards plus colonoscopy for any positive FOBT result. Secondary analyses evaluated sociodemographic factors associated with completion of screening.

RESULTS

A total of 997 participants were enrolled; 58% completed the CRC screening strategy they were assigned or chose. However, participants who were recommended colonoscopy completed screening at a significantly lower rate (38%) than participants who were recommended FOBT (67%) (P < .001) or given a choice between FOBT or colonoscopy (69%) (P < .001). Latinos and Asians (primarily Chinese) completed screening more often than African Americans. Moreover, nonwhite participants adhered more often to FOBT, while white participants adhered more often to colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The common practice of universally recommending colonoscopy may reduce adherence to CRC screening, especially among racial/ethnic minorities. Significant variation in overall and strategy-specific adherence exists between racial/ethnic groups; however, this may be a proxy for health beliefs and/or language. These results suggest that patient preferences should be considered when making CRC screening recommendations. Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00705731.

Primary care colorectal cancer screening recommendation patterns: associated factors and screening outcomes

BACKGROUND

The relationship of a primary care provider's (PCP's) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies to completion of screening is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To describe PCP test recommendation patterns and associated factors and their relationship to patient test completion.

DESIGN

This cross-sectional study used a PCP survey, in-depth PCP interviews, and electronic medical records.

SETTING

Kaiser Permanente Northwest health maintenance organization.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants included 132 PCPs and 49,259 eligible patients aged 51 to 75.

MEASUREMENTS

The authors grouped PCPs by patterns of CRC screening recommendations based on reported frequency of recommending fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), and colonoscopy. They then compared PCP demographics, reported CRC screening test influences, concerns, decision-making and counseling processes, and actual rates of patient CRC screening completion by PCP group.

RESULTS

The authors identified 4 CRC screening recommendation groups: a "balanced" group (n = 54; 40.9%) that recommended the tests nearly equally, an FOBT group (n = 31; 23.5%) that largely recommended FOBT, an FOBT + FS group (n = 25; 18.9%), and a colonoscopy + FOBT group (n = 22; 16.7%) that recommended these tests nearly equally. Internal medicine (v. family medicine) PCPs were more common in groups more frequently recommending endoscopy. The FOBT and FOBT + FS groups were most influenced by clinical guidelines. Groups recommending more endoscopy were most concerned that FOBT generates a relatively high number of false positives and FOBT can miss cancers. The FOBT and FOBT + FS groups were more likely to recommend a specific screening strategy compared to the colonoscopy + FOBT and balanced groups, which were more likely to let the patient decide. CRC screening rates were 63.9% balanced, 62.9% FOBT, 61.7% FOBT + FS, and 62.2% colonoscopy + FOBT; rates did not differ significantly by group.

LIMITATIONS

Small numbers within PCP groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Specialty, the influence of guidelines, test concerns, and the "jointness" of the test selection decision distinguished CRC screening recommendation patterns. All patterns were associated with similar overall screening rates.

Risk of advanced colorectal neoplasia according to age and gender

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading causes of cancer related morbidity and death. Despite the fact that the mean age at diagnosis of CRC is lower in men, screening by colonoscopy or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is initiated at same age in both genders. The prevalence of the common CRC precursor lesion, advanced adenoma, is well documented only in the screening population. The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of advanced adenoma at ages below screening age.

Methods and Findings

We analyzed data from a census of 625,918 outpatient colonoscopies performed in adults in Bavaria between 2006 and 2008. A logistic regression model to determine gender- and age-specific risk of advanced neoplasia was developed. Advanced neoplasia was found in 16,740 women (4.6%) and 22,684 men (8.6%). Male sex was associated with an overall increased risk of advanced neoplasia (odds ratio 1.95; 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.91 to 2.00). At any age and in any indication group, more colonoscopies were needed in women than in men to detect advanced adenoma or cancer. At age 75 14.8 (95% CI, 14.4–15.2) screening, 18.2 (95% CI, 17.7–18.7) diagnostic, and 7.9 (95% CI, 7.6–8.2) colonoscopies to follow up on a positive FOBT (FOBT colonoscopies) were needed to find advanced adenoma in women. At age 50 39.0 (95% CI, 38.0–40.0) diagnostic, and 16.3 (95% CI, 15.7–16.9) FOBT colonoscopies were needed. Comparable numbers were reached 20 and 10 years earlier in men than in women, respectively.

Conclusions

At any age and independent of the indication for colonoscopy, men are at higher risk of having advanced neoplasia diagnosed upon colonoscopy than women. This suggests that starting screening earlier in life in men than in women might result in a relevant increase in the detection of asymptomatic preneoplastic and neoplastic colonic lesions.