Dataset Information

Telephone versus in-person colorectal cancer risk and screening intervention for first-degree relatives: A randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Having a first-degree relative (FDR) with colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant risk factor for CRC. Counseling for FDRs regarding CRC risk factors and personalized risk is important to improve knowledge and screening compliance. METHODS:A 3-arm randomized controlled trial compared tailored in-person and telephone CRC counseling interventions with controls among FDRs who were not mutation carriers for known hereditary cancer syndromes, but who were considered to be at an increased risk based on family history. It was hypothesized that both telephone and in-person approaches would increase CRC knowledge, screening adherence, perceived risk accuracy, and psychosocial functioning compared with controls. The authors anticipated greater satisfaction with the in-person approach. CRC knowledge, risk perception, psychosocial functioning, and intention to screen were assessed at baseline and at 2-week and 2-month follow-ups (primary endpoint). RESULTS:A total of 278 FDRs (mean age, 47.4 years, standard deviation, 11.38 years) participated. At baseline, participants reported low to moderate CRC knowledge and overestimations of risk. Screening adherence was 73.7%. At 2 months, participants in the in-person arm and telephone arm demonstrated improvements in knowledge and perceived risk and were not found to be statistically different from each other. However, when comparing each intervention with controls, knowledge in the in-person arm was found to be statistically significantly higher, but the difference between the telephone and control arms was not. Cancer-related stress reduced over time in all groups. Intervention benefits were maintained at 1 year. Baseline screening intent/adherence were high, and therefore did not reach statistically significant improvement. CONCLUSIONS:Tailored in-person or telephone formats for providing CRC risk counseling, incorporating behavioral interventions, appear to improve knowledge and risk perceptions, with high client satisfaction.

SUBMITTER: Esplen MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6742581 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Telephone versus in-person colorectal cancer risk and screening intervention for first-degree relatives: A randomized controlled trial.

Esplen Mary Jane MJ Harrington Sarah S Leung Yvonne W YW Aronson Melyssa M Rothenmund Heidi H Semotiuk Kara K Wong Jiahui J Gallinger Steven S Dicks Elizabeth E McLaughlin John J

Cancer 20190312 13

<h4>Background</h4>Having a first-degree relative (FDR) with colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant risk factor for CRC. Counseling for FDRs regarding CRC risk factors and personalized risk is important to improve knowledge and screening compliance.<h4>Methods</h4>A 3-arm randomized controlled trial compared tailored in-person and telephone CRC counseling interventions with controls among FDRs who were not mutation carriers for known hereditary cancer syndromes, but who were considered to be a ...[more]

PMID: 30861097

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundColonoscopy 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 findingsThis 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.ConclusionsIn 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 registrationThis trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02567045).

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in first degree relatives (parents and full siblings) of patients with precursor lesions (polyps) for CRC.DesignCase-control study.SettingLinkage to the multi-generation register and gastrointestinal ESPRESSO (Epidemiology Strengthened by histoPathology Reports in Sweden) histopathology cohort in Sweden.Participants68 060 patients with CRC and 333 753 matched controls.Main outcome measuresMultivariable adjusted odds ratios of CRC according to the number of first degree relatives with a colorectal polyp and the histology of polyps and age at diagnosis in first degree relatives. Subgroup analysis was also performed according to age at CRC diagnosis and evaluated the joint association of family history of colorectal polyps and family history of CRC.ResultsAfter adjusting for family history of CRC and other covariates, having a first degree relative with a colorectal polyp (8.4% (5742/68 060) in cases and 5.7% (18 860/333 753) in controls) was associated with a higher risk of CRC (odds ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval 1.35 to 1.45). The odds ratios ranged from 1.23 for those with hyperplastic polyps to 1.44 for those with tubulovillous adenomas. To better put this risk in perspective, the age specific absolute risk of colon and rectal cancers was estimated according to family history of polyps based on the 2018 national CRC incidence in Sweden. For example, the absolute risk of colon cancer in individuals aged 60-64 years with and without a family history of colorectal polyp was, respectively, 94.3 and 67.9 per 100 000 for men and 89.1 and 64.1 per 100 000 for women. The association between family history of polyps and CRC risk was strengthened by the increasing number of first degree relatives with polyps (≥2 first degree relatives: 1.70, 1.52 to 1.90, P<0.001 for trend) and decreasing age at polyp diagnosis (<50 years: 1.77, 1.57 to 1.99, P<0.001 for trend). A particularly strong association was found for early onset CRC diagnosed before age 50 years (≥2 first degree relatives: 3.34, 2.05 to 5.43, P=0.002 for heterogeneity by age of CRC diagnosis). In the joint analysis, the odds ratio of CRC for individuals with two or more first degree relatives with polyps but no CRC was 1.79 (1.52 to 2.10), with one first degree relative with CRC but no polyps was 1.70 (1.65 to 1.76), and with two or more first degree relatives with both polyps and CRC was 5.00 (3.77 to 6.63) (P<0.001 for interaction).ConclusionsAfter adjusting for family history of CRC, the siblings and children of patients with colorectal polyps are still at higher risk of CRC, particularly early onset CRC. Early screening for CRC might be considered for first degree relatives of patients with polyps.

Dataset Information

Telephone versus in-person colorectal cancer risk and screening intervention for first-degree relatives: A randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Telephone versus in-person colorectal cancer risk and screening intervention for first-degree relatives: A randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets