Aspects of colorectal cancer screening, methods, age and gender.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hultcrantz R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8048936 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:We evaluated whether age- and gender-based colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective.Recent studies in the United States identified age and gender as 2 important variables predicting advanced proximal neoplasia, and that women aged <60 to 70 years were more suited for sigmoidoscopy screening due to their low risk of proximal neoplasia. Yet, quantitative assessment of the incremental benefits, risks, and cost remains to be performed.Primary care screening practice (2008-2015).A Markov modeling was constructed using data from a screening cohort. The following strategies were compared according to the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for 1 life-year saved: flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) 5 yearly; colonoscopy 10 yearly; FS for each woman at 50- and 55-year old followed by colonoscopy at 60- and 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, and 65-year old followed by colonoscopy at 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, 65-, and 70-year old. All male subjects received colonoscopy at 50-, 60-, and 70-year old under strategies 3 to 5.From a hypothetical population of 100,000 asymptomatic subjects, strategy 2 could save the largest number of life-years (4226 vs 2268 to 3841 by other strategies). When compared with no screening, strategy 5 had the lowest ICER (US$42,515), followed by strategy 3 (US$43,517), strategy 2 (US$43,739), strategy 4 (US$47,710), and strategy 1 (US$56,510). Strategy 2 leads to the highest number of bleeding and perforations, and required a prohibitive number of colonoscopy procedures. Strategy 5 remains the most cost-effective when assessed with a wide range of deterministic sensitivity analyses around the base case.From the cost effectiveness analysis, FS for women and colonoscopy for men represent an economically favorable screening strategy. These findings could inform physicians and policy-makers in triaging eligible subjects for risk-based screening, especially in countries with limited colonoscopic resources. Future research should study the acceptability, feasibility, and feasibility of this risk-based strategy in different populations.
| S-EPMC4998853 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading cancer-related causes of death in the world. Since the 70s, many countries have adopted different CRC screening programs, which has resulted in a decrease in mortality. However, current screening test options still present downsides. The commercialized stool-based tests present high false-positive rates and low sensitivity, which negatively affects the detection of early stage carcinogenesis. The gold standard colonoscopy has low uptake due to its invasiveness and the perception of discomfort and embarrassment that the procedure may bring. In this review, we collected and described the latest data about alternative CRC screening techniques that can overcome these disadvantages. Web of Science and PubMed were employed as search engines for studies reporting on CRC screening tests and future perspectives. The searches generated 555 articles, of which 93 titles were selected. Finally, a total of 50 studies, describing 14 different CRC alternative tests, were included. Among the investigated techniques, the main feature that could have an impact on CRC screening perception and uptake was the ease of sample collection. Urine, exhaled breath, and blood-based tests promise to achieve good diagnostic performance (sensitivity of 63-100%, 90-95%, and 47-97%, respectively) while minimizing stress and discomfort for the patient.
| S-EPMC8070308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBarriers experienced by patients influence the uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Prior research has quantified how often patients encounter these challenges but has generally not revealed their complex perspective and experience with barriers.PurposeThis mixed-methods study was conducted to understand current perspectives on CRC screening.MethodsA two-part, mixed-methods study was conducted of primary care patients recruited from Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network practices. First, in June-July 2005 a survey was mailed to 660 patients aged 50-75 years posing an open-ended question about "the most important barrier" to CRC screening. Second, beginning in October 2005, seven gender- and largely race-specific focus groups involving 40 patients aged 45-75 years were conducted. Beginning in October 2005, survey verbatim responses were coded and quantitatively analyzed and focus group transcripts were qualitatively analyzed.ResultsResponses to the open-ended survey question, answered by 74% of respondents, identified fear and the bowel preparation as the most important barriers to screening. Only 1.6% of responses cited the absence of physician advice. Focus group participants cited similar issues and other previously reported barriers, but their remarks exposed the intricacies of complex barriers, such as fear, lack of information, time, the role of physicians, and access to care. Participants also cited barriers that have little documentation in the literature, such as low self-worth, "para-sexual" sensitivities, fatalism, negative past experiences with testing, and skepticism about the financial motivation behind screening recommendations.ConclusionsMixed-methods analysis helps to disaggregate the complex nuances that influence patient behavior. In the present study, patients explained the web of influences on knowledge, motivation, and ability to undergo CRC screening, which clinicians and policymakers should consider in designing interventions to increase the level of screening.
