-
Journal of Health Care For the Poor and... 2024There are significant inequities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and outcomes. Via literature review, we assessed CRC screening rates for the vulnerable populations... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
There are significant inequities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and outcomes. Via literature review, we assessed CRC screening rates for the vulnerable populations served by free clinics.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted for publications on CRC screening in free clinics. Outcomes included CRC screening characteristics, population demographics, and limitations. A methodological quality assessment was completed.
RESULTS
Out of 63 references, six studies were included, representing 8,844 participants. Black or Hispanic participants were the plurality in all but one study. All participants were uninsured. Median CRC screening rate was 48.4% (range 6.6-78.9%). Screening methods included colonoscopy, fecal occult blood test, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and fecal immunochemical test. Clinics offering only one screening method had a mean screening rate of 7.2% while those with multiple methods had a screening rate of 65.4%.
CONCLUSION
Access to multiple CRC screening modalities correlates with higher screening rates in free clinics. More work is needed to increase CRC screening in free clinics.
Topics: Humans; Colorectal Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Medically Uninsured; Health Services Accessibility; Ambulatory Care Facilities; Occult Blood
PubMed: 38828574
DOI: No ID Found -
EClinicalMedicine Jul 2024First Nations populations have poorer colorectal cancer (CRC) survival compared to non-First Nations populations. Whilst First Nations populations across the world are...
BACKGROUND
First Nations populations have poorer colorectal cancer (CRC) survival compared to non-First Nations populations. Whilst First Nations populations across the world are distinct, shared experiences of discrimination and oppression contribute to persistent health inequities. CRC screening improves survival, however screening rates in First Nations populations are poorly described. This study seeks to define participation rates in CRC screening in First Nations populations worldwide.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, MEDLINE, grey literature, national registries and ClinicalTrials.gov. All sources were searched from their inception date to 18 February 2024. Studies were included if they reported CRC screening rates in adult (≥18 years) First Nations populations. We aimed to undertake a meta-analysis if there were sufficient data. Quality of papers were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) appraisal tool. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020210181.
FINDINGS
The literature search identified 1723 potentially eligible published studies. After review, 57 studies were included, 50 from the United States (US), with the remaining studies from Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ), Canada, Dominica and Guatemala. Additionally, eleven non-indexed reports from national programs in Australia and NZ were included. There were insufficient data to undertake meta-analysis, therefore a systematic review and narrative synthesis were conducted. CRC screening definitions varied, and included stool-based screening, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. US First Nations screening rates ranged between 4.0 and 79.2%, Australia reported 10.6-35.2%, NZ 18.4-49%, Canada 22.4-53.4%, Guatemala 2.2% and Dominica 4.2%. Fifty-five studies were assessed as moderate or high quality and two as low quality.
INTERPRETATION
Our findings suggested that there is wide variation in CRC screening participation rates across First Nations populations. Screening data are lacking in direct comparator groups and longitudinal outcomes. Disaggregation of screening data are required to better understand and address First Nations CRC outcome inequities.
FUNDING
None.
PubMed: 38828132
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102666 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2024We conducted a comprehensive analysis to compare colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy with standard care or fecal immunochemistry regarding colorectal cancer incidence and...
Effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial.
OBJECTIVES
We conducted a comprehensive analysis to compare colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy with standard care or fecal immunochemistry regarding colorectal cancer incidence and mortality risk.
METHODS
Until August 2023, literature from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane was systematically reviewed. We examined the impact of colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy versus standard care on colorectal cancer outcomes, including incidence, cancer-specific mortality, and overall mortality.
RESULTS
Among 4,265 screened articles, data from seven randomized controlled trials (involving 663,319 participants) were analyzed. The intervention group (colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy) consisted of 258,938 participants, while the control group received standard care or fecal immunochemical testing, totaling 404,381 participants, with both groups having average colorectal cancer risk, without confounders. Pooled analyses indicated a 20% reduction in colorectal cancer incidence (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.77-0.83) and a 26% decrease in colorectal cancer mortality (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.69-0.80) in the intervention group compared to standard care. All-cause mortality remained unchanged (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.99-1.07). Subgroup analysis favored sigmoidoscopy in reducing colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials underscores the effectiveness of colonoscopy and, notably, sigmoidoscopy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality among average-risk populations. In comparison to fecal immunochemical testing, both colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy did not significantly impact colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in this population.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42023460007.
PubMed: 38549924
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1364923 -
BMC Cancer Mar 2024To assess the long-term association between organised colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies and CRC-relate mortality. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To assess the long-term association between organised colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies and CRC-relate mortality.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed studies on organised CRC screening through PubMed, Ovid Medline, Embase and Cochrane from the inception. We retrieved characteristics of organised CRC screening from included literature and matched mortality (over 50 years) of those areas from the International Agency for Research on Cancer in May 2023. The variations of mortality were reported via the age-standardised mortality ratio. A random-effects model was used to synthesis results.
