Screening practices of unaffected people at familial risk of colorectal cancer

Screening uptake of colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in first-degree relatives of patients with non-syndromic colorectal cancer: A multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized trial (ParCoFit study)

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy screening is underused by first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with non-syndromic colorectal cancer (CRC) with screening completion rates below 50%. Studies conducted in FDR referred for screening suggest that fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) was not inferior to colonoscopy in terms of diagnostic yield and tumor staging, but screening uptake of FIT has not yet been tested in this population. In this study, we investigated whether the uptake of FIT screening is superior to the uptake of colonoscopy screening in the familial-risk population, with an equivalent effect on CRC detection.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This open-label, parallel-group, randomized trial was conducted in 12 Spanish centers between February 2016 and December 2021. Eligible individuals included asymptomatic FDR of index cases <60 years, siblings or ≥2 FDR with CRC. The primary outcome was to compare screening uptake between colonoscopy and FIT. The secondary outcome was to determine the efficacy of each strategy to detect advanced colorectal neoplasia (adenoma or serrated polyps ≥10 mm, polyps with tubulovillous architecture, high-grade dysplasia, and/or CRC). Screening-naïve FDR were randomized (1:1) to one-time colonoscopy versus annual FIT during 3 consecutive years followed by a work-up colonoscopy in the case of a positive test. Randomization was performed before signing the informed consent using computer-generated allocation algorithm based on stratified block randomization. Multivariable regression analysis was performed by intention-to-screen. On December 31, 2019, when 81% of the estimated sample size was reached, the trial was terminated prematurely after an interim analysis for futility. Study outcomes were further analyzed through 2-year follow-up. The main limitation of this study was the impossibility of collecting information on eligible individuals who declined to participate. A total of 1,790 FDR of 460 index cases were evaluated for inclusion, of whom 870 were assigned to undergo one-time colonoscopy (n = 431) or FIT (n = 439). Of them, 383 (44.0%) attended the appointment and signed the informed consent: 147/431 (34.1%) FDR received colonoscopy-based screening and 158/439 (35.9%) underwent FIT-based screening (odds ratio [OR] 1.08; 95% confidence intervals [CI] [0.82, 1.44], p = 0.564). The detection rate of advanced colorectal neoplasia was significantly higher in the colonoscopy group than in the FIT group (OR 3.64, 95% CI [1.55, 8.53], p = 0.003). Study outcomes did not change throughout follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, compared to colonoscopy, FIT screening did not improve screening uptake by individuals at high risk of CRC, resulting in less detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia. Further studies are needed to assess how screening uptake could be improved in this high-risk group, including by inclusion in population-based screening programs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02567045).

Single CT Appointment for Double Lung and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Is the Time Ripe?

Annual screening of lung cancer (LC) with chest low-dose computed tomography (CT) and screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) with CT colonography every 5 years are recommended by the United States Prevention Service Task Force. We review epidemiological and pathological data on LC and CRC, and the features of screening chest low-dose CT and CT colonography comprising execution, reading, radiation exposure and harm, and the cost effectiveness of the two CT screening interventions. The possibility of combining chest low-dose CT and CT colonography examinations for double LC and CRC screening in a single CT appointment is then addressed. We demonstrate how this approach appears feasible and is already reasonable as an opportunistic screening intervention in 50–75-year-old subjects with smoking history and average CRC risk. In addition to the crucial role Computer Assisted Diagnosis systems play in decreasing the test reading times and the need to educate radiologists in screening chest LDCT and CT colonography, in view of a single CT appointment for double screening, the following uncertainties need to be solved: (1) the schedule of the screening CT; (2) the effectiveness of iterative reconstruction and deep learning algorithms affording an ultra-low-dose CT acquisition technique and (3) management of incidental findings. Resolving these issues will imply new cost-effectiveness analyses for LC screening with chest low dose CT and for CRC screening with CT colonography and, especially, for the double LC and CRC screening with a single-appointment CT.

