Paul C Schroy1, Timothy C Heeren. 1. Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA 02118, USA. paul.schroy@bmc.org
Abstract
PURPOSE: Stool-based DNA (SB-DNA) testing is an emerging colorectal cancer screening strategy that offers a convenient, noninvasive, and potentially more acceptable alternative to existing screening tests. The objectives of this study were to compare patient perceptions of SB-DNA testing, fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), and colonoscopy, and elicit screening preferences. METHODS: A prospective survey was conducted between August 2001 and March 2003 of asymptomatic, mostly average-risk subjects aged > or =50 years who were participating in a multicenter comparison of SB-DNA testing and FOBT for detecting colorectal neoplasia. Subjects completed a 25-item questionnaire within 48 hours after undergoing a colonoscopy, which served as the standard. Respondents were asked to rate each of the three screening tests on various prep- and test-related features, using a five-point ordinal scale or yes/no format, and to select a preferred strategy. RESULTS: A total of 4042 subjects completed the survey (84% response rate). SB-DNA testing received the same or higher mean ratings than FOBT for most prep- and test-related features. When compared with colonoscopy, SB-DNA testing received higher ratings for all prep- and test-related features except perceived accuracy, where colonoscopy was rated higher. Overall, a higher percentage of patients preferred SB-DNA testing (45%) to both FOBT (32%) and colonoscopy (15%) for routine screening (p <0.001); 8% had no preference. CONCLUSIONS: Patients willing to undergo colonoscopy, SB-DNA testing, and FOBT perceive SB-DNA testing to have a number of advantages over the other two tests. Moreover, many such patients prefer SB-DNA testing to FOBT and colonoscopy for routine screening.
PURPOSE: Stool-based DNA (SB-DNA) testing is an emerging colorectal cancer screening strategy that offers a convenient, noninvasive, and potentially more acceptable alternative to existing screening tests. The objectives of this study were to compare patient perceptions of SB-DNA testing, fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), and colonoscopy, and elicit screening preferences. METHODS: A prospective survey was conducted between August 2001 and March 2003 of asymptomatic, mostly average-risk subjects aged > or =50 years who were participating in a multicenter comparison of SB-DNA testing and FOBT for detecting colorectal neoplasia. Subjects completed a 25-item questionnaire within 48 hours after undergoing a colonoscopy, which served as the standard. Respondents were asked to rate each of the three screening tests on various prep- and test-related features, using a five-point ordinal scale or yes/no format, and to select a preferred strategy. RESULTS: A total of 4042 subjects completed the survey (84% response rate). SB-DNA testing received the same or higher mean ratings than FOBT for most prep- and test-related features. When compared with colonoscopy, SB-DNA testing received higher ratings for all prep- and test-related features except perceived accuracy, where colonoscopy was rated higher. Overall, a higher percentage of patients preferred SB-DNA testing (45%) to both FOBT (32%) and colonoscopy (15%) for routine screening (p <0.001); 8% had no preference. CONCLUSIONS:Patients willing to undergo colonoscopy, SB-DNA testing, and FOBT perceive SB-DNA testing to have a number of advantages over the other two tests. Moreover, many such patients prefer SB-DNA testing to FOBT and colonoscopy for routine screening.
Authors: Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Karen M Kuntz; Amy B Knudsen; Janneke A Wilschut; Ann G Zauber; Marjolein van Ballegooijen Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Dennis Yang; Shauna L Hillman; Ann M Harris; Pamela S Sinicrope; Mary E Devens; David A Ahlquist Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Cathy L Melvin; Anissa I Vines; Allison M Deal; Holly O Pierce; William R Carpenter; Paul A Godley Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Kim Y C Fung; Bruce Tabor; Michael J Buckley; Ilka K Priebe; Leanne Purins; Celine Pompeia; Gemma V Brierley; Trevor Lockett; Peter Gibbs; Jeanne Tie; Paul McMurrick; James Moore; Andrew Ruszkiewicz; Edouard Nice; Timothy E Adams; Antony Burgess; Leah J Cosgrove Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-20 Impact factor: 3.240