To do or not to do - a survey study on factors associated with participating in the Danish screening program for colorectal cancer

Socioeconomic differences in discrepancies between expected and experienced discomfort from colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy

Background

Social inequalities in colorectal cancer screening participation are evident. Barriers to screening participation include discomfort from diagnostic modalities. We aimed to describe the discomfort experienced from colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and investigate the discrepancy between expected and experienced discomfort stratified by socioeconomic status.

Methods

A randomised controlled trial was conducted offering half of the colorectal cancer screening invitees the choice between CCE and colonoscopy after a positive faecal immunochemical test. This paper includes those who elected to undergo CCE. A positive CCE elicited referral for a therapeutic colonoscopy. Participants reported their discomfort from CCE and from any following colonoscopies in electronically distributed questionnaires. Discomfort was measured using visual analogue scales and compared between socioeconomic subgroups determined by educational level and income.

Results

The experienced discomfort from CCE and colonoscopy differed significantly between educational levels but not income levels. The bowel preparation contributed the most to the experienced discomfort in both CCE and colonoscopy. The discrepancy between expected and experienced discomfort from colonoscopy increased with increasing educational and income levels. A similar trend was seen in CCE between educational levels but not income levels.

Conclusions

None of the results indicated a higher discomfort in lower socioeconomic subgroups. Regardless of the investigation modality, the bowel preparation was the main contributor to experienced discomfort. The discrepancy between expected and experienced discomfort did not seem to be larger in lower socioeconomic subgroups, indicating that this is not a major barrier causing inequalities in screening uptake. This is the first study investigating individual discomfort discrepancy in both CCE and colonoscopy, while being able to stratify by socioeconomic status.

Utilization of colorectal cancer screening tests across European countries: a cross-sectional analysis of the European health interview survey 2018-2020

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been shown to reduce CRC incidence and mortality, and most European countries have started to implement CRC screening programs in the past 20 years. Consequently, this study aimed to estimate the utilization of fecal tests and colonoscopy, as well as investigate factors associated with their utilization based on specific screening program characteristics in European countries.

Methods

We analyzed data from the European Health Interview Survey 2018-2020 to determine the utilization of fecal tests [guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT)] within the preceding 2 years or colonoscopy within the preceding 10 years among people aged 50-74 years, based on the type of screening offered in each country. Using multivariable logistic regression and sub-group meta-analysis, factors associated with screening use were determined.

Findings

The analyses included data from 129,750 respondents across 29 European countries, with participant counts ranging from 1511 individuals in Iceland to 11,755 individuals in Germany. Unit response rates ranged from 22% to 88%. The use of either test was highest among countries with fully rolled-out programs with fecal tests [from 37.7% (867/2379) in Croatia to 74.9% (2321/3085) in Denmark] and in countries offering colonoscopy as an alternative screening method [from 26.2% (854/3329) in Greece to 75.4% (1192/1760) in Luxembourg]. We observed the lowest utilization of either test in countries with no program or small-scale programs [6.3% (195/3179) in Bulgaria to 34.2% (722/2144) in Latvia]. Across all types of screening offers, younger age, being without a partner, low education, rural residence, and living in large households were associated with lower utilization, as were poor lifestyle scores and prolonged periods without physician consultation.

Interpretation

Our findings point to large disparities and much room for improvement in CRC screening offers and utilization across Europe.

Funding

There was no funding source for this study.

Barriers for Participation in the Danish Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: a Qualitative Study

PURPOSE

The participation rate in the Danish National Screening Program for Colorectal Cancer is around 60%. Since early detection of cancer through the colorectal cancer screening program (CRCS) reduces mortality rates, it is important to understand why people do not participate. The aim of this study was therefore to examine in depth why some people do not participate in the Danish CRCS program.

METHODS

Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 people who had not participated in the national CRCS program. Data was analyzed using an inductive hermeneutic approach.