Exploring a novel method for optimising the implementation of a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool into primary care: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

We developed a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool ('CRISP') to provide individualised risk-based advice for colorectal cancer screening. Using known environmental, behavioural, and familial risk factors, CRISP was designed to facilitate tailored screening advice to patients aged 50 to 74 years in general practice. In parallel to a randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool, we developed and evaluated an evidence-based implementation strategy.

METHODS

Qualitative methods were used to explore the implementation of CRISP in general practice. Using one general practice in regional Victoria, Australia, as a 'laboratory', we tested ways to embed CRISP into routine clinical practice. General practitioners, nurses, and operations manager co-designed the implementation methods with researchers, focussing on existing practice processes that would be sustainable. Researchers interviewed the staff regularly to assess the successfulness of the strategies employed, and implementation methods were adapted throughout the study period in response to feedback from qualitative interviews. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) underpinned the development of the interview guide and intervention strategy. Coding was inductive and themes were developed through consensus between the authors. Emerging themes were mapped onto the CFIR domains and a fidelity checklist was developed to ensure CRISP was being used as intended.

RESULTS

Between December 2016 and September 2019, 1 interviews were conducted, both face-to-face and via videoconferencing (Zoom). All interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded. Themes were mapped onto the following CFIR domains: (1) 'characteristics of the intervention': CRISP was valued but time consuming; (2) 'inner setting': the practice was open to changing systems; 3. 'outer setting': CRISP helped facilitate screening; (4) 'individual characteristics': the practice staff were adaptable and able to facilitate adoption of new clinical processes; and (5) 'processes': fidelity checking, and education was important.

CONCLUSIONS

These results describe a novel method for exploring implementation strategies for a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool in the context of a parallel RCT testing clinical efficacy. The study identified successful and unsuccessful implementation strategies using an adaptive methodology over time. This method emphasised the importance of co-design input to make an intervention like CRISP sustainable for use in other practices and with other risk tools.

A scoping review of social and behavioral science research to translate genomic discoveries into population health impact

Since the completion of the Human Genome Project, progress toward translating genomic research discoveries to address population health issues has been limited. Several meetings of social and behavioral scientists have outlined priority research areas where advancement of translational research could increase population health benefits of genomic discoveries. In this review, we track the pace of progress, study size and design, and focus of genomics translational research from 2012 to 2018 and its concordance with five social and behavioral science recommended priorities. We conducted a review of the literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Guidelines for Scoping Reviews. Steps involved completing a search in five databases and a hand search of bibliographies of relevant literature. Our search (from 2012 to 2018) yielded 4,538 unique studies; 117 were included in the final analyses. Two coders extracted data including items from the PICOTS framework. Analysis included descriptive statistics to help identify trends in pace, study size and design, and translational priority area. Among the 117 studies included in our final sample, nearly half focused on genomics applications that have evidence to support translation or implementation into practice (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Tier 1 applications). Common study designs were cross-sectional (40.2%) and qualitative (24.8%), with average sample sizes of 716 across all studies. Most often, studies addressed public understanding of genetics and genomics (33.3%), risk communication (29.1%), and intervention development and testing of interventions to promote behavior change (19.7%). The number of studies that address social and behavioral science priority areas is extremely limited and the pace of this research continues to lag behind basic science advances. Much of the research identified in this review is descriptive and related to public understanding, risk communication, and intervention development and testing of interventions to promote behavior change. The field has been slow to develop and evaluate public health-friendly interventions and test implementation approaches that could enable health benefits and equitable access to genomic discoveries. As the completion of the human genome approaches its 20th anniversary, full engagement of transdisciplinary efforts to address translation challenges will be required to close this gap.

