Literature DB >> 8849763

Screening for colorectal cancer by once only sigmoidoscopy: a feasibility study in Turin, Italy.

C Senore1, N Segnan, F P Rossini, R Ferraris, M Cavallero, F Coppola, M Pennazio, W S Atkin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact on compliance of three invitation methods, as well as the acceptability and efficacy of two bowel preparation regimens, for endoscopic screening in the general population.
METHODS: 1170 subjects (men and women aged 55 to 59, in the rosters of a sample of general practitioners (GPs) in Turin), were randomly allocated to one of three invitation groups (A: personal letter, signed by GP, with a pre-fixed appointment; B: same as for A + letter supporting the study by a well known scientist; C: letter signed by the study coordinator, NS) and two preparation regimens (i: one enema, self administered at home two hours before the test; ii: two enemas, administered the night before and two hours before the test). A postal reminder was mailed to non-attenders. A sample of non-responders was contacted for a telephone interview by a trained nurse. Written consent was obtained from all subjects undergoing the test.
RESULTS: A total of 278 subjects attended for sigmoidoscopic screening. An invitation from the GP alone produced the highest response rate (compliance: A = 29.3%; B = 24.9%; C = 26.8%). A single enema was as effective as two enemas in achieving satisfactory preparation for the test: the proportion of subjects invited to repeat the test was 8.1% in the single enema group, and 9.6% in the group receiving two enemas.
CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with this screening procedure tends to be low. One enema, self administered two hours before sigmoidoscopy, can ensure a satisfactory bowel preparation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8849763     DOI: 10.1177/096914139600300205

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  9 in total

1.  Barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a case-control study.

Authors:  Shan-Rong Cai; Su-Zhan Zhang; Hong-Hong Zhu; Shu Zheng
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-05-28       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  Option appraisal of population-based colorectal cancer screening programmes in England.

Authors:  Paul Tappenden; James Chilcott; Simon Eggington; Julietta Patnick; Hannah Sakai; Jonathon Karnon
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2006-12-01       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  Grading of distal colorectal adenomas as predictors for proximal colonic neoplasia and choice of endoscope in population screening: experience from the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention study (NORCCAP).

Authors:  G Gondal; T Grotmol; B Hofstad; M Bretthauer; T J Eide; G Hoff
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 4.  Colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Ramona-M McLoughlin; Colm-A O'Morain
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-11-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  CT colonography for population screening of colorectal cancer: hints from European trials.

Authors:  Lapo Sali; Daniele Regge
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-09-14       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Can colorectal cancer mass-screening organization be evidence-based? Lessons from failures: the experimental and pilot phases of the Lazio program.

Authors:  Antonio Federici; Alessandra Barca; Diego Baiocchi; Francesco Quadrino; Sabrina Valle; Piero Borgia; Gabriella Guasticchi; Paolo Giorgi Rossi
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2008-09-19       Impact factor: 3.295

7.  Uptake of population-based flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer: a nurse-led feasibility study.

Authors:  Hannah Brotherstone; Maggie Vance; Robert Edwards; Anne Miles; Kathryn A Robb; Ruth E C Evans; Jane Wardle; Wendy Atkin
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.136

Review 8.  Methods to increase participation in organised screening programs: a systematic review.

Authors:  Laura Camilloni; Eliana Ferroni; Beatriz Jimenez Cendales; Annamaria Pezzarossi; Giacomo Furnari; Piero Borgia; Gabriella Guasticchi; Paolo Giorgi Rossi
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 3.295

9.  Reasons for noncompliance with five-yearly screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Authors:  Charlie Henri Viiala; John Kevin Olynyk
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2008-02-02       Impact factor: 2.711

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.