| S-EPMC2946825 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Previous research has shown colorectal cancer (CRC) screening disparities by gender. Little research has focused primarily on gender differences among older Black individuals, and reasons for existing gender differences remain poorly understood.We used baseline data from the Cancer Prevention and Treatment Demonstration Screening Trial. Participants were recruited from November 2006 to March 2010. In-person interviews were used to assess self-reported CRC screening behavior. Up-to-date CRC screening was defined as self-reported colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy in the past 10 years or fecal occult blood testing in the past year. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between gender and self-reported screening, adjusting for covariates. The final model was stratified by gender to examine factors differentially associated with screening outcomes for males and females.The final sample consisted of 1,552 female and 586 male Black Medicare beneficiaries in Baltimore, Maryland. Males were significantly less likely than females to report being up-to-date with screening (77.5% vs. 81.6%, P = 0.030), and this difference was significant in the fully adjusted model (OR: 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.99). The association between having a usual source of care and receipt of cancer screening was stronger among males compared with females.Although observed differences in CRC screening were small, several factors suggest that gender-specific approaches may be used to promote screening adherence among Black Medicare beneficiaries.Given disproportionate CRC mortality between White and Black Medicare beneficiaries, gender-specific interventions aimed at increasing CRC screening may be warranted among older Black patients.
| S-EPMC3681887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The 'chain of survival'-including early call for help, early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and early defibrillation-represents the most beneficial approach for favourable patient outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Despite increasing numbers of publicly accessible automated external defibrillators (AED) and interventions to increase public awareness for basic life support (BLS), the number of their use in real-life emergency situations remains low. METHODS:In this prospective population-based cross-sectional study, a total of 501 registered inhabitants of Vienna (Austria) were randomly approached via telephone calls between 08/2014 and 09/2014 and invited to answer a standardized questionnaire in order to identify public knowledge and awareness of BLS and AED-use. RESULTS:We found that more than 52 percent of participants would presume OHCA correctly and would properly initiate BLS attempts. Of alarming importance, only 33 percent reported that they would be willing to perform CPR and 50 percent would use an AED device. There was a significantly lower willingness to initiate BLS attempts (male: 40% vs. female: 25%; OR: 2.03 [95%CI: 1.39-2.98]; p<0.001) and to use an AED device (male: 58% vs. female: 44%; OR: 1.76 [95%CI: 1.26-2.53]; p = 0.002) in questioned female individuals compared to their male counterparts. Interestingly, we observed a strongly decreasing level of knowledge and willingness for BLS attempts (-14%; OR: 0.72 [95%CI: 0.57-0.92]; p = 0.027) and AED-use (-19%; OR: 0.68 [95%CI: 0.54-0.85]; p = 0.001) with increasing age. CONCLUSION:We found an overall poor knowledge and awareness concerning BLS and the use of AEDs among the Viennese population. Both female and elderly participants reported the lowest willingness to perform BLS and use an AED in case of OHCA. Specially tailored programs to increase awareness and willingness among both the female and elderly community need to be considered for future educational interventions.
| S-EPMC5997304 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recent studies report racial disparities among individuals in organized colorectal cancer (CRC) programs; however, there is a paucity of information on CRC screening utilization by race/ethnicity among newly age-eligible adults in such programs.This was a retrospective cohort study among Kaiser Permanente Northern California enrollees who turned age 50 years between 2007 and 2012 (N=138,799) and were served by a systemwide outreach and facilitated in-reach screening program based primarily on mailed fecal immunochemical tests to screening-eligible people. Kaplan-Meier and Cox model analyses were used to estimate differences in receipt of CRC screening in 2015-2016.Cumulative probabilities of CRC screening within 1 and 2 years of subjects' 50th birthday were 51% and 73%, respectively. Relative to non-Hispanic whites, the likelihood of completing any CRC screening was similar in blacks (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI=0.96, 1.00); 5% lower in Hispanics (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI=0.93, 0.96); and 13% higher in Asians (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI=1.11, 1.15) in adjusted analyses. Fecal immunochemical testing was the most common screening modality, representing 86% of all screening initiations. Blacks and Hispanics had lower receipt of fecal immunochemical testing in adjusted analyses.CRC screening uptake was high among newly screening-eligible adults in an organized CRC screening program, but Hispanics were less likely to initiate screening near age 50 years than non-Hispanic whites, suggesting that cultural and other individual-level barriers not addressed within the program likely contribute. Future studies examining the influences of culturally appropriate and targeted efforts for screening initiation are needed.
