Literature DB >> 28266301

Screening for Bowel Cancer: Increasing Participation via Personal Invitation.

Michael Hoffmeister1, Bernd Holleczek, Nadine Zwink, Christian Stock, Christa Stegmaier, Hermann Brenner.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Participation rates in bowel cancer screening programs in Germany continue to be low. In a model project, a logistically simple procedure for inviting patients to participate was tested as a means of increasing participation.
METHODS: A randomized trial was performed involving persons residing in the German federal state of Saarland who had either their 50th or their 55th birthday in the year beginning on 1 April 2012 (18 560 and 16 824 persons, respectively). The 50-year-olds received a written invitation to undergo a test for blood in the stool, either with or without a stool test attached, or else no invitation at all. The 55-year-olds received either an invitation to undergo colonoscopy or no invitation. Participation rates within one year were determined from billing data of the Saarland Association of Statutory Health. Insurance Physicians. The trial was registered in the German Registry of Clinical Trials, no. DRKS00006098.
RESULTS: A written invitation to undergo testing of the stool for blood, together with an accompanying test, increased the participation rate within one year by 62% (from 15% to 25%, p <0.001, especially among men (+158% vs. +39% for women). The participation rate was higher in general among women than among men (33% vs. 17%). On the other hand, a written invitation with no accompanying test did not increase the participation rate. A written invitation to undergo colonoscopic screening increased the participation rate within one year by 32% (5.9% vs 4.4%, p <0.001).
CONCLUSION: Targeted invitations can markedly increase participation rates in cancer screening. Written invitations to undergo stool testing for blood should be accompanied by an actual test. Further trials should also include information about the number of adenomas and carcinomas detected by screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28266301      PMCID: PMC5341111          DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2017.0087

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int        ISSN: 1866-0452            Impact factor:   5.594


  16 in total

Review 1.  Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (hemoccult): an update.

Authors:  Paul Hewitson; Paul Glasziou; Eila Watson; Bernie Towler; Les Irwig
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-05-13       Impact factor: 10.864

2.  Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case-control study.

Authors:  Hermann Brenner; Jenny Chang-Claude; Christoph M Seiler; Alexander Rickert; Michael Hoffmeister
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-01-04       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 3.  Comparing participation rates between immunochemical and guaiac faecal occult blood tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Gemma Vart; Rita Banzi; Silvia Minozzi
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 4.018

Review 4.  Effectiveness, training and quality assurance of colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Douglas J Robertson; Michal F Kaminski; Michael Bretthauer
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2015-03-24       Impact factor: 23.059

5.  Participation, yield, and interval carcinomas in three rounds of biennial FIT-based colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  I Stegeman; S C van Doorn; M W Mundt; R C Mallant-Hent; E Bongers; M A G Elferink; P Fockens; A K Stroobants; P M Bossuyt; E Dekker
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2015-04-21       Impact factor: 2.984

6.  Superior diagnostic performance of faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin in a head-to-head comparison with guaiac based faecal occult blood test among 2235 participants of screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Hermann Brenner; Sha Tao
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 9.162

7.  [Participation in cancer screening in Germany: results of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS1)].

Authors:  A Starker; A-C Saß
Journal:  Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.513

Review 8.  Declining Bowel Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Germany.

Authors:  Hermann Brenner; Petra Schrotz-King; Bernd Holleczek; Alexander Katalinic; Michael Hoffmeister
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2016-02-19       Impact factor: 5.594

9.  Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup.

Authors:  S J Winawer; A G Zauber; M N Ho; M J O'Brien; L S Gottlieb; S S Sternberg; J D Waye; M Schapiro; J H Bond; J F Panish
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-12-30       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Inequalities in participation in an organized national colorectal cancer screening programme: results from the first 2.6 million invitations in England.

Authors:  Christian von Wagner; Gianluca Baio; Rosalind Raine; Julia Snowball; Stephen Morris; Wendy Atkin; Austin Obichere; Graham Handley; Richard F Logan; Sandra Rainbow; Stephen Smith; Stephen Halloran; Jane Wardle
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 7.196

View more
  8 in total

1.  Invitation to Screening Colonoscopy in the Population at Familial Risk for Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Alexander Bauer; Jürgen F Riemann; Thomas Seufferlein; Max Reinshagen; Stephan Hollerbach; Ulrike Haug; Susanne Unverzagt; Stephanie Boese; Madeleine Ritter-Herschbach; Patrick Jahn; Thomas Frese; Michael Harris; Margarete Landenberger
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2018-10-26       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  Missing Information.

Authors:  Roland Büchter; Klaus Koch; Regina Will
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2017-06-23       Impact factor: 5.594

3.  Preventing Bowel Cancer Through Hormones.

Authors:  Matthias J Wenderlein
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2017-06-23       Impact factor: 5.594

4.  In Reply.

Authors:  Michael Hoffmeister; Bernd Holleczek; Christian Stock; Hermann Brenner
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2017-06-23       Impact factor: 5.594

5.  Individual invitation letters lead to significant increase in attendance for screening colonoscopies: Results of a pilot study in Northern Hesse, Germany.

Authors:  K Stratmann; H Bock; N Filmann; P Fister; C Weber; W Tacke; B Simonis; M Höftmann; O Schröder; J Hausmann; S Zeuzem; I Blumenstein
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2018-04-16       Impact factor: 4.623

6.  Availability of Financial and Medical Resources for Screening Providers and Its Impact on Cancer Screening Uptake and Intervention Programs.

Authors:  Koshi Takahashi; Sho Nakamura; Kaname Watanabe; Masahiko Sakaguchi; Hiroto Narimatsu
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-09-12       Impact factor: 4.614

7.  Effect of Various Invitation Schemes on the Use of Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Laura Fiona Gruner; Michael Hoffmeister; Leopold Ludwig; Hermann Brenner
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2020-04-03

Review 8.  The Effects of Different Invitation Schemes on the Use of Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Laura F Gruner; Efrat L Amitay; Thomas Heisser; Feng Guo; Tobias Niedermaier; Anton Gies; Michael Hoffmeister; Hermann Brenner
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-25       Impact factor: 6.639

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.