Literature DB >> 17400596

Low adherence to colonoscopy in the screening of first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer.

Luis Bujanda1, Cristina Sarasqueta, Leire Zubiaurre, Angel Cosme, Carmen Muñoz, Araceli Sánchez, Cristina Martín, Llucia Tito, Virginia Piñol, Antoni Castells, Xavier Llor, Rosa M Xicola, Elisenda Pons, Juan Clofent, María L de Castro, Jaime Cuquerella, Enrique Medina, Ana Gutierrez, Juan I Arenas, Rodrigo Jover.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is one of the methods of choice for screening relatives of patients with colorectal cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate of adherence to colonoscopy in first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer and describe the lesions found.
METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional, multicentre, nationwide study was conducted. The study population was composed of first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer selected randomly from the EPICOLON study. Seventy-four index patients were included. These had 342 living first-degree relatives (parents, siblings and children), of whom 281 were interviewed.
RESULTS: The adherence rate was 38% (107/281). Adherence was greater in families with a higher degree of familial aggregation for colorectal cancer (88.9% for Amsterdam vs 33.3% for Bethesda and sporadic cancer; p<0.05), an index patient aged under 65 years (60% for patients <65 years vs 32.9% for patients >or=65 years; p<0.05) and an index patient who was female (46.2% for women vs 31% for men; p = 0.28). Adherence was also greater in relatives under 65 years (54% in patients <65 years vs 18% in patients >or=65 years; p = 0.05), in female relatives (49% in female relatives vs 27.3% in male relatives; p<0.05) and in siblings and children (40% in siblings and children vs 13% in parents; p<0.05). Lesions were found in 26% (28/107) of the study population. Nine (8.4%) individuals had a total of 18 advanced lesions.
CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that adherence to colonoscopy in our population of first-degree relatives was low. The adherence was more frequently associated with a higher degree of familial aggregation, a relative age of under 65 years, a sibling or offspring relationship, and female sex.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17400596      PMCID: PMC2095719          DOI: 10.1136/gut.2007.120709

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gut        ISSN: 0017-5749            Impact factor:   23.059


  38 in total

1.  Mass population screening for colorectal cancer: factors influencing subjects' choice of screening test.

Authors:  E Frew; J Wolstenholme; D Whynes
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  2001-04

2.  Summaries for patients. Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendations from the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-07-16       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Screening with faecal occult blood test (FOBT) for colorectal cancer: assessment of two methods that attempt to improve compliance.

Authors:  L Ore; L Hagoel; I Lavi; G Rennert
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 2.497

4.  Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults according to the distal colorectal findings.

Authors:  T F Imperiale; D R Wagner; C Y Lin; G N Larkin; J D Rogge; D F Ransohoff
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-07-20       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Risk and reluctance: understanding impediments to colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  E R Weitzman; J Zapka; B Estabrook; K V Goins
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 4.018

6.  Colorectal cancer screening in older men and women: qualitative research findings and implications for intervention.

Authors:  C Beeker; J M Kraft; B G Southwell; C M Jorgensen
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2000-06

7.  Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence.

Authors:  Sidney Winawer; Robert Fletcher; Douglas Rex; John Bond; Randall Burt; Joseph Ferrucci; Theodore Ganiats; Theodore Levin; Steven Woolf; David Johnson; Lynne Kirk; Scott Litin; Clifford Simmang
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 22.682

8.  A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Gavin C Harewood; Maurits J Wiersema; L Joseph Melton
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  Estimating time and travel costs incurred in clinic based screening: flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  E Frew; J L Wolstenholme; W Atkin; D K Whynes
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.136

10.  Predictors of attendance in the United Kingdom flexible sigmoidoscopy screening trial.

Authors:  S Sutton; J Wardle; T Taylor; K McCaffery; S Williamson; R Edwards; J Cuzick; A Hart; J Northover; W Atkin
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.136

View more
  28 in total

1.  Magnetic air capsule robotic system: proof of concept of a novel approach for painless colonoscopy.

Authors:  P Valdastri; G Ciuti; A Verbeni; A Menciassi; P Dario; A Arezzo; M Morino
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-12-17       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Colon capsule endoscopy: toward the future.

Authors:  Naoki Muguruma; Kumiko Tanaka; Satoshi Teramae; Tetsuji Takayama
Journal:  Clin J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-01-13

Review 3.  When even people at high risk do not take up colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Uri Ladabaum
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 23.059

4.  Colorectal cancer screening in patients at moderately increased risk due to family history.

Authors:  Otto S Lin
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2012-06-15

Review 5.  Familial colorectal cancer: a review.

Authors:  Franco Armelao; Giovanni de Pretis
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-07-28       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Colorectal cancer screening among primary care patients: does risk affect screening behavior?

Authors:  Christina B Felsen; Alicja Piasecki; Jeanne M Ferrante; Pamela A Ohman-Strickland; Benjamin F Crabtree
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2011-08

Review 7.  PillCam colon capsule endoscopy (PCCE) in colonic diseases.

Authors:  Dan Carter; Rami Eliakim
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-08

8.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Fecal Immunochemical Test in Patients at Increased Risk for Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Anastasia Katsoula; Paschalis Paschos; Anna-Bettina Haidich; Apostolos Tsapas; Olga Giouleme
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 9.  Advanced endoscopic technologies for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Keith L Obstein; Pietro Valdastri
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-01-28       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Video capsule colonoscopy in routine clinical practice.

Authors:  Ervin Toth; Diana E Yung; Artur Nemeth; Gabriele Wurm Johansson; Henrik Thorlacius; Anastasios Koulaouzidis
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.