| S-EPMC5562515 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionExpert recommendations differ for colorectal cancer screening in the elderly. Recent studies suggest that healthy adults aged >75 years may benefit from screening. This study examined screening use and follow-up, and how they varied by health status within age strata, among a large cohort of elderly individuals in community settings.MethodsA population-based, longitudinal cohort study was conducted among health plan members aged 65-89 years enrolled during 2011-2012 in three integrated healthcare systems participating in the Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium. Comorbidity measurements used the Charlson index. Analyses, conducted in 2015, comprised descriptive statistics and multivariable modeling that estimated age by comorbidity-specific percentages of patients for two outcomes: colorectal cancer screening uptake and follow-up of abnormal fecal blood tests.ResultsAmong 846,267 patients, 72% were up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening. Of patients with a positive fecal blood test, 65% received follow-up colonoscopy within 3 months. Likelihood of being up-to-date and receiving timely follow-up was significantly lower for patients aged ≥76 years than their younger counterparts (p<0.001). Comorbidity was less influential than age and more strongly related to timely follow-up than being up-to-date. In all age groups, considerable numbers of patients with no/low comorbidity were not up-to-date or did not receive timely follow-up.ConclusionsIn three integrated healthcare systems, many older, relatively healthy patients were not screening up-to-date, and some relatively young, healthy patients did not receive timely follow-up. Findings suggest a need for re-evaluating age-based screening guidelines and improving screening completion among the elderly.
| S-EPMC4992638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThis study examines individual- and practice-level predictors of screening modality among 1,484 Medicaid enrollees who initiated colorectal cancer screening (fecal immunochemical test/fecal occult blood tests or colonoscopy) within a year of turning age 50 years. Understanding screening modality patterns for patients and health systems can help optimize colorectal cancer screening initiatives that will lead to high screening completion rates.MethodsMultivariable logistic regression was conducted in 2019 to analyze Medicaid claims data (January 2013-June 2015) to explore predictors of colonoscopy screening (versus fecal testing).ResultsOverall, 64% of enrollees received a colonoscopy and 36% received a fecal immunochemical test/fecal occult blood test. Male (OR=1.21, 95% CI=1.08, 1.37) compared with female enrollees and those with 4-6 (OR=1.57, 95% CI=1.15, 2.15), 7-10 (OR=2.23, 95% CI=1.64, 3.03), and ≥11 (OR=1.79, 95% CI=1.22, 2.65) primary care visits compared with 0-3 visits had higher odds of colonoscopy screening. Non-White, non-Hispanic enrollees (OR=0.71, 95% CI=0.58, 0.87) compared with White, non-Hispanics Whites had lower odds of colonoscopy screening. Practices with an endoscopy facility within their ZIP code (OR=1.50, 95% CI=1.08, 2.08) compared with practices without a nearby endoscopy facility had higher odds of colonoscopy screening.ConclusionsAmong newly age-eligible Medicaid enrollees who received colorectal cancer screening, non-White, non-Hispanic individuals were less likely and male enrollees and those with ≥4 primary care visits were more likely to undergo colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical test/fecal occult blood test. Colonoscopy also was the more common modality among adults whose primary care clinic had an endoscopy facility in the same ZIP code. Future research is needed to fully understand patient, provider, and practice preferences regarding screening modality.
