BACKGROUND: The Ontario FOBT Project is a pilot study of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) for colorectal cancer screening conducted among age-eligible volunteers (50 to 75 years) in 12 of 37 public health regions in Ontario. METHODS: Volunteers responded to invitations from primary care practitioners (PCPs) in six regions, and from public health programs in the remaining regions. FOBT collection kits were distributed from routine laboratory specimen collection sites, to which completed kits were returned. Results were sent to PCPs in all 12 regions, with copies sent to the study office at Cancer Care Ontario (Toronto, Ontario). Follow-up of positive results was at the discretion of the PCPs. The study files contained the unique Ontario Health Insurance Numbers, the date of the analyses, the number of satisfactory slides and the results for each slide. The Ontario Health Insurance Numbers were encrypted for each participant, and along with the study file, were linked to medical billing claims, hospital records and aggregate demographic data. RESULTS: Among participants with positive results (men 3.5% and women 2.2%), the median time from date of FOBT analysis to date of colonoscopy was 121 days among men and 202 days among women. At the end of follow-up, after positive FOBT (six to 17 months), 73% of men and 56% of women had proceeded to colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: Although colonoscopy appeared to be acceptable to the majority of participants with positive FOBT, accessibility problems was the likely explanation for lengthy intervals between the date of positive FOBT and its performance. Differences between the experiences of men and women require further investigation.
BACKGROUND: The Ontario FOBT Project is a pilot study of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) for colorectal cancer screening conducted among age-eligible volunteers (50 to 75 years) in 12 of 37 public health regions in Ontario. METHODS: Volunteers responded to invitations from primary care practitioners (PCPs) in six regions, and from public health programs in the remaining regions. FOBT collection kits were distributed from routine laboratory specimen collection sites, to which completed kits were returned. Results were sent to PCPs in all 12 regions, with copies sent to the study office at Cancer Care Ontario (Toronto, Ontario). Follow-up of positive results was at the discretion of the PCPs. The study files contained the unique Ontario Health Insurance Numbers, the date of the analyses, the number of satisfactory slides and the results for each slide. The Ontario Health Insurance Numbers were encrypted for each participant, and along with the study file, were linked to medical billing claims, hospital records and aggregate demographic data. RESULTS: Among participants with positive results (men 3.5% and women 2.2%), the median time from date of FOBT analysis to date of colonoscopy was 121 days among men and 202 days among women. At the end of follow-up, after positive FOBT (six to 17 months), 73% of men and 56% of women had proceeded to colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: Although colonoscopy appeared to be acceptable to the majority of participants with positive FOBT, accessibility problems was the likely explanation for lengthy intervals between the date of positive FOBT and its performance. Differences between the experiences of men and women require further investigation.
Authors: Timothy R Church; Mark W Yeazel; Resa M Jones; Laura K Kochevar; Gavin D Watt; Steven J Mongin; Jill E Cordes; Deborah Engelhard Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-05-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: G Grazzini; G Castiglione; C Ciabattoni; F Franceschini; D Giorgi; S Gozzi; P Mantellini; P Lopane; M Perco; T Rubeca; P Salvadori; C B Visioli; M Zappa Journal: Eur J Cancer Prev Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: B P Saunders; M Fukumoto; S Halligan; C Jobling; M E Moussa; C I Bartram; C B Williams Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: David H Stockwell; Paula Woo; Brian C Jacobson; Renee Remily; Sapna Syngal; Jacqueline Wolf; Francis A Farraye Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Jacqueline Price; Christine Campbell; Joanne Sells; David Weller; Harry Campbell; Margaret Kenicer; Malcolm Dunlop Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2005-05-03 Impact factor: 2.341
Authors: Amit G Singal; Samir Gupta; Celette Sugg Skinner; Chul Ahn; Noel O Santini; Deepak Agrawal; Christian A Mayorga; Caitlin Murphy; Jasmin A Tiro; Katharine McCallister; Joanne M Sanders; Wendy Pechero Bishop; Adam C Loewen; Ethan A Halm Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Melissa R Partin; Amy A Gravely; James F Burgess; David A Haggstrom; Sarah E Lillie; David B Nelson; Sean M Nugent; Aasma Shaukat; Shahnaz Sultan; Louise C Walter; Diana J Burgess Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Melissa R Partin; Diana J Burgess; James F Burgess; Amy Gravely; David Haggstrom; Sarah E Lillie; Sean Nugent; Adam A Powell; Aasma Shaukat; Louise C Walter; David B Nelson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jessica Chubak; Michael P Garcia; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Yingye Zheng; Douglas A Corley; Ethan A Halm; Amit G Singal; Carrie N Klabunde; Chyke A Doubeni; Aruna Kamineni; Theodore R Levin; Joanne E Schottinger; Beverly B Green; Virginia P Quinn; Carolyn M Rutter Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Douglas A Corley; Christopher D Jensen; Virginia P Quinn; Chyke A Doubeni; Ann G Zauber; Jeffrey K Lee; Joanne E Schottinger; Amy R Marks; Wei K Zhao; Nirupa R Ghai; Alexander T Lee; Richard Contreras; Charles P Quesenberry; Bruce H Fireman; Theodore R Levin Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Karen Kim; Blasé Polite; Donald Hedeker; David Liebovitz; Fornessa Randal; Manasi Jayaprakash; Michael Quinn; Sang Mee Lee; Helen Lam Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 7.327