Harminder Singh1, Charles N Bernstein2, Jewel N Samadder3, Rashid Ahmed4. 1. IBD Clinical and Research Centre, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. ; Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. ; Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. 2. IBD Clinical and Research Centre, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. ; Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. 3. Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 4. Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. ; Department of Epidemiology and Cancer Registry, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Implementation of population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs should reduce disparities in participation in CRC screening. We estimated CRC screening rates in 2012 in Canada and assessed predictors of screening in provinces with and without well-established population-based screening programs. METHODS: We used data from the Canadian Community Health Survey for 2012 to calculate the prevalence of up-to-date CRC screening, defined as fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) within 2 years before the survey or flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy within 10 years before the survey, or both. Weighted proportions of individuals with up-to-date screening were calculated and logistic regression analysis performed to assess predictors of up-to-date CRC screening, including differences in participation by income level. RESULTS: The prevalence of up-to-date CRC screening among people 50-74 years of age in 2012 was 55.2%, ranging from 41.3% in the territories to 67.2% in the province of Manitoba. The rate for sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy was 37.2% (highest in Ontario, at 43.3%), and for FOBT it was 30.1% (highest in Manitoba, at 51.7%). About 41% of those who had an FOBT also had a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. Individuals in the highest income group were more likely than those in lower-income groups to be up to date with CRC screening, even in provinces with well-established population-based screening programs. INTERPRETATION: More than half of Canadians were up to date with CRC screening in 2012, but there were large differences among provinces. Differences by income group in provinces with population-based screening programs need particular attention.
INTRODUCTION: Implementation of population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs should reduce disparities in participation in CRC screening. We estimated CRC screening rates in 2012 in Canada and assessed predictors of screening in provinces with and without well-established population-based screening programs. METHODS: We used data from the Canadian Community Health Survey for 2012 to calculate the prevalence of up-to-date CRC screening, defined as fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) within 2 years before the survey or flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy within 10 years before the survey, or both. Weighted proportions of individuals with up-to-date screening were calculated and logistic regression analysis performed to assess predictors of up-to-date CRC screening, including differences in participation by income level. RESULTS: The prevalence of up-to-date CRC screening among people 50-74 years of age in 2012 was 55.2%, ranging from 41.3% in the territories to 67.2% in the province of Manitoba. The rate for sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy was 37.2% (highest in Ontario, at 43.3%), and for FOBT it was 30.1% (highest in Manitoba, at 51.7%). About 41% of those who had an FOBT also had a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. Individuals in the highest income group were more likely than those in lower-income groups to be up to date with CRC screening, even in provinces with well-established population-based screening programs. INTERPRETATION: More than half of Canadians were up to date with CRC screening in 2012, but there were large differences among provinces. Differences by income group in provinces with population-based screening programs need particular attention.
Authors: Charles N Bernstein; Andre Wajda; Lawrence W Svenson; Adrian MacKenzie; Mieke Koehoorn; Maureen Jackson; Richard Fedorak; David Israel; James F Blanchard Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Anna P Schenck; Carrie N Klabunde; Joan L Warren; Sharon Peacock; William W Davis; Sarah T Hawley; Michael Pignone; David F Ransohoff Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: James Dickinson; Eva Tsakonas; Sarah Conner Gorber; Gabriela Lewin; Elizabeth Shaw; Harminder Singh; Michel Joffres; Richard Birtwhistle; Marcello Tonelli; Verna Mai; Meg McLachlin Journal: CMAJ Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: D Major; H Bryant; M Delaney; S Fekete; L Gentile; M Harrison; V Mai; E Nicholson; Y Taylor Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Aasma Shaukat; Steven J Mongin; Mindy S Geisser; Frank A Lederle; John H Bond; Jack S Mandel; Timothy R Church Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lu Deng; Kathleen Ismond; Zhengjun Liu; Jeremy Constable; Haili Wang; Olusegun I Alatise; Martin R Weiser; T P Kingham; David Chang Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Nancy N Baxter; Rinku Sutradhar; Qing Li; Corinne Daly; Gladys N Honein-AbouHaidar; Devon P Richardson; Lisa Del Giudice; Jill Tinmouth; Lawrence Paszat; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Chengyue Yang; Vaelan Sriranjan; Ahmed M Abou-Setta; William Poluha; John R Walker; Harminder Singh Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Elisabeth F P Peterse; Steffie K Naber; Corinne Daly; Aaron Pollett; Lawrence F Paszat; Manon C W Spaander; Melyssa Aronson; Robert Gryfe; Linda Rabeneck; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Nancy N Baxter Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 11.382