Literature DB >> 25378366

Comparison of uptake of colorectal cancer screening based on fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in males and females: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Nicholas Clarke1, Linda Sharp2, Aoife Osborne3, Patricia M Kearney4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in males and the second in females worldwide. Incidence and mortality are higher in men than women. Colorectal cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality. Internationally, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is increasingly being recommended as the primary screening test. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether uptake of FIT screening differs between men than women.
METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase for peer-reviewed articles published in English during 2000-2013 for randomized controlled trials (RCT) or observational studies of screening using FIT that quantified numbers invited and participating by gender. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model.
RESULTS: Six hundred and eighty-five citations were identified, 19 meeting the inclusion criteria. Random effects meta-analysis found male uptake was significantly lower than female uptake [odds ratio (OR), 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.75-0.95; P < 0.01]. This generally persisted throughout subgroup analysis of study design (RCTs vs. observational studies and study quality), screening organization (methods of invitation, number of samples, age range of screening, recommendations, and reminders), and setting.
CONCLUSIONS: Meta analysis of FIT screening studies indicates significantly lower uptake among men. IMPACT: Further investigation is required into factors influencing acceptability and participation of FIT screening in both sexes. ©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25378366     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0774

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  10 in total

1.  Development of FamilyTalk: an Intervention to Support Communication and Educate Families About Colorectal Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Deborah J Bowen; Travis Hyams; Mercy Laurino; Timothy Woolley; Stacey Cohen; Kathleen A Leppig; Gail Jarvik
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Social inequalities in a population based colorectal cancer screening programme in the Basque Country.

Authors:  Jose Luis Hurtado; Amaia Bacigalupe; Montse Calvo; Santi Esnaola; Nere Mendizabal; Isabel Portillo; Isabel Idigoras; Eduardo Millán; Eunate Arana-Arri
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 3.295

3.  Factors associated with use and non-use of the Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) kit for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Response to a 2012 outreach screening program: a survey study.

Authors:  Nancy P Gordon; Beverly B Green
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2015-06-11       Impact factor: 3.295

4.  Effects of CIK on hypoxia inducible factor-1α and T-cell subsets on colon 26 cancer xenograft mice.

Authors:  Hongzhen Zhang; Mingli Guo; Hongyao Chen; Ying Zhang; Li Ya He
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 2.967

5.  Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates-Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a 'One Stop' Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer.

Authors:  Amanda Bobridge; Kay Price; Tiffany K Gill; Anne W Taylor
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 6.244

6.  Factors Related to Non-participation in the Basque Country Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme.

Authors:  M Solís-Ibinagagoitia; S Unanue-Arza; M Díaz-Seoane; L Martínez-Indart; A Lebeña-Maluf; I Idigoras; I Bilbao; I Portillo
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2020-12-11

Review 7.  Colorectal cancer screening in Uruguay: current assessment and roadmap for the future.

Authors:  Micaela Reich; Lydia P Buki
Journal:  Psicol Reflex Crit       Date:  2021-06-29

8.  Using a hypothetical scenario to assess public preferences for colorectal surveillance following screening-detected, intermediate-risk adenomas: annual home-based stool test vs. triennial colonoscopy.

Authors:  Bernardette Bonello; Alex Ghanouni; Harriet L Bowyer; Eilidh MacRae; Wendy Atkin; Stephen P Halloran; Jane Wardle; Christian von Wagner
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 9.  Novel Diagnostic Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Aneta L Zygulska; Piotr Pierzchalski
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 5.923

10.  Colorectal cancer and potential predictors of never screened for faecal occult blood test: a narrative review.

Authors:  Mohd Fazeli Sazali; Syed Sharizman Syed Abdul Rahim; Firdaus Hayati; Mohd Nazri Mohd Daud; Richard Avoi; Azizan Omar; Azman Atil; Muhammad Aklil Abd Rahim; Mohd Faizal Madrim; Khalid Mokti; Abdul Rahman Ramdzan; Zulkhairul Naim Sidek Ahmad; Andee Dzulkarnaen Zakaria; Mohd Firdaus Che Ani; Aini Fahriza Ibrahim; Zahir Izuan Azhar; Mohammad Saffree Jeffree; Mohd Rohaizat Hassan
Journal:  J Public Health Res       Date:  2021-08-04
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.