Search

Background: The European Community recommends the implementation of population-based screening programmes for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancers. This recommendation is supported by many observational studies showing that organised programmes effectively reduce mortality and control the inappropriate use of screening tests. We conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the efficacy of interventions to increase participation in organised population-based screening programs., Methods: We included all studies on interventions aimed at increasing screening participation published between 1/1999 and 7/2012. For those published before 1999, we considered the Jepson et al. (2000) review (Health Technol Assess 4:1-133, 2000)., Results: Including studies from the Jepson review, we found 69 with quantitative information on interventions in organised screening: 19 for cervical, 26 for breast, 20 colorectal cancers, and 4 for cervical and breast cancer together.Effective interventions were: postal (breast RR = 1,37 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI): 1.25-1.51; cervical RR = 1.71 95% CI: 1.60-1.83; colorectal RR = 1.33 95% CI: 1.17-1.51) and telephone reminders (with heterogeneous methods for implementation); GP's signature on invitation letter (breast RR = 1.13 95% CI: 1.11-1.16; cervical RR = 1.20 95% CI: 1.10-1.30; colorectal RR = 1.15 95% CI: 1.07-1.24); scheduled appointment instead of open appointment (breast RR = 1.26 95% CI: 1.02-1.55; cervical RR = 1.49 95% CI: 1.27-1.75; colorectal RR = 1.79 95% CI: 1.65-1.93). Mailing a kit for self-sampling cervical specimens increased participation in non-responders (RR = 2.37 95% CI: 1.44-3.90)., Conclusion: Although some interventions did prove to be effective, some specific variables may influence their effectiveness in and applicability to organised population-based screening programs.

Background: A variety of tests have been proposed for colorectal cancer (CRC), giving rise to uncertainty regarding the optimal approach. The efficacy and effectiveness of different tests are related to both screened participation and the detection rate., Aim: To perform a meta-analysis on adherence and detection rates of CRC screening tests., Methods: Relevant publications were identified by MEDLINE/EMBASE and other databases for the period 1999-2012. A previous systematic review was used for the period before 1966-1999. RCTs and controlled studies including a direct comparison of the uptake rates among different options for CRC screening were included. Adherence and detection rates for advanced neoplasia and cancer were extracted. Risk for bias was ascertained according to CONSORT guidelines. Forrest plots were produced based on random-effect models., Results: Fourteen studies provided data on 197 910 subjects. Endoscopic strategies were associated with a lower participation (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.80) rate, but a higher detection rate of advanced neoplasia (RR: 3.21, 95% CI: 2.38, 4.32) compared with faecal tests. FIT was superior to g-FOBT with regard to both adherence (RR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.03, 1.30) and detection of advanced neoplasia (RR: 2.28, 95% CI 1.68, 3.10) and cancer (RR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.2, 3.2)., Conclusion: The superior accuracy of endoscopy compared with faecal tests minimised any impact of the participation rate in determining the detection rate of advanced neoplasia in a screening setting., (© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Background: Screening programmes should be organized to translate theoretical efficacy into effectiveness. An evidence-based organizational model of colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) should assure feasibility and high compliance., Methods: A multidisciplinary Working Group (WG), reviewed literature and guidelines to define evidence-based recommendations. The WG identified the need for further local studies: physicians' CRCS attitudes, the effect of test type and provider on compliance, and individual reasons for non-compliance. A survey of digestive endoscopy services was conducted. A feasibility study on a target population of 300.000 has begun., Results: Based on the results of population trials and on literature review the screening strategy adopted was Faecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) every two years for 50-74 year olds and, for positives, colonoscopy. The immunochemical test was chosen because it has 20% higher compliance than the Guaiac. GPs were chosen as the preferred provider also for higher compliance. Since we observed that distance is the major determinant of non-compliance, we choose GPs because they are the closest providers, both geographically and emotionally, to the public. The feasibility study showed several barriers: GP participation was low, there were administrative problems to involve GPs; opportunistic testing by the GPs; difficulties in access to Gastroenterology centres; difficulties in gathering colonoscopy results; little time given to screening activity by the gastroenterology centre., Conclusion: The feasibility study highlighted several limits of the model. Most of the barriers that emerged were consequences of organisational choices not supported by evidence. The principal limit was a lack of accountability by the participating centres.