| S-EPMC8493888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceColorectal cancer (CRC) risk varies widely in the population at average risk without a family history, but there are no established routines for translating this variation into personalized starting ages of screening.ObjectiveTo illustrate derivation of risk-adapted starting ages of CRC screening based on the concept of risk advancement period (RAP) using sex and a polygenic risk score (PRS) as an example.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included participants in the UK Biobank study recruited in England, Wales, and Scotland between March 13, 2006, and October 1, 2010. Participants were aged 40 to 69 years, with no previous bowel cancer screening and no family history of CRC. Follow-up of cancer data was completed February 29, 2020, for England and Wales and January 31, 2021, for Scotland. The censoring date for death data was September 30, 2021, for England and Wales and October 31, 2021, for Scotland.ExposuresData on age, sex, and family history were collected at the baseline interview. A PRS was calculated based on 139 CRC-related risk loci.Main outcomes and measuresHazard ratios (HRs) of sex and PRS with CRC risk and mortality were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models and were translated to RAPs to quantify how many years of age earlier or later men and individuals in higher or lower PRS deciles would reach risks comparable with those of the reference group (ie, women or those in the 5th and 6th PRS deciles).ResultsAmong 242 779 participants (median age, 55 [IQR, 48-61] years; 55.7% women), 2714 incident CRC cases were identified during a median follow-up of 11.2 (IQR, 10.5-11.8) years and 758 deaths during a median follow-up of 12.8 (IQR, 12.0-13.4) years. The HRs of CRC risk were 1.57 (95% CI, 1.46-1.70) for men vs women and ranged from 0.51 (95% CI, 0.41-0.62) to 2.29 (95% CI, 2.01-2.62) across PRS deciles compared with the reference. The RAPs were 5.6 (95% CI, 4.6-6.6) years for men vs women and ranged from -8.4 (95% CI, -11.0 to -5.9) to 10.3 (95% CI, 8.5-12.1) years across PRS deciles compared with the reference deciles. Risk-adapted starting ages of screening would vary by 24 years between men in the highest PRS decile and women in the lowest PRS decile. Similar results were obtained regarding CRC mortality.Conclusions and relevanceIn this large cohort study including women and men at average risk of CRC, risk-adapted starting ages of screening strongly varied by sex and a PRS. The RAP concept could easily accommodate additional factors for defining personalized starting ages of screening.
| S-EPMC10600582 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAccording to a 2020 study by the American Cancer Society, colorectal cancer (CRC) represents the third leading cause of cancer both in incidence and death in the United States. Nonetheless, CRC screening remains lower than that for other high-risk cancers such as breast and cervical cancer. Risk calculators are increasingly being used to promote cancer awareness and improve compliance with CRC screening tests. However, research concerning the effects of CRC risk calculators on the intention to undergo CRC screening has been limited. Moreover, some studies have found the impacts of CRC risk calculators to be inconsistent, reporting that receiving personalized assessments from such calculators lowers people's risk perception.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to examine the effect of using CRC risk calculators on individuals' intentions to undergo CRC screening. In addition, this study aims to examine the mechanisms through which using CRC risk calculators might influence individuals' intentions to undergo CRC screening. Specifically, this study focuses on the role of perceived susceptibility to CRC as a potential mechanism mediating the effect of using CRC risk calculators. Finally, this study examines how the effect of using CRC risk calculators on individuals' intentions to undergo CRC screening may vary by gender.MethodsWe recruited a total of 128 participants through Amazon Mechanical Turk who live in the United States, have health insurance, and are in the age group of 45 to 85 years. All participants answered questions needed as input for the CRC risk calculator but were randomly assigned to treatment (CRC risk calculator results immediately received) and control (CRC risk calculator results made available after the experiment ended) groups. The participants in both groups answered a series of questions regarding demographics, perceived susceptibility to CRC, and their intention to get screened.ResultsWe found that using CRC risk calculators (ie, answering questions needed as input and receiving calculator results) has a positive effect on intentions to undergo CRC screening, but only for men. For women, using CRC risk calculators has a negative effect on their perceived susceptibility to CRC, which in turn reduces the intention to sign up for CRC screening. Additional simple slope and subgroup analyses confirm that the effect of perceived susceptibility on CRC screening intention is moderated by gender.ConclusionsThis study shows that using CRC risk calculators can increase individuals' intentions to undergo CRC screening, but only for men. For women, using CRC risk calculators can reduce their intentions to undergo CRC screening, as it reduces their perceived susceptibility to CRC. Given these mixed results, although CRC risk calculators can be a useful source of information on one's CRC risk, patients should be discouraged from relying solely on them to inform decisions regarding CRC screening.
| S-EPMC10361457 | biostudies-literature