Cargando…

Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second largest cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Current CRC screening in various countries involves stool-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and/or colonoscopy, yet public uptake remains sub-optimal. This revie...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ali, Omar, Gupta, Sunnia, Brain, Kate, Lifford, Kate J, Paranjothy, Shantini, Dolwani, Sunil
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9925898/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36039489
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09691413221109999
_version_ 1784888155920400384
author Ali, Omar
Gupta, Sunnia
Brain, Kate
Lifford, Kate J
Paranjothy, Shantini
Dolwani, Sunil
author_facet Ali, Omar
Gupta, Sunnia
Brain, Kate
Lifford, Kate J
Paranjothy, Shantini
Dolwani, Sunil
author_sort Ali, Omar
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second largest cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Current CRC screening in various countries involves stool-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and/or colonoscopy, yet public uptake remains sub-optimal. This review assessed the literature regarding acceptability of alternative CRC screening modalities compared to standard care in average-risk adults. METHOD: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science were conducted up to February 3(rd), 2022. The alternative interventions examined were computed tomography colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colon capsule endoscopy and blood-based biomarkers. Outcomes for acceptability were uptake, discomfort associated with bowel preparation, discomfort associated with screening procedure, screening preferences and willingness to repeat screening method. A narrative data synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Differences between intervention and comparison modalities in uptake did not reach statistical significance in most of the included studies. The findings do suggest FIT as being more acceptable as a screening modality than flexible sigmoidoscopy. There were no consistent significant differences in bowel preparation discomfort, screening procedure discomfort, screening preference and willingness to repeat screening between the standard care and alternative modalities. CONCLUSION: Current evidence comparing standard colonoscopy and stool-based CRC screening with novel modalities does not demonstrate any clear difference in acceptability. Due to the small number of studies available and included in each screening comparison and lack of observed differences, further research is needed to explore factors influencing acceptability of alternative CRC modalities that might result in improvement in population uptake within different contexts.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9925898
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99258982023-02-15 Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review Ali, Omar Gupta, Sunnia Brain, Kate Lifford, Kate J Paranjothy, Shantini Dolwani, Sunil J Med Screen Reviews OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second largest cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Current CRC screening in various countries involves stool-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and/or colonoscopy, yet public uptake remains sub-optimal. This review assessed the literature regarding acceptability of alternative CRC screening modalities compared to standard care in average-risk adults. METHOD: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science were conducted up to February 3(rd), 2022. The alternative interventions examined were computed tomography colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colon capsule endoscopy and blood-based biomarkers. Outcomes for acceptability were uptake, discomfort associated with bowel preparation, discomfort associated with screening procedure, screening preferences and willingness to repeat screening method. A narrative data synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Differences between intervention and comparison modalities in uptake did not reach statistical significance in most of the included studies. The findings do suggest FIT as being more acceptable as a screening modality than flexible sigmoidoscopy. There were no consistent significant differences in bowel preparation discomfort, screening procedure discomfort, screening preference and willingness to repeat screening between the standard care and alternative modalities. CONCLUSION: Current evidence comparing standard colonoscopy and stool-based CRC screening with novel modalities does not demonstrate any clear difference in acceptability. Due to the small number of studies available and included in each screening comparison and lack of observed differences, further research is needed to explore factors influencing acceptability of alternative CRC modalities that might result in improvement in population uptake within different contexts. SAGE Publications 2022-08-29 2023-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9925898/ /pubmed/36039489 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09691413221109999 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Reviews
Ali, Omar
Gupta, Sunnia
Brain, Kate
Lifford, Kate J
Paranjothy, Shantini
Dolwani, Sunil
Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review
title Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review
title_full Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review
title_fullStr Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review
title_short Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review
title_sort acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review
topic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9925898/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36039489
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09691413221109999
work_keys_str_mv AT aliomar acceptabilityofalternativetechnologiescomparedwithfaecalimmunochemicaltestandorcolonoscopyincolorectalcancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT guptasunnia acceptabilityofalternativetechnologiescomparedwithfaecalimmunochemicaltestandorcolonoscopyincolorectalcancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT brainkate acceptabilityofalternativetechnologiescomparedwithfaecalimmunochemicaltestandorcolonoscopyincolorectalcancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT liffordkatej acceptabilityofalternativetechnologiescomparedwithfaecalimmunochemicaltestandorcolonoscopyincolorectalcancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT paranjothyshantini acceptabilityofalternativetechnologiescomparedwithfaecalimmunochemicaltestandorcolonoscopyincolorectalcancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT dolwanisunil acceptabilityofalternativetechnologiescomparedwithfaecalimmunochemicaltestandorcolonoscopyincolorectalcancerscreeningasystematicreview