RESULTS

The analysis uncovered three main themes describing barriers to screening: (a) the accountability for ensuring personal health covered the following sub-themes: (i) when invitation is out of sight it is out of mind, (ii) aversion against own stool sample collection, and (iii) the perceived risk of getting colorectal cancer (CRC); (b) attitudes towards the healthcare system and its organization covered the following sub-themes: (i) positivity towards CRCS, (ii) trust in the healthcare system, (iii) lack of internal communication in the healthcare system, and (iv) wish for involvement of the general practitioner (GP); (c) knowledge about disease and screening covered the following sub-themes: (i) knowledge about CRC and CRCS, (ii) wish for information via new channels, and (iii) CRC is rarely something you talk about.

CONCLUSION

Among the informants included in this study, lack of participation in the CRCS program was not due to an active opt-out, as most informants had intentions of participating. The informants thought it would motivate them to participate if their GP would remind them of the screening program.

The association between the body roundness index and the risk of colorectal cancer: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC), has a link between obesity, especially visceral fat. The body roundness index (BRI) can more accurately assess body fat and visceral fat levels. It is, however, unknown whether BRI is associated with CRC risk.

METHODS

53,766 participants were enrolled from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Analysing the corelation between BRI and CRC risk was performed using logistic regression. Stratified analyses revealed the association based on the population type. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was performed for predicting CRC risk using different anthropometric indices.

RESULTS

The risk of CRC mounting apparently with elevated BRI for participants with CRC compared to normal participants (P-trend < 0.001). The association persisted even after adjusting for all covariates (P-trend = 0.017). In stratified analyses, CRC risk increased with increasing BRI, especially among those who were inactive (OR (95% CI): Q3 3.761 (2.139, 6.610), P < 0.05, Q4 5.972 (3.347, 8.470), P < 0.01), overweight (OR (95% CI): Q3 2.573 (1.012, 7.431), P < 0.05, Q4 3.318 (1.221, 9.020), P < 0.05) or obese (OR (95% CI): Q3 3.889 (1.829, 8.266), P < 0.001, Q4 4.920 (2.349, 10.308), P < 0.001). ROC curve showed that BRI had a better ability in forecasting the risk of CRC than other anthropometric indices such as body weight etc. (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

CRC risk and BRI have a positive and significant relationship, particularly in inactive participants with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m². It is hoped that these results will raise awareness of the importance of reducing visceral fat deposition.

[Obesity from the Perspective of Surgical Oncology]

Up to 40% of all adults worldwide are overweight or obese. Besides the established obesity-related comorbidities, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension or NAFLD (non-alcoholic fatty liver disease), the focus of interest is shifting towards the influence of increased body weight as a risk factor for the development of malignant diseases. For more than 20 different types of malignancies, interactions between increased body weight and cancer risk have been established. Pathophysiological influences of obesity on carcinogenesis are diverse, including factors such as chronic inflammation, hyperinsulinaemia and insulin resistance, various changes in growth factor and changes in sex hormones. In cohorts of visceral oncology patients, malignancies such as colorectal carcinomas, hepatocellular carcinomas, adenocarcinomas of the pancreas, oesophageal and gastric carcinomas are also linked to an increased disease risk with increasing body weight. Since obesity must be considered a preventable or at least treatable cause of cancer, this review examines the influence of obesity in the field of visceral oncology, examining the effects of obesity on tumour prevalence, prevention and diagnostic testing, as well as its influence on treatment and prognosis. Furthermore, this review explores the current evidence on the influence of bariatric surgery on the prevalence of these obesity associated tumours. For example, in the case of colorectal carcinomas, the evidence base following bariatric surgery is mixed, painting an inhomogeneous picture. On the other hand, significantly lower prevalence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinomas is to be noted. The latter effect can be explained by the decrease in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) associated with weight loss. Despite the justified concern that bariatric procedures (especially gastric sleeve resection) lead to increased prevalence of malignancies of the oesophageal junction, the currently available epidemiological data does not seem to identify a relevant increase in the incidence of these malignancies.