RESULTS
We summarised 58 organised CRC screening programmes and recorded > 2.7 million CRC-related deaths from 22 countries where rollout screening programmes were performed. The CRC screening strategy with faecal tests (guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) or faecal immunochemical tests (FIT)) or colonoscopy as the primary screening offer was associated with a 41.8% reduction in mortality, which was higher than those offered gFOBT (4.4%), FIT (16.7%), gFOBT or FIT (16.2%), and faecal tests (gFOBT or FIT) or flexible sigmoidoscopy (16.7%) as primary screening test. The longer duration of screening was associated with a higher reduction in the pooled age-standardised mortality ratio. In particular, the pooled age-standardised mortality ratio became non-significant when the screening of FIT was implemented for less than 5 years.
CONCLUSIONS
A CRC screening programme running for > 5 years was associated with a reduction of CRC-related mortality. Countries with a heavy burden of CRC should implement sustainable, organised screening providing a choice between faecal tests and colonoscopy as a preferred primary test.
Topics: Humans; Child, Preschool; Early Detection of Cancer; Guaiac; Colonoscopy; Mass Screening; Colorectal Neoplasms; Occult Blood
PubMed: 38515013
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12054-7 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023The question of whether flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) affects incidence or mortality remains unclear. In this study, we conducted a...
BACKGROUND
The question of whether flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) affects incidence or mortality remains unclear. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review to explore this issue.
METHODS
A systematic search of , , and was performed for cohort studies (CS), case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of people who underwent FS and reported mortality or incidence of CRC until 11 December 2022. Relative risk (RR) was applied as an estimate of the effect of interest. To combine the RRs and 95% confidence intervals, a random-effects model was used. The quality of the included studies and evidence was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale, the Jadad scale, and the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation System."
RESULTS
There were a total of six RCTs and one CS, comprising 702,275 individuals. FS was found to be associated with a 26% RR reduction in CRC incidence (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.84) and a 30% RR reduction in CRC mortality (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.85). In the incidence subgroup analysis, FS significantly reduced the incidence of CRC compared with non-screening, usual care, and fecal immunochemical testing. Significance was also shown in men, women, distal site, stages III-IV, ages 55-59, and age over 60. In terms of the mortality subgroup analysis, the results were roughly the same as those of incidence.
CONCLUSION
According to this study, FS might reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC. To confirm this finding, further prospective clinical studies should be conducted based on a larger-scale population.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023388925.
PubMed: 38162502
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1288086 -
PloS One 2023Physical harm from Colorectal Cancer Screening tends to be inadequately measured and reported in clinical trials. Also, studies of ongoing Colorectal Cancer Screening... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Physical harm from Colorectal Cancer Screening tends to be inadequately measured and reported in clinical trials. Also, studies of ongoing Colorectal Cancer Screening programs have found more frequent and severe physical harm from screening procedures, e.g., bleeding and perforation, than reported in previous trials. Therefore, the objectives of the study were to systematically review the evidence on the risk of bleeding and perforation in Colorectal Cancer Screening.
DESIGN
Systematic review with descriptive statistics and random-effects meta-analyses.
METHODS
We systematically searched five databases for studies investigating physical harms related to Colorectal Cancer Screening. We assessed the internal and the external validity using the ROBINS-I tool and the GRADE approach. Harm estimates was calculated using mixed Poisson regression models in random-effect meta-analyses.
RESULTS
We included 89 studies. Reporting and measurement of harms was inadequate in most studies. In effect, the risk of bias was critical in 97.3% and serious in 98.3% of studies. All GRADE ratings were very low. Based on severe findings with not-critical risk of bias and 30 days follow-up, the risk of bleedings per 100,000 people screened were 8 [2;24] for sigmoidoscopy, 229 [129;408] for colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test, 68 [39;118] for once-only colonoscopy, and 698 [443;1045] for colonoscopy following any screening tests. The risk of perforations was 88 [56;138] for colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test and 53 [25;112] for once-only colonoscopy. There were no findings within the subcategory severe perforation with long-term follow-up for colonoscopy following any screening tests and sigmoidoscopy.
DISCUSSION
Harm estimates varied widely across studies, reporting and measurement of harms was mostly inadequate, and the risk of bias and GRADE ratings were very poor, collectively leading to underestimation of harm. In effect, we consider our estimates of perforation and bleeding as conservative, highlighting the need for better reporting and measurement in future studies.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017058844.
Topics: Humans; Sigmoidoscopy; Early Detection of Cancer; Colorectal Neoplasms; Colonoscopy; Mass Screening; Hemorrhage; Occult Blood
PubMed: 37906565
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292797 -
Preventive Medicine Oct 2023Since satisfaction with cancer screening experience can increase adherence to programs and contribute to reduce morbidity and mortality, its assessment is crucial for... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Since satisfaction with cancer screening experience can increase adherence to programs and contribute to reduce morbidity and mortality, its assessment is crucial for programs´ effectiveness. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review about satisfaction of participants with organized colorectal cancer screening.