Introduction: Endoscopy plays a key role in colorectal cancer screening; at the beginning of a mass screening campaign, it is important for public health officials to assess physicians' attitudes and adherence to guidelines regarding colorectal cancer screening., Methods: In April 2004, a questionnaire was sent to all 80 digestive endoscopy centers in the Lazio region, identified by the annual census of the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy. The results were compared to those from a similar survey of general practitioners (GPs)., Results: Seventy-one centers (89%) returned the questionnaire. Only 3% of physicians said they did not recommend any colorectal cancer screening test. Colonoscopy was perceived as the most effective screening test and was the most recommended (80%). Fecal occult blood test was recommended by 61% of physicians and flexosigmoidoscopy by 11%. Endoscopy centers' physicians recommend screening more than GPs (96.9% vs. 78.3%), while they have a similar level of over-recommending (50.8% vs. 47.2%). Almost 95% of endoscopy physicians properly recommended colonoscopy after positive FOBT., Conclusions: Neither physicians at endoscopy centers nor GPs tend to follow screening guidelines. Screening programmes should not rely on a single medical specialist, but on interdisciplinary management of the disease to strengthen adherence to existing guidelines.

The aim of the present work is to describe the characteristics of digestive endoscopy centers and the physicians that work there, with particular attention to their attitudes and practices in colorectal cancer screening. A questionnaire was sent to all 80 digestive endoscopy centers in the Lazio region, identified by the annual census of Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (Società Italiana di Endoscopia Digestiva, SIED). Seventy-one centers (89%), returned the questionnaire. Screening activity on average represents 14% of the centers' colonoscopy workload. Colonoscopy was considered to be a "very effective" screening test by 96% of physicians, the faecal occult blood test "very effective" by 20%, and flexosigmoidoscopy "very effective" by 11%. Ninety-seven percent (97%) of physicians reported recommending any test for screening: 80% colonoscopy, 61% faecal occult blood test, 14% double contrast barium enema and 11% flexosigmoidoscopy. Despite the fact that almost all physicians reported recommending screening, the centres are only marginally involved in screening practice. Endoscopy centers' physicians tend to have an aggressive strategy for colorectal cancer prevention and exclusive trust in colonoscopy; an attitude more consistent with a clinical-diagnostic approach than with real mass screening of a healthy population.

Background: The efficacy of colorectal cancer screening has been proved, and three different screening tests are recommended by international guidelines: the faecal occult blood test, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. While the effectiveness of a screening program depends on the compliance obtained, the role of the type of test on compliance has not yet been sufficiently studied., Aims: To measure the effect of the type of screening test used, i.e. faecal occult blood test or flexible sigmoidoscopy, on the compliance to colorectal cancer screening programs., Subjects and Methods: A cluster-randomized two-arm trial was conducted. We randomly assigned 20 GP's practices that had an average of 150 patients between 50 and 74 years old., Results: 1449 individuals were referred to faecal occult blood test and 1538 to flexible sigmoidoscopy. The faecal occult blood test obtained higher compliance: 17.2% (95%CI 12.5-25.7) versus 7.0% (95%CI 5.7-9.0). The socio-economic status was an effect modifier of the test type: the effect of the type of test was smaller in low socioeconomic classes., Conclusions: The type of screening test used for colorectal cancer is a determinant of participation. In a low compliance area, better compliance will result from offering the faecal occult blood test than from the flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Background: The major limit to colorectal cancer screening effectiveness is often low compliance. We studied the reasons for non compliance and determinants of compliance to faecal occult blood tests in Lazio, Italy., Methods: This is a case-control study nested within a trial that tested the effect of type of test and provider on colorectal cancer screening compliance. Non compliant trial subjects were classified as cases, and compliant subjects were classified as controls. We sampled 600 cases and 600 controls matched by their general practitioner, half were invited for screening at the hospital, and the other half directly at their general practitioner's office. Cases and controls answered questions on: distance from test provider, logistical problems, perception of colorectal cancer risk, confidence in screening efficacy, fear of results, presence of colorectal cancer in the family, and gastrointestinal symptoms., Results: About 31% of cases never received the letter offering free screening, and 17% of the sampled population had already been screened. The first reported reason for non-compliance was "lack of time" (30%); the major determinant of compliance was the distance from the test provider: odds ratio > 30 minutes vs < 15 minutes 0.3 (95% CI = 0.2-0.7). The odds ratio for lack of time was 0.16 (95% IC 0.1-0.26). The effect was stronger if the hospital (0.03 95% CI = 0.01-0.1) rather than the general practitioner (0.3 95% CI = 0.2-0.6) was the provider. Twenty-two percent of controls were accompanied by someone to the test., Conclusion: To increase compliance, screening programmes must involve test providers who are geographically close to the target population.

