Dataset Information

Colorectal cancer screening: An updated review of the available options.

ABSTRACT: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. However, colon cancer incidence and mortality is declining over the past decade owing to adoption of effective screening programs. Nevertheless, in some parts of the world, CRC incidence and mortality remain on the rise, likely due to factors including "westernized" diet, lifestyle, and lack of health-care infrastructure and resources. Participation and adherence to different national screening programs remain obstacles limiting the achievement of screening goals. Different modalities are available ranging from stool based tests to radiology and endoscopy with varying sensitivity and specificity. However, the availability of these tests is limited to areas with high economic resources. Recently, FDA approved a blood-based test (Epi procolon®) for CRC screening. This blood based test may serve to increase the participation and adherence rates. Hence, leading to increase in colon cancer detection and prevention. This article will discuss various CRC screening tests with a particular focus on the data regarding the new approved blood test. Finally, we will propose an algorithm for a simple cost-effective CRC screening program.

SUBMITTER: Issa IA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5537177 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Colorectal cancer screening: An updated review of the available options.

Issa Iyad A IA Noureddine Malak M

World journal of gastroenterology 20170701 28

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. However, colon cancer incidence and mortality is declining over the past decade owing to adoption of effective screening programs. Nevertheless, in some parts of the world, CRC incidence and mortality remain on the rise, likely due to factors including "westernized" diet, lifestyle, and lack of health-care infrastructure and resources. Participation and adherence to different national screening programs remain o ...[more]

PMID: 28811705

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study designSystematic Review.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of available treatment options for patients with persistent coccydynia through a systematic review.MethodsOriginal peer-reviewed publications on treatment for coccydynia were identified using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines by performing a literature search of relevant databases, from their inception to January 17, 2020, combined with other sources. Data on extracted treatment outcome was pooled based on treatment categories to allow for meta-analysis. All outcomes relevant to the treatment efficacy of coccydynia were extracted. No single measure of outcome was consistently present among the included studies. Numeric Rating Scale, (NRS, 0-10) for pain was used as the primary outcome measure. Studies with treatment outcome on adult patients with chronic primary coccydynia were considered eligible.ResultsA total of 1980 patients across 64 studies were identified: five randomized controlled trials, one experimental study, one quasi-experimental study, 11 prospective observational studies, 45 retrospective studies and unpublished data from the DaneSpine registry. The greatest improvement in pain was achieved by patients who underwent radiofrequency therapy (RFT, mean Visual Analog Scale (VAS) decreased by 5.11 cm). A similar mean improvement was achieved from Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy (ESWT, 5.06), Coccygectomy (4.86) and Injection (4.22). Although improved, the mean change was less for those who received Ganglion block (2.98), Stretching/Manipulation (2.19) and Conservative/Usual Care (1.69).ConclusionThis study highlights the progressive nature of treatment for coccydynia, starting with noninvasive methods before considering coccygectomy. Non-surgical management provides pain relief for many patients. Coccygectomy is by far the most thoroughly investigated treatment option and may be beneficial for refractory cases. Future randomized controlled trials should be conducted with an aim to compare the efficacy of interventional therapies amongst each other and to coccygectomy.

Project description:ImportanceThe US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2016 colorectal cancer screening recommendations.ObjectiveTo provide updated model-based estimates of the benefits, burden, and harms of colorectal cancer screening strategies and to identify strategies that may provide an efficient balance of life-years gained (LYG) from screening and colonoscopy burden to inform the USPSTF.Design, setting, and participantsComparative modeling study using 3 microsimulation models of colorectal cancer screening in a hypothetical cohort of 40-year-old US individuals at average risk of colorectal cancer.ExposuresScreening from ages 45, 50, or 55 years to ages 70, 75, 80, or 85 years with fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), multitarget stool DNA testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy alone or with FIT, computed tomography colonography, or colonoscopy. All persons with an abnormal noncolonoscopy screening test result were assumed to undergo follow-up colonoscopy. Screening intervals varied by test. Full adherence with all procedures was assumed.Main outcome and measuresEstimated LYG relative to no screening (benefit), lifetime number of colonoscopies (burden), number of complications from screening (harms), and balance of incremental burden and benefit (efficiency ratios). Efficient strategies were those estimated to require fewer additional colonoscopies per additional LYG relative to other strategies.ResultsEstimated LYG from screening strategies ranged from 171 to 381 per 1000 40-year-olds. Lifetime colonoscopy burden ranged from 624 to 6817 per 1000 individuals, and screening complications ranged from 5 to 22 per 1000 individuals. Among the 49 strategies that were efficient options with all 3 models, 41 specified screening beginning at age 45. No single age to end screening was predominant among the efficient strategies, although the additional LYG from continuing screening after age 75 were generally small. With the exception of a 5-year interval for computed tomography colonography, no screening interval predominated among the efficient strategies for each modality. Among the strategies highlighted in the 2016 USPSTF recommendation, lowering the age to begin screening from 50 to 45 years was estimated to result in 22 to 27 additional LYG, 161 to 784 additional colonoscopies, and 0.1 to 2 additional complications per 1000 persons (ranges are across screening strategies, based on mean estimates across models). Assuming full adherence, screening outcomes and efficient strategies were similar by sex and race and across 3 scenarios for population risk of colorectal cancer.Conclusions and relevanceThis microsimulation modeling analysis suggests that screening for colorectal cancer with stool tests, endoscopic tests, or computed tomography colonography starting at age 45 years provides an efficient balance of colonoscopy burden and life-years gained.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Standards for patient decision aids require that information and options be presented in a balanced manner; this requirement is based on the argument that balanced presentation is essential to foster informed decision making. If information is presented in an incomplete/non-neutral manner, it can stimulate cognitive biases that can unduly affect individuals' knowledge, perceptions of risks and benefits, and, ultimately, preferences. However, there is little clarity about what constitutes balance, and how it can be determined and enhanced. We conducted a literature review to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to balancing the presentation of information and options. METHODS:A literature search related to patient decision aids and balance was conducted on Medline, using MeSH terms and PubMed; this search supplemented the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration's review of patient decision aids trials. Only English language articles relevant to patient decision making and addressing the balance of information and options were included. All members of the team independently screened clusters of articles; uncertainties were resolved by seeking review by another member. The team then worked in sub-groups to extract and synthesise data on theory, definitions, and evidence reported in these studies. RESULTS:A total of 40 articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these, six explained the rationale for balancing the presentation of information and options. Twelve defined "balance"; the definition of "balance" that emerged is as follows: "The complete and unbiased presentation of the relevant options and the information about those options-in content and in format-in a way that enables individuals to process this information without bias". Ten of the 40 articles reported assessing the balance of the relevant decision aid. All 10 did so exclusively from the users' or patients' perspective, using a five-point Likert-type scale. Presenting information in a side-by-side display form was associated with more respondents (ranging from 70% to 96%) judging the information as "balanced". CONCLUSION:There is a need for comparative studies investigating different ways to improve and measure balance in the presentation of information and options in patient decision aids.

Dataset Information

Colorectal cancer screening: An updated review of the available options.

Publications

Colorectal cancer screening: An updated review of the available options.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets