Sharon S Laing1, Andy Bogart, Jessica Chubak, Sharon Fuller, Beverly B Green. 1. Authors' Affiliations: Health Promotion Research Center, University of Washington; Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle; and Department of Psychology, Eastern Washington University, Bellevue, Washington.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) reduces morbidity and mortality; however, the positive benefits might be partially offset by long-term distress following positive screening results. We examined relationships among colorectal cancer-specific worry and situational anxiety after positive fecal occult blood tests [FOBT (+)] compared with receipt of negative results. METHODS: Of note, 2,260 eligible members of Group Health, an integrated healthcare delivery system, completed baseline surveys and received FOBT screening kits, with 1,467 members returning the kits. We matched FOBT (+) patients (n = 55) 1:2 on age and sex with FOBT (-) respondents (n = 110). Both groups completed follow-up surveys at 7 to 14 days and 4 months after screening. We assessed situational anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI), colorectal cancer worry frequency, and mood disturbance. RESULTS:Mean age was 59 years, and majority were women (62%) and White (89%). After adjusting for age, sex, and baseline worry, at 7 to 14 days after screening, the FOBT (+) group was 3.82 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09-13.43] times more likely to report colorectal cancer-related mood disturbances and significantly higher mean STAI scores than the FOBT (-) group (mean = 38.8 vs. 30.9; P = 0.007). At 4-month posttest, mood disturbances and situational anxiety seemed to drop to baseline levels for FOBT (+). No colon cancer worry frequency was observed. CONCLUSIONS:FOBT (+) results are associated with short-term situational anxiety and colorectal cancer-specific mood disturbances. IMPACT: Distress from FOBT (+) results declined to near-baseline levels by 4 months. Additional studies are needed to clarify the relationship between long-term distress and follow-up colonoscopy.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) reduces morbidity and mortality; however, the positive benefits might be partially offset by long-term distress following positive screening results. We examined relationships among colorectal cancer-specific worry and situational anxiety after positive fecal occult blood tests [FOBT (+)] compared with receipt of negative results. METHODS: Of note, 2,260 eligible members of Group Health, an integrated healthcare delivery system, completed baseline surveys and received FOBT screening kits, with 1,467 members returning the kits. We matched FOBT (+) patients (n = 55) 1:2 on age and sex with FOBT (-) respondents (n = 110). Both groups completed follow-up surveys at 7 to 14 days and 4 months after screening. We assessed situational anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI), colorectal cancer worry frequency, and mood disturbance. RESULTS: Mean age was 59 years, and majority were women (62%) and White (89%). After adjusting for age, sex, and baseline worry, at 7 to 14 days after screening, the FOBT (+) group was 3.82 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09-13.43] times more likely to report colorectal cancer-related mood disturbances and significantly higher mean STAI scores than the FOBT (-) group (mean = 38.8 vs. 30.9; P = 0.007). At 4-month posttest, mood disturbances and situational anxiety seemed to drop to baseline levels for FOBT (+). No colon cancer worry frequency was observed. CONCLUSIONS: FOBT (+) results are associated with short-term situational anxiety and colorectal cancer-specific mood disturbances. IMPACT: Distress from FOBT (+) results declined to near-baseline levels by 4 months. Additional studies are needed to clarify the relationship between long-term distress and follow-up colonoscopy.
Authors: Kathleen Dracup; Cheryl Westlake; Virginia S Erickson; Debra K Moser; Mary L Caldwell; Michelle A Hamilton Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: P C Trask; A G Paterson; C Wang; S Hayasaka; K J Milliron; L R Blumberg; R Gonzalez; S Murray; S D Merajver Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2001 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.894
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: Emma Chad-Friedman; Sarah Coleman; Lara N Traeger; William F Pirl; Roberta Goldman; Steven J Atlas; Elyse R Park Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-08-22 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: Ruben Hernaez; Jennifer R Kramer; Aisha Khan; Jessica Phillips; Katharine McCallister; Kassie Chaffin; Adriana Portela Hernandez; Hannah Fullington; Cynthia Ortiz; James-Michael Blackwell; Adam Loewen; Yan Liu; Jasmin A Tiro; Simon C Lee; Amit G Singal Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2020-08-21 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Patricia Markham Risica; Natalie H Matthews; Laura Dionne; Jennifer Mello; Laura K Ferris; Melissa Saul; Alan C Geller; Francis Solano; John M Kirkwood; Martin A Weinstock Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2018-04-17