Hereditary colorectal cancer screening: A 10-year longitudinal cohort study following an educational intervention

Family history (FH) of a first-degree relative with colorectal cancer (CRC) is associated with two to fourfold increased risk, yet screening uptake is suboptimal despite proven mortality reduction. We developed a FH-based CRC Risk Triage/Management tool for family physicians (FPs), and educational booklet for patients with CRC FH. This report describes physician referral and patient screening behavior 5 and 10 years post-educational intervention, and factors associated with screening. Longitudinal cohort study. FPs/patients in Ontario and Newfoundland, Canada were sent questionnaires at baseline (2005), 5 and 10 years (2015) following tool/booklet receipt. FPs were asked about CRC screening, patients about FH, screening type and timing. "Correct" screening was concordance with tool recommendations. Results reported for 29/121 (24%) FPs and 98/297 (33%) patients who completed all 3 questionnaires. Over 10 years 2/3 patients received the correct CRC screening test at appropriate timing (baseline 75%, 5-year 62%, 10-year 65%). About half reported their FP recommended CRC screening (5-year 51%, 10-year 63%). Fewer than half the patients correctly assessed their CRC risk (44%, 40%, 41%). Patients were less likely to have correct screening timing if female (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.61, 0.99; p = 0.045). Patients were less likely to have both correct test and timing if moderate/high CRC risk (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.47, 0.93; p = 0.017) and more likely if their physician recommended screening (RR1.69; 95% CI 1.15, 2.49; p = 0.007). Physician discussion of CRC risk and screening can positively impact patient screening behavior. Efforts are particularly needed for women and patients at moderate/high CRC risk.

The CRISP-P study: feasibility of a self-completed colorectal cancer risk prediction tool in primary care

OBJECTIVE

Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) globally. Our research team has developed a CRC risk prediction tool for use in primary care to increase targeted screening. This study, Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction tool - patient ('CRISP-P'), aimed to determine the following to inform a future trial design: (i) the feasibility of self-reporting; (ii) the feasibility of recruitment methods; and (iii) the prevalence of CRC risk.

METHODS

Participants aged between 40 and 75 years were recruited consecutively from three primary care waiting rooms. Participants input data into CRISP on a tablet without receiving clinical advice. Feasibility was evaluated using recruitment rate, timely completion, a self-reported 'ease-of-use', score and field notes. Prevalence of CRC risk was calculated using the CRISP model.

RESULTS

Five hundred sixty-one (90%) patients agreed to use the tool and 424 (84%) rated the tool easy to use. Despite this, 41% of people were unable to complete the questions without assistance. Patients who were older, without tertiary education or with English as their second language were more likely to require assistance (P < 0.001). Thirty-nine percent of patients were low risk, 58% at slightly increased and 2.4% were at moderately increased risk of developing colorectal cancer in the next 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The tool was perceived as easy to use, although older, less educated people, and patients with English as their second language needed help. The data support the recruitment methods but not the use of a self-completed tool for an efficacy trial.

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Targeted, Personalized Risk Information to Increase Appropriate Screening by First-Degree Relatives of People With Colorectal Cancer

Background. Economic evaluations are less commonly applied to implementation interventions compared to clinical interventions. The efficacy of an implementation strategy to improve adherence to screening guidelines among first-degree relatives of people with colorectal cancer was recently evaluated in a randomized-controlled trial. Using these trial data, we examined the costs and cost-effectiveness of the intervention from societal and health care funder perspectives. Method. In this prospective, trial-based evaluation, mean costs, and outcomes were calculated. The primary outcome of the trial was the proportion of participants who had screening tests in the year following the intervention commensurate with their risk category. Quality-adjusted life years were included as secondary outcomes. Intervention costs were determined from trial records. Standard Australian unit costs for 2016/2017 were applied. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the net benefit framework. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to calculate uncertainty intervals (UIs) around the costs and the incremental net monetary benefit statistic. Results. Compared with usual care, mean health sector costs were $17 (95% UI [$14, $24]) higher for those receiving the intervention. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the primary trial outcome was calculated to be $258 (95% UI [$184, $441]) per additional person appropriately screened. The significant difference in adherence to screening guidelines between the usual care and intervention groups did not translate into a mean quality-adjusted life year difference. Discussion. Providing information on both the costs and outcomes of implementation interventions is important to inform public health care investment decisions. Challenges in the application of cost-utility analysis hampered the interpretation of results and potentially underestimated the value of the intervention. Further research in the form of a modeled extrapolation of the intermediate increased adherence effect and distributional cost-effectiveness to include equity requirements is warranted.

