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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Adler, Andreas, Geiger, Sebastian, Keil, Anne, Bias, Harald, Schatz, Philipp, deVos, Theo, Dhein, Jens, Zimmermann, Mathias, Tauber, Rudolf, Wiedenmann, Bertram
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