Several population-based trials have shown the efficacy of colorectal cancer mass-screening based on guaiac faecal blood testing in a generic risk population. SCCR represents a very complex and resource-demanding public health intervention and, for this reason, its planning requires actual efficacy as a main goal. Since evidence of efficacy demonstrated by population-based trials may not actually generate effectiveness, the Regional Government of Latium Region decided to implement some experimental studies before introducing a screening programme, in order to define an evidence-based organisational model of SCCR and a feasibility evaluation of the real needs for screening. The aims of the pilot studies were to define an evidence-based organisational model, to evaluate the necessary resources and the actual quality standard of clinical examination, treatment and surgery. The aim of the feasibility study is to test the organisational model for SCCR for about 300,000 citizens residing in the Latium region. The present article illustrates the scheduling path set out, which is based on the involvement of experts, GP representatives and specialists from scientific societies and it is planned by the following actions: Definition of evidence-based recommendations; identification of further investigations; realization of experimental studies; definition of an evidence-based organisational model. The main research areas have been dealt with using randomised trials, in order to evaluate the efficacy of the involvement of GPs and the kind of test for RSOF Our work has produced evidences which were sometimes in contrast with information in the literature, demonstrating that guaiac RSOF testing is less reproducible and determines lower uptake than immunochemical testing. Our work also shows that the involvement of GPs should be based on their personal skills rather than on their role. Such evidences are fundamental to the definition of the organisational model and confirm the need of basing an evidence-based planning not only on evidences found in the literature. The necessity of this approach is strengthened by the level of organisational complexity and by the amount of resources needed to put a public health intervention into practice.

Background: Several international guidelines have recommended the involvement of general practitioners (GPs) in screening programs, but current evidence suggests this is very difficult. We implemented a survey to understand the attitudes, knowledge, and practices regarding colorectal cancer screening of GPs in the Lazio region., Methods: Survey of all GPs working in 13 of the 50 districts in Lazio using a mail-in questionnaire., Results: Out of 1192 GPs, 699 responded (59%). Ninety-four percent consider CRC a preventable disease. Knowledge about oncological screenings is higher in GPs using the guidelines as source of information. Twenty-five percent properly recommend the available screening tests for colorectal cancer, 22% do not recommend any, 6% under-recommend, and 47% over-recommend. Adequate knowledge of oncological screenings is positively associated with correct recommendation. Thirty-two percent of GPs recommend inappropriate follow-up tests for patients with positive fecal occult blood test., Conclusions: The low response rate reveals the lack of GP's interest in screening. Knowledge about screening and use of guidelines as sources of scientific information are important factors to improve attitudes about screening, but there is a large percentage of well-informed GPs who do not recommend colorectal cancer screening at all. Currently, many GPs do not properly follow the patients up after a positive FOBT.

The efficacy of faecal occult blood test as primary screening for colorectal cancer has been demonstrated. Screening programs, to be effective, should guarantee high compliance in the target population. The aim of this paper is to describe the design of three connected studies aimed at obtaining precise indications for planning a colorectal cancer screening program with high compliance. We designed a survey, with a randomised controlled trial nested within it, and a case-control study nested within that and defined by the results of the trial. The complex interconnection of studies reflects the aim to produce indications for an evidence-based planning of a public health program, which is itself, a complex phenomenon. The trial was designed to evaluate two different types of tests, Immunochemical and Guaiac, and two different providers, general practitioner and hospital, with a 2 x 2 factorial design. The randomization was performed at two different levels to minimize the loss of power: at the practice level for test type (cluster randomisation) and individual level for provider type.