Family history-based colorectal cancer screening in Australia: A modelling study of the costs, benefits, and harms of different participation scenarios

BACKGROUND

The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NBCSP) was introduced in 2006. When fully implemented, the programme will invite people aged 50 to 74 to complete an immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) every 2 years.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

To investigate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening occurring outside of the NBCSP, we classified participants (n = 2,480) in the Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (ACCFR) into 3 risk categories (average, moderately increased, and potentially high) based on CRC family history and assessed their screening practices according to national guidelines. We developed a microsimulation to compare hypothetical screening scenarios (70% and 100% uptake) to current participation levels (baseline) and evaluated clinical outcomes and cost for each risk category. The 2 main limitations of this study are as follows: first, the fact that our cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective, which does not include indirect costs and results in overestimated cost-effectiveness ratios, and second, that our natural history model of CRC does not include polyp sojourn time, which determines the rate of cancerous transformation. Screening uptake was low across all family history risk categories (64%-56% reported no screening). For participants at average risk, 18% reported overscreening, while 37% of those in the highest risk categories screened according to guidelines. Higher screening levels would substantially reduce CRC mortality across all risk categories (95 to 305 fewer deaths per 100,000 persons in the 70% scenario versus baseline). For those at average risk, a fully implemented NBCSP represented the most cost-effective approach to prevent CRC deaths (AUS$13,000-16,000 per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]). For those at moderately increased risk, higher adherence to recommended screening was also highly cost-effective (AUS$19,000-24,000 per QALY).

CONCLUSION

Investing in public health strategies to increase adherence to appropriate CRC screening will save lives and deliver high value for money.

The use of a risk assessment and decision support tool (CRISP) compared with usual care in general practice to increase risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence rates of colorectal cancer worldwide. In Australia there is significant unwarranted variation in colorectal cancer screening due to low uptake of the immunochemical faecal occult blood test, poor identification of individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer, and over-referral of individuals at average risk for colonoscopy. Our pre-trial research has developed a novel Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction (CRISP) tool, which could be used to implement precision screening in primary care. This paper describes the protocol for a phase II multi-site individually randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool in primary care.

METHODS

This trial aims to test whether a standardised consultation using the CRISP tool in general practice (the CRISP intervention) increases risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening compared to control participants who receive standardised information on cancer prevention. Patients between 50 and 74 years old, attending an appointment with their general practitioner for any reason, will be invited into the trial. A total of 732 participants will be randomised to intervention or control arms using a computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by general practice. The primary outcome (risk-appropriate screening at 12 months) will be measured using baseline data for colorectal cancer risk and objective health service data to measure screening behaviour. Secondary outcomes will include participant cancer risk perception, anxiety, cancer worry, screening intentions and health service utilisation measured at 1, 6 and 12 months post randomisation.

DISCUSSION

This trial tests a systematic approach to implementing risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening in primary care, based on an individual's absolute risk, using a state-of-the-art risk assessment tool. Trial results will be reported in 2020.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12616001573448p . Registered on 14 November 2016.

The CRISP colorectal cancer risk prediction tool: an exploratory study using simulated consultations in Australian primary care

Background

In Australia, screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) with colonoscopy is meant to be reserved for people at increased risk, however, currently there is a mismatch between individuals’ risk of CRC and the type of CRC screening they receive.

This paper describes the development and optimisation of a Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction tool (‘CRISP’) for use in primary care. The aim of the CRISP tool is to increase risk-appropriate CRC screening.