Readiness to Accept Genetic Testing for Personalized Medicine: Survey Findings on the Role of Socio-Demographic Characteristics, Health Vulnerabilities, Perceived Genetic Risk and Personality Factors

Studies from various countries have shown that majorities would accept genetic testing for personalization of treatment, but little is known about differences among population subgroups. The present study investigated whether readiness to accept a hypothetical cost-free offer of genetic testing to personalize treatment depends on socio-demographic characteristics, health-related vulnerabilities, personal dispositions, and prior awareness about personalized medicine. The study was based on a cross-sectional survey design. Out of a representative initial sample of 50-80-year-old Danish citizens (n = 15,072), n = 6807 returned a fully answered web-based questionnaire. Socio-demographic data were added from a national registry. Data were analyzed by multivariable logistic regression. A large majority of respondents (78.3%) expressed their readiness to be tested. Rates were higher in men, younger persons, and those with higher income. Additionally, ex-smokers and obese persons as well as those less satisfied with their health and respondents who perceived a personal genetic risk were more interested, as were those with higher internal health control, higher extraversion, higher emotional stability, and those who had not heard about this option before. Further research should investigate the specific concerns among population subgroups which need being addressed by systematic communication efforts in a clinical but also a broader public health context.

Review article: obesity and colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a growing global public health problem. More than half the European and North American population is overweight or obese. Colon and rectum cancers are still the second leading cause of cancer death worldwide, and epidemiological data support an association between obesity and colorectal cancers (CRCs).

AIM

To review the literature on CRC epidemiology in obese subjects, assessing the effects of obesity, including childhood or maternal obesity, on CRC, diagnosis, management, and prognosis, and discussing targeted prophylactic measures.

METHOD

We searched PubMed for obesity/overweight/metabolic syndrome and CRC. Other key words included 'staging', 'screening', 'treatment', 'weight loss', 'bariatric surgery' and 'chemotherapy'.

RESULTS

In Europe, about 11% of CRCs are attributed to overweight and obesity. Epidemiological data suggest that obesity is associated with a 30%-70% increased risk of colon cancer in men, the association being less consistent in women. Visceral fat or abdominal obesity seems to be of greater concern than subcutaneous fat obesity, and any 1 kg/m² increase in body mass index confers more risk (hazard ratio 1.03). Obesity might increase the likelihood of recurrence or mortality of the primary cancer and may affect initial management, including accurate staging. The risk maybe confounded by different factors, including lower adherence to organised CRC screening programmes. It is unclear whether bariatric surgery helps reduce rectal cancer risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a growing body of evidence linking obesity to CRC, many questions remain unanswered, including whether we should screen patients with obesity earlier or propose prophylactic bariatric surgery for certain patients with obesity.

AI and Clinical Decision Making: The Limitations and Risks of Computational Reductionism in Bowel Cancer Screening

Advances in artificial intelligence in healthcare are frequently promoted as ‘solutions’ to improve the accuracy, safety, and quality of clinical decisions, treatments, and care. Despite some diagnostic success, however, AI systems rely on forms of reductive reasoning and computational determinism that embed problematic assumptions about clinical decision-making and clinical practice. Clinician autonomy, experience, and judgement are reduced to inputs and outputs framed as binary or multi-class classification problems benchmarked against a clinician’s capacity to identify or predict disease states. This paper examines this reductive reasoning in AI systems for colorectal cancer (CRC) to highlight their limitations and risks: (1) in AI systems themselves due to inherent biases in (a) retrospective training datasets and (b) embedded assumptions in underlying AI architectures and algorithms; (2) in the problematic and limited evaluations being conducted on AI systems prior to system integration in clinical practice; and (3) in marginalising socio-technical factors in the context-dependent interactions between clinicians, their patients, and the broader health system. The paper argues that to optimise benefits from AI systems and to avoid negative unintended consequences for clinical decision-making and patient care, there is a need for more nuanced and balanced approaches to AI system deployment and evaluation in CRC.