Cargando…
Improving compliance to colorectal cancer screening using blood and stool based tests in patients refusing screening colonoscopy in Germany
BACKGROUND: Despite strong recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, participation rates are low. Understanding factors that affect screening choices is essential to developing future screening strategies. Therefore, this study assessed patient willingness to use non-invasive stool or b...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4287474/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25326034 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-14-183 |
_version_ | 1782351791927590912 |
---|---|
author | Adler, Andreas Geiger, Sebastian Keil, Anne Bias, Harald Schatz, Philipp deVos, Theo Dhein, Jens Zimmermann, Mathias Tauber, Rudolf Wiedenmann, Bertram |
author_facet | Adler, Andreas Geiger, Sebastian Keil, Anne Bias, Harald Schatz, Philipp deVos, Theo Dhein, Jens Zimmermann, Mathias Tauber, Rudolf Wiedenmann, Bertram |
author_sort | Adler, Andreas |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Despite strong recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, participation rates are low. Understanding factors that affect screening choices is essential to developing future screening strategies. Therefore, this study assessed patient willingness to use non-invasive stool or blood based screening tests after refusing colonoscopy. METHODS: Participants were recruited during regular consultations. Demographic, health, psychological and socioeconomic factors were recorded. All subjects were advised to undergo screening by colonoscopy. Subjects who refused colonoscopy were offered a choice of non-invasive tests. Subjects who selected stool testing received a collection kit and instructions; subjects who selected plasma testing had a blood draw during the office visit. Stool samples were tested with the Hb/Hp Complex Elisa test, and blood samples were tested with the Epi proColon® 2.0 test. Patients who were positive for either were advised to have a diagnostic colonoscopy. RESULTS: 63 of 172 subjects were compliant to screening colonoscopy (37%). 106 of the 109 subjects who refused colonoscopy accepted an alternative non-invasive method (97%). 90 selected the Septin9 blood test (83%), 16 selected a stool test (15%) and 3 refused any test (3%). Reasons for blood test preference included convenience of an office draw, overall convenience and less time consuming procedure. CONCLUSIONS: 97% of subjects refusing colonoscopy accepted a non-invasive screening test of which 83% chose the Septin9 blood test. The observation that participation can be increased by offering non-invasive tests, and that a blood test is the preferred option should be validated in a prospective trial in the screening setting. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-230X-14-183) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4287474 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-42874742015-01-09 Improving compliance to colorectal cancer screening using blood and stool based tests in patients refusing screening colonoscopy in Germany Adler, Andreas Geiger, Sebastian Keil, Anne Bias, Harald Schatz, Philipp deVos, Theo Dhein, Jens Zimmermann, Mathias Tauber, Rudolf Wiedenmann, Bertram BMC Gastroenterol Research Article BACKGROUND: Despite strong recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, participation rates are low. Understanding factors that affect screening choices is essential to developing future screening strategies. Therefore, this study assessed patient willingness to use non-invasive stool or blood based screening tests after refusing colonoscopy. METHODS: Participants were recruited during regular consultations. Demographic, health, psychological and socioeconomic factors were recorded. All subjects were advised to undergo screening by colonoscopy. Subjects who refused colonoscopy were offered a choice of non-invasive tests. Subjects who selected stool testing received a collection kit and instructions; subjects who selected plasma testing had a blood draw during the office visit. Stool samples were tested with the Hb/Hp Complex Elisa test, and blood samples were tested with the Epi proColon® 2.0 test. Patients who were positive for either were advised to have a diagnostic colonoscopy. RESULTS: 63 of 172 subjects were compliant to screening colonoscopy (37%). 106 of the 109 subjects who refused colonoscopy accepted an alternative non-invasive method (97%). 90 selected the Septin9 blood test (83%), 16 selected a stool test (15%) and 3 refused any test (3%). Reasons for blood test preference included convenience of an office draw, overall convenience and less time consuming procedure. CONCLUSIONS: 97% of subjects refusing colonoscopy accepted a non-invasive screening test of which 83% chose the Septin9 blood test. The observation that participation can be increased by offering non-invasive tests, and that a blood test is the preferred option should be validated in a prospective trial in the screening setting. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-230X-14-183) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-10-17 /pmc/articles/PMC4287474/ /pubmed/25326034 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-14-183 Text en © Adler et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Adler, Andreas Geiger, Sebastian Keil, Anne Bias, Harald Schatz, Philipp deVos, Theo Dhein, Jens Zimmermann, Mathias Tauber, Rudolf Wiedenmann, Bertram Improving compliance to colorectal cancer screening using blood and stool based tests in patients refusing screening colonoscopy in Germany |
title | Improving compliance to colorectal cancer screening using blood and stool based tests in patients refusing screening colonoscopy in Germany |
title_full | Improving compliance to colorectal cancer screening using blood and stool based tests in patients refusing screening colonoscopy in Germany |
title_fullStr | Improving compliance to colorectal cancer screening using blood and stool based tests in patients refusing screening colonoscopy in Germany |
title_full_unstemmed | Improving compliance to colorectal cancer screening using blood and stool based tests in patients refusing screening colonoscopy in Germany |
title_short | Improving compliance to colorectal cancer screening using blood and stool based tests in patients refusing screening colonoscopy in Germany |
title_sort | improving compliance to colorectal cancer screening using blood and stool based tests in patients refusing screening colonoscopy in germany |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4287474/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25326034 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-14-183 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT adlerandreas improvingcompliancetocolorectalcancerscreeningusingbloodandstoolbasedtestsinpatientsrefusingscreeningcolonoscopyingermany AT geigersebastian improvingcompliancetocolorectalcancerscreeningusingbloodandstoolbasedtestsinpatientsrefusingscreeningcolonoscopyingermany AT keilanne improvingcompliancetocolorectalcancerscreeningusingbloodandstoolbasedtestsinpatientsrefusingscreeningcolonoscopyingermany AT biasharald improvingcompliancetocolorectalcancerscreeningusingbloodandstoolbasedtestsinpatientsrefusingscreeningcolonoscopyingermany AT schatzphilipp improvingcompliancetocolorectalcancerscreeningusingbloodandstoolbasedtestsinpatientsrefusingscreeningcolonoscopyingermany AT devostheo improvingcompliancetocolorectalcancerscreeningusingbloodandstoolbasedtestsinpatientsrefusingscreeningcolonoscopyingermany AT dheinjens improvingcompliancetocolorectalcancerscreeningusingbloodandstoolbasedtestsinpatientsrefusingscreeningcolonoscopyingermany AT zimmermannmathias improvingcompliancetocolorectalcancerscreeningusingbloodandstoolbasedtestsinpatientsrefusingscreeningcolonoscopyingermany AT tauberrudolf improvingcompliancetocolorectalcancerscreeningusingbloodandstoolbasedtestsinpatientsrefusingscreeningcolonoscopyingermany AT wiedenmannbertram improvingcompliancetocolorectalcancerscreeningusingbloodandstoolbasedtestsinpatientsrefusingscreeningcolonoscopyingermany |