BACKGROUND: Family history is one of the most important risk factors for developing colorectal cancer (CRC), and medical organizations recommend CRC screening in this population. However, the use of CRC screening is still low in our country. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of CRC screening, knowledge about CRC and screening tests, and factors related to screening in a family-risk population. METHODS: A total of 334 family-risk participants answered a questionnaire to assess the use of CRC screening tests, knowledge about CRC, risk perception, and barriers against screening. RESULTS: In total, 22% of participants had undergone at least one of the recommended tests for CRC screening. Furthermore, indication for screening was found in only 8% of participants. Use of CRC screening tests was significantly lower than mammography for breast cancer detection in women (20 vs. 82%, P<0.001) and use of serum prostate-specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in men (27 vs. 46%, P<0.001). Most participants (59%) knew that being elderly was a risk factor and only about half (47%) had knowledge about any of the recommended examinations. Only in about half of the cases (47%) was subjective risk perception higher than in the general population. In the logistic regression analysis, having more than one affected relative (odds ratio= 2.63, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-6.68; P=0.03) and a high subjective perception of risk (odds ratio= 2.87, 95% confidence interval: 1.10-7.46; P=0.03) were independent predictors for CRC screening. CONCLUSION: Less than 25% of the family-risk population has undergone a CRC screening test. Family history and subjective risk perception of CRC are the strongest predictors of CRC screening.
BACKGROUND: Family history is one of the most important risk factors for developing colorectal cancer (CRC), and medical organizations recommend CRC screening in this population. However, the use of CRC screening is still low in our country. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of CRC screening, knowledge about CRC and screening tests, and factors related to screening in a family-risk population. METHODS: A total of 334 family-risk participants answered a questionnaire to assess the use of CRC screening tests, knowledge about CRC, risk perception, and barriers against screening. RESULTS: In total, 22% of participants had undergone at least one of the recommended tests for CRC screening. Furthermore, indication for screening was found in only 8% of participants. Use of CRC screening tests was significantly lower than mammography for breast cancer detection in women (20 vs. 82%, P<0.001) and use of serum prostate-specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in men (27 vs. 46%, P<0.001). Most participants (59%) knew that being elderly was a risk factor and only about half (47%) had knowledge about any of the recommended examinations. Only in about half of the cases (47%) was subjective risk perception higher than in the general population. In the logistic regression analysis, having more than one affected relative (odds ratio= 2.63, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-6.68; P=0.03) and a high subjective perception of risk (odds ratio= 2.87, 95% confidence interval: 1.10-7.46; P=0.03) were independent predictors for CRC screening. CONCLUSION: Less than 25% of the family-risk population has undergone a CRC screening test. Family history and subjective risk perception of CRC are the strongest predictors of CRC screening.
Authors: Louisa Flander; Andrew Speirs-Bridge; Alison Rutstein; Heather Niven; Aung Ko Win; Driss Ait Ouakrim; John L Hopper; Finlay Macrae; Louise Keogh; Clara Gaff; Mark Jenkins Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2013-06-09 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Jan T Lowery; Dennis J Ahnen; Paul C Schroy; Heather Hampel; Nancy Baxter; C Richard Boland; Randall W Burt; Lynn Butterly; Megan Doerr; Mary Doroshenk; W Gregory Feero; Nora Henrikson; Uri Ladabaum; David Lieberman; Elizabeth G McFarland; Susan K Peterson; Martha Raymond; N Jewel Samadder; Sapna Syngal; Thomas K Weber; Ann G Zauber; Robert Smith Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Majid A Almadi; Mahmoud H Mosli; Mohamed S Bohlega; Mohanned A Al Essa; Mohammed S AlDohan; Turki A Alabdallatif; Turki Y AlSagri; Faleh A Algahtani; Ahmed Mandil Journal: Saudi J Gastroenterol Date: 2015 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.485
Authors: Martin C S Wong; Hoyee W Hirai; Arthur K C Luk; Thomas Y T Lam; Jessica Y L Ching; Sian M Griffiths; Francis K L Chan; Joseph J Y Sung Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-04-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Donald W Hadley; Dina Eliezer; Yonit Addissie; Andrea Goergen; Sato Ashida; Laura Koehly Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 4.379