Methods

CRISP development was informed by previous experience with developing risk tools for use in primary care and a systematic review of the evidence. A CRISP prototype was used in simulated consultations by general practitioners (GPs) with actors as patients. GPs were interviewed to explore their experience of using CRISP, and practice nurses (PNs) and practice managers (PMs) were interviewed after a demonstration of CRISP. Transcribed interviews and video footage of the ‘consultations’ were qualitatively analyzed. Themes arising from the data were mapped onto Normalization Process Theory (NPT).

Results

Fourteen GPs, nine PNs and six PMs were recruited from 12 clinics. Results were described using the four constructs of NPT: 1) Coherence: Clinicians understood the rationale behind CRISP, particularly since they were familiar with using risk tools for other conditions; 2) Cognitive participation: GPs welcomed the opportunity CRISP provided to discuss healthy and unhealthy behaviors with their patients, but many GPs challenged the screening recommendation generated by CRISP; 3) Collective Action: CRISP disrupted clinician-patient flow if the GP was less comfortable with computers. GP consultation time was a major implementation barrier and overall consensus was that PNs have more capacity and time to use CRISP effectively; 4) Reflexive monitoring: Limited systematic monitoring of new interventions is a potential barrier to the sustainable embedding of CRISP.

Conclusions

CRISP has the potential to improve risk-appropriate CRC screening in primary care but was considered more likely to be successfully implemented as a nurse-led intervention.

Evaluation of a population-based approach to familial colorectal cancer

As Newfoundland has the highest rate of familial colorectal cancer (CRC) in the world, we started a population‐based clinic to provide colonoscopic and Lynch syndrome (LS) screening recommendations to families of CRC patients based on family risk. Of 1091 incident patients 51% provided a family history. Seventy‐two percent of families were at low or intermediate–low risk of CRC and colonoscopic screening recommendations were provided by letter. Twenty‐eight percent were at high and intermediate–high risk and were referred to the genetic counsellor, but only 30% (N = 48) were interviewed by study end. Colonoscopy was recommended more frequently than every 5 years in 35% of families. Lower family risk was associated with older age of proband but the frequency of screening colonoscopy recommendations varied across all age groups, driven by variability in family history. Twenty‐four percent had a high MMR predict score for a Lynch syndrome mutation, and 23% fulfilled the Provincial Program criteria for LS screening. A population‐based approach in the provision of colonoscopic screening recommendations to families at risk of CRC was limited by the relatively low response rate. A family history first approach to the identification of LS families was inefficient.

Can a print-based intervention increase screening for first degree relatives of people with colorectal cancer? A randomised controlled trial

Objective: To test the effectiveness of a targeted print‐based intervention to improve screening adherence in first degree relatives of people with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods: People with CRC and their adult first degree relatives were identified through a population‐based cancer registry and randomly allocated as a family unit to the intervention or control condition. The control group received general information about CRC screening. The intervention group received printed advice regarding screening that was targeted to their risk level. Screening adherence was assessed at baseline and at 12 months via self report.

Results: 752 (25%) index cases and 574 (34%) eligible first degree relatives consented to take part in the trial and completed baseline interviews. At 12 months, 58% of first degree relatives in the control group and 61% in the intervention group were adherent to screening guidelines (mixed effects logistic regression group by time interaction effect =2.7; 95%CI=1.2–5.9; P=0.013). Subgroup analysis indicated that the intervention was only effective for those with the lowest risk.

Conclusions: Provision of personalised risk information may have a modest effect on adherence to CRC screening recommendations among first degree relatives of people diagnosed with CRC.

Implications: Improved strategies for identifying and engaging first degree relatives are needed to maximise the population impact of the intervention.