METHODS
We searched relevant scientific databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) from inception to May 2022. We selected cross-sectional studies and clinical trials reporting a quantitative survey-based measure of satisfaction towards CRC screening.
RESULTS
A total of 15 studies were included, being published from 1992 to 2019 for an overall number of 21 surveys. Of those, 16 (76%) investigated satisfaction with screening tests (fecal occult blood test, fecal immunochemical test, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, computed tomographic colonography), 4 (19%) with colonoscopy as assessment test after suspicious findings, and 2 (10%) with both the screening and assessment phase. None of the included surveys used a validated questionnaire. Most surveys reported a high level of satisfaction for both screening and further assessment phases. Temporary pain, discomfort, embarrassment, and anxiety while waiting for results were the commonest negative aspects perceived, with some variability across studies and considered procedures.
CONCLUSIONS
Satisfaction with the information and communication about screening was generally good, but some authors reported participants' sub-optimal understanding of informative material. Satisfaction with CRC screening is generally high, but its evaluation is performed using non-validated instruments, which limits the interpretation of results and prevents comparability of the current body of evidence.
PubMed: 37722458
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2023.107706 -
JAMA Internal Medicine Nov 2023Cancer screening tests are promoted to save life by increasing longevity, but it is unknown whether people will live longer with commonly used cancer screening tests. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Cancer screening tests are promoted to save life by increasing longevity, but it is unknown whether people will live longer with commonly used cancer screening tests.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate lifetime gained with cancer screening.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized clinical trials with more than 9 years of follow-up reporting all-cause mortality and estimated lifetime gained for 6 commonly used cancer screening tests, comparing screening with no screening. The analysis included the general population. MEDLINE and the Cochrane library databases were searched, and the last search was performed October 12, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Mammography screening for breast cancer; colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) for colorectal cancer; computed tomography screening for lung cancer in smokers and former smokers; or prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Searches and selection criteria followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data were independently extracted by a single observer, and pooled analysis of clinical trials was used for analyses.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Life-years gained by screening was calculated as the difference in observed lifetime in the screening vs the no screening groups and computed absolute lifetime gained in days with 95% CIs for each screening test from meta-analyses or single randomized clinical trials.
RESULTS
In total, 2 111 958 individuals enrolled in randomized clinical trials comparing screening with no screening using 6 different tests were eligible. Median follow-up was 10 years for computed tomography, prostate-specific antigen testing, and colonoscopy; 13 years for mammography; and 15 years for sigmoidoscopy and FOBT. The only screening test with a significant lifetime gain was sigmoidoscopy (110 days; 95% CI, 0-274 days). There was no significant difference following mammography (0 days: 95% CI, -190 to 237 days), prostate cancer screening (37 days; 95% CI, -37 to 73 days), colonoscopy (37 days; 95% CI, -146 to 146 days), FOBT screening every year or every other year (0 days; 95% CI, -70.7 to 70.7 days), and lung cancer screening (107 days; 95% CI, -286 days to 430 days).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that current evidence does not substantiate the claim that common cancer screening tests save lives by extending lifetime, except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy.
Topics: Male; Humans; Early Detection of Cancer; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Mass Screening; Prostatic Neoplasms; Lung Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Colorectal Neoplasms; Colonoscopy; Occult Blood
PubMed: 37639247
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.3798 -
PloS One 2023Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing both incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy and stool tests are most frequently used for this purpose....
INTRODUCTION
Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing both incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy and stool tests are most frequently used for this purpose. Sigmoidoscopy is an alternative screening measure with a strong evidence base. Due to its distinct characteristics, it might be preferred by subgroups. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening compared to other screening methods and to identify influencing parameters.
METHODS
A systematic literature search for the time frame 01/2010-01/2023 was conducted using the databases MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, Web of Science, NHS EED, as well as the Cost-Effectiveness Registry. Full economic analyses examining sigmoidoscopy as a screening measure for the general population at average risk for CRC were included. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. All included studies were critically assessed based on a questionnaire for modelling studies.
RESULTS
Twenty-five studies are included in the review. Compared to no screening, sigmoidoscopy is a cost-effective screening strategy for CRC. When modelled as a single measure strategy, sigmoidoscopy is mostly dominated by colonoscopy or modern stool tests. When combined with annual stool testing, sigmoidoscopy in 5-year intervals is more effective and less costly than the respective strategies alone. The results of the studies are influenced by varying assumptions on adherence, costs, and test characteristics.
CONCLUSION
The combination of sigmoidoscopy and stool testing represents a cost-effective screening strategy that has not received much attention in current guidelines. Further research is needed that goes beyond a narrow focus on screening technology and models different, preference-based participation behavior in subgroups.
Topics: Humans; Early Detection of Cancer; Sigmoidoscopy; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Colonoscopy; Colorectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 37594967
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290353