PURPOSE: Screening programs for colorectal cancer aim at reducing cancer mortality. We assessed psychological effects of being invited to an immunochemical fecal test (FIT)-based screening program. METHODS: Asymptomatic persons aged 50-74 years were invited to a Dutch screening pilot. The Psychological Consequences Questionnaire (PCQ) was used to measure the psychological effects of screening. Screen positives had two additional measurements: before undergoing the colonoscopy and 4 weeks after receiving the colonoscopy findings. RESULTS: A number of 3,828 invitees (46 % male, mean age 60 years) completed the first PCQ. FIT positives had a higher mean total PCQ score (8.32, SD 8.84; score range 0-36) than those who declined participation (3.72, SD 6.30); participants still waiting for their FIT result had a mean score of 2.74 (SD 5.11), and those with a negative FIT result had the lowest score (2.06, SD 4.43) (p < 0.001). In the 373 FIT positives who underwent colonoscopy, 195 completed the pre-colonoscopy questionnaire and 253, the post-colonoscopy questionnaire. Mean total, physical, and social PCQ scores had decreased significantly between the first questionnaire and the pre-colonoscopy one, but scores on the emotional subscale did not. In false-positives, mean total, physical, and emotional PCQ scores decreased significantly, while in true-positives, a significant decrease in mean emotional PCQ score was observed. CONCLUSION: Psychological consequences for invitees to a Dutch FIT-based colorectal cancer screening pilot differ, depending on timing and FIT result. FIT positives are more distressed than FIT negatives. FIT positives still experience psychological distress 6 weeks after a normal colonoscopy.
PURPOSE: Screening programs for colorectal cancer aim at reducing cancer mortality. We assessed psychological effects of being invited to an immunochemical fecal test (FIT)-based screening program. METHODS: Asymptomatic persons aged 50-74 years were invited to a Dutch screening pilot. The Psychological Consequences Questionnaire (PCQ) was used to measure the psychological effects of screening. Screen positives had two additional measurements: before undergoing the colonoscopy and 4 weeks after receiving the colonoscopy findings. RESULTS: A number of 3,828 invitees (46 % male, mean age 60 years) completed the first PCQ. FIT positives had a higher mean total PCQ score (8.32, SD 8.84; score range 0-36) than those who declined participation (3.72, SD 6.30); participants still waiting for their FIT result had a mean score of 2.74 (SD 5.11), and those with a negative FIT result had the lowest score (2.06, SD 4.43) (p < 0.001). In the 373 FIT positives who underwent colonoscopy, 195 completed the pre-colonoscopy questionnaire and 253, the post-colonoscopy questionnaire. Mean total, physical, and social PCQ scores had decreased significantly between the first questionnaire and the pre-colonoscopy one, but scores on the emotional subscale did not. In false-positives, mean total, physical, and emotional PCQ scores decreased significantly, while in true-positives, a significant decrease in mean emotional PCQ score was observed. CONCLUSION: Psychological consequences for invitees to a Dutch FIT-based colorectal cancer screening pilot differ, depending on timing and FIT result. FIT positives are more distressed than FIT negatives. FIT positives still experience psychological distress 6 weeks after a normal colonoscopy.
Authors: Mary B Barton; Debra S Morley; Sara Moore; Jennifer D Allen; Ken P Kleinman; Karen M Emmons; Suzanne W Fletcher Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-04-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Grace Clarke Hillyer; Christopher D Jensen; Wei K Zhao; Alfred I Neugut; Benjamin Lebwohl; Jasmin A Tiro; Lawrence H Kushi; Douglas A Corley Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Benedicte Kirkøen; Paula Berstad; Edoardo Botteri; Tone Lise Åvitsland; Alvilde Maria Ossum; Thomas de Lange; Geir Hoff; Tomm Bernklev Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Jeremy P Brown; Kate Wooldrage; Suzanne Wright; Claire Nickerson; Amanda J Cross; Wendy S Atkin Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2017-05-03 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Jade Law; Anand Rajan; Harry Trieu; John Azizian; Rani Berry; Simon W Beaven; James H Tabibian Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2021-08-04 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: Nina C A Vermeer; Maxime J M van der Valk; Heleen S Snijders; Hans F A Vasen; Arthur Gerritsen van der Hoop; Onno R Guicherit; Gerrit-Jan Liefers; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Anne M Stiggelbout; Koen C M J Peeters Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2020-04-14 Impact factor: 3.894