Understanding the contribution of family history to colorectal cancer risk and its clinical implications: A state-of-the-science review

Persons with a family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) or adenomas that are not due to known hereditary syndromes have an increased risk for CRC. An understanding of these risks, screening recommendations, and screening behaviors can inform strategies for reducing the CRC burden in these families. A comprehensive review of the literature published within the past 10 years has been performed to assess what is known about cancer risk, screening guidelines, adherence and barriers to screening, and effective interventions in persons with an FH of CRC and to identify FH tools used to identify these individuals and inform care. Existing data show that having 1 affected first-degree relative (FDR) increases the CRC risk 2-fold, and the risk increases with multiple affected FDRs and a younger age at diagnosis. There is variability in screening recommendations across consensus guidelines. Screening adherence is <50% and is lower in persons under the age of 50 years. A provider's recommendation, multiple affected relatives, and family encouragement facilitate screening; insufficient collection of FH, low knowledge of guidelines, and poor family communication are important barriers. Effective interventions incorporate strategies for overcoming barriers, but these have not been broadly tested in clinical settings. Four strategies for reducing CRC in persons with familial risk are suggested: 1) improving the collection and utilization of the FH of cancer, 2) establishing a consensus for screening guidelines by FH, 3) enhancing provider-patient knowledge of guidelines and communication about CRC risk, and 4) encouraging survivors to promote screening within their families and partnering with existing screening programs to expand their reach to high-risk groups. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2633-2645. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Quantifying the utility of single nucleotide polymorphisms to guide colorectal cancer screening

AIM

To determine whether single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) can be used to identify people who should be screened for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We simulated one million people with and without colorectal cancer based on published SNP allele frequencies and strengths of colorectal cancer association. We estimated 5-year risks of colorectal cancer by number of risk alleles.

RESULTS

We identified 45 SNPs with an average 1.14-fold increase colorectal cancer risk per allele (range: 1.05-1.53). The colorectal cancer risk for people in the highest quintile of risk alleles was 1.81-times that for the average person.

CONCLUSION

We have quantified the extent to which known susceptibility SNPs can stratify the population into clinically useful colorectal cancer risk categories.

Cancer risk assessment tools in primary care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

We conducted this review to identify published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer risk assessment tools used in primary care and to determine their impact on clinical utility (clinicians), screening uptake (patients), and psychosocial outcomes (patients).

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane databases for RCTs of cancer risk assessment tools in primary care up to May 2014. Only studies set in primary care, with patients eligible for screening, and English-language articles were included.

RESULTS

The review included 11 trials of 7 risk tools. The trials were heterogeneous with respect to type of tool that was used, type(s) of cancer assessed, and outcomes measured. Evidence suggested risk tools improved patient risk perception, knowledge, and screening intentions, but not necessarily screening behavior. Overall, uptake of a tool was greater if initiated by patients, if used by a dedicated clinician, and when combined with decision support. There was no increase in cancer worry. Health promotion messages within the tool had positive effects on behavior change. Trials were limited by low-recruitment uptake, and the heterogeneity of the findings necessitated a narrative review rather than a meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk tools may increase intentions to have cancer screening, but additional interventions at the clinician or health system levels may be needed to increase risk-appropriate cancer screening behavior.

Testing Interventions to Motivate and Educate (TIME): A multi-level intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening

Objective

To test the effectiveness of a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening intervention directed at three levels (clinic, provider, patient) in a primary care setting.

Method

We conducted a group randomized trial (Clinical Trials registration no. NCT01568151) among 10 primary care clinics in Columbus, Ohio that were randomized to a study condition (intervention or usual care). We determined the effect of a multi-level, stepped behavioral intervention on receipt of a CRC screening test among average-risk patients from these clinics over the study period.

Results

Patients (n = 527) who were outside of CRC screening recommendations were recruited. Overall, 35.4% of participants in the intervention clinics had received CRC screening by the end of the study compared to 35.1% of participants who were in the usual care clinics. Time to CRC screening was also similar across arms (HR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.65–1.45).

Conclusion

The multi-level intervention was not effective in increasing CRC screening among participants who needed a test, perhaps due to low participation of patients in the stepped intervention. Future studies utilizing evidence-based strategies to encourage CRC screening are needed.

•

This study tested the effectiveness of a multi-level CRC screening intervention.

•

There was no difference in receipt of CRC screening between study arms.

•

Innovative strategies need to be developed to improve CRC screening rates.

Self-reported participation and beliefs about bowel cancer screening in New South Wales, Australia

ISSUE ADDRESSED

To describe self-reported bowel cancer screening participation, beliefs and attitudes in a sample of New South Wales (NSW) adults, and to identify beliefs and demographic factors associated with self-reported bowel cancer screening participation.

METHODS

This study used data from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 2, a representative population-based telephone survey. Self-reported participation in and beliefs about bowel cancer screening were measured using the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer survey of people aged 50 years and over living in NSW, Australia (n=2001). Logistic regression modelling was used to identify explanatory variables associated with bowel cancer screening participation.

RESULTS

Half of all women (54.1%, 95% CI: 50.8-57.4%) and two-thirds of men (65.7%, 95% CI: 61.5-69.9%) reported screening for bowel cancer within the previous 5 years. Believing that screening was only necessary when experiencing symptoms was more likely to be endorsed by people aged 65 years and over (25.5%, 95% CI: 22.2-28.7%) rather than younger (50-64 years; 16.7%, 95% CI: 13.8-19.7%), non-English-speaking migrants (35.4%, 95% CI: 26.7-44.1%) versus others (18.6%, 95% CI: 16.4-20.7%), and people in metropolitan (23.3%, 95% CI: 20.4-26.1%) versus non-metropolitan areas (16.4%, 95% CI: 12.8-20%). People who disagreed that screening was only necessary when experiencing symptoms were four times more likely to report screening participation (OR 3.96, 95% CI: 3.11-5.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Community education about bowel cancer screening is needed to correct misperceptions regarding screening in the absence of symptoms. Tailored strategies for older, migrant and urban communities may be beneficial. SO WHAT? Education strategies that promote the need for screening in the absence of symptoms and correct misconceptions about bowel cancer screening amongst subgroups of the NSW population may improve screening rates and decrease the burden of bowel cancer in NSW.

The evolution of colorectal cancer genetics-Part 1: from discovery to practice

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is an increasing burden on our society. Identifying those who are at the greatest risk and improving triage for treatment will have the greatest impact on healthcare. CRC is a prime paradigm for cancer genetics: the majority of disease results from stages of progression lending itself to prevention by early detection of the pre-disease (neoplastic) state. Approximately 10% represent well defined hereditary cancer syndromes. Hereditary CRC has the added benefit that many are slow growing and family members are armed with the knowledge of potential risk of associated carcinomas and empowerment to reduce the disease burden. This knowledge provides the indication for early endoscopic and/or surgical intervention for prevention or treatment of an entire family cohort. The molecular basis of CRC allows enhanced characterization of carcinomas, leading to targeted therapies.

Screening participation for people at increased risk of colorectal cancer due to family history: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis of observational studies to identify and summarise the level of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation for people at increased risk due to family history of the disease. Medline, Cinhal, Embase and PsychInfo databases were comprehensively searched between January 1995 and May 2012 to identify relevant articles. To be included, studies had to report on screening for people who had at least one first-degree relative with CRC and no previous personal diagnosis of the disease. Pooled screening participation levels were calculated for each screening modality. Seventeen studies, accounting for a total of 13,269 subjects with a family history of CRC met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies, including a total of 6,901 subjects had a pooled faecal occult blood testing screening participation (at least once) of 25 % (95 % CI 12-38). Five studies including a total of 5,091 subjects had a pooled sigmoidoscopy-based screening participation (at least once) of 16 % (95 % CI 7-27). Seven studies including a total of 9,965 subjects had pooled participation colonoscopy-based screening (at least once) of 40 % (95 % CI 26-54). There was a significant level of screening heterogeneity between studies. This review identified a substantial underuse of CRC screening for people at increased risk of developing the disease. It highlights the potential opportunity that exists for increasing screening participation among this segment of the population and the need to adjust the current CRC screening policies towards that objective.

Ethnic differences and predictors of colonoscopy, prostate-specific antigen, and mammography screening participation in the multiethnic cohort

PURPOSE

Given the relation between screening and improved cancer outcomes and the persistence of ethnic disparities in cancer mortality, we explored ethnic differences in colonoscopy, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and mammography screening in the Multiethnic Cohort Study.

METHODS

Logistic regression was applied to examine the influence of ethnicity as well as demographics, lifestyle factors, comorbidities, family history of cancer, and previous screening history on self-reported screening participation collected in 1999-2002.

RESULTS

The analysis included 140,398 participants who identified as white, African American, Native Hawaiian, Japanese American, US born-Latino, or Mexican born-Latino. The screening prevalences overall were mammography: 88% of women, PSA: 45% of men, and colonoscopy: 35% of men and women. All minority groups reported 10-40% lower screening utilization than whites, but Mexican-born Latinos and Native Hawaiian were lowest. Men were nearly twice as likely to have a colonoscopy (OR=1.94, 95% CI=1.89-1.99) as women. A personal screening history, presence of comorbidities, and family history of cancer predicted higher screening utilization across modalities, but to different degrees across ethnic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms previously reported sex differences in colorectal cancer screening and ethnic disparities in screening participation. The findings suggest it may be useful to include personal screening history and family history of cancer into counseling patients about screening participation.

Screening participation predictors for people at familial risk of colorectal cancer: a systematic review

CONTEXT

People with a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) are at increased risk of developing the disease. Information on the screening practices of this segment of the population is scarce.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was conducted of observational studies to identify factors associated with CRC screening participation for people at increased risk due to family history of the disease.MEDLINE, Cinahl Information Sevices, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were searched comprehensively between January 1995 and May 2012 to identify relevant articles. To be included, studies had to report on screening for people who had at least one first-degree relative with CRC, have described the study design, and reported on at least two predictors of adherence to CRC screening using a multivariate analysis.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The search identified a total of 4986 articles, of which ten met the review's inclusion criteria. There were important inconsistencies among studies in the factors that were associated with screening. Receiving recommendations from clinicians was the most consistent predictor identified across studies. The review also revealed a consistent pattern of association with predictors related to familial aspects of CRC, such as strength of family history, and relationship to the affected relative. Among the psychological constructs, "social influence" emerged as the most consistent predictor of screening participation.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence that clinicians, as well as use of family history and social networks, offer the most promising avenues to promoting and improving screening participation by individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer.

A population-based cross-sectional study of colorectal cancer screening practices of first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients

Background

The aim of this study was to determine the proportions and predictors of first-degree relatives (FDRs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients (i) ever receiving any CRC testing and (ii) receiving CRC screening in accordance with CRC screening guidelines.

Methods

Colorectal cancer patients and their FDRs were recruited through the population-based Victorian Cancer Registry, Victoria, Australia. Seven hundred and seven FDRs completed telephone interviews. Of these, 405 FDRs were deemed asymptomatic and eligible for analysis.

Results

Sixty-nine percent of FDRs had ever received any CRC testing. First-degree relatives of older age, those with private health insurance, siblings and FDRs who had ever been asked about family history of CRC by a doctor were significantly more likely than their counterparts to have ever received CRC testing. Twenty-five percent of FDRs “at or slightly above average risk” were adherent to CRC screening guidelines. For this group, adherence to guideline-recommended screening was significantly more likely to occur for male FDRs and those with a higher level of education. For persons at “moderately increased risk” and “potentially high risk”, 47% and 49% respectively adhered to CRC screening guidelines. For this group, guideline-recommended screening was significantly more likely to occur for FDRs who were living in metropolitan areas, siblings, those married or partnered and those ever asked about family history of CRC.

Conclusions

A significant level of non-compliance with screening guidelines was evident among FDRs. Improved CRC screening in accordance with guidelines and effective systematic interventions to increase screening rates among population groups experiencing inequality are needed.

Trial Registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12609000628246