Colorectal Cancer Screening: Factors Associated with Colonoscopy After a Positive Faecal Occult Blood Test

Overview

Journal Br J Cancer

Specialty Oncology

Date 2013 Aug 31

PMID 23989948

Citations 18

Authors

E Ferrat

J Le Breton

K Veerabudun

S Bercier

Z Brixi

B Khoshnood

E Paillaud

C Attali

S Bastuji-Garin

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Contextual socio-economic factors, health-care access, and general practitioner (GP) involvement may influence colonoscopy uptake and its timing after positive faecal occult blood testing (FOBT). Our objectives were to identify predictors of delayed or no colonoscopy and to assess the role for GPs in colonoscopy uptake.

Methods: We included all residents of a French district with positive FOBTs (n = 2369) during one of the two screening rounds (2007-2010). Multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed to identify individual and area-level predictors of delayed colonoscopy, no colonoscopy, and no information on colonoscopy.

Results: A total of 998 (45.2%) individuals underwent early, 989 (44.8%) delayed, and 102 (4.6%) no colonoscopy; no information was available for 119 (5.4%) individuals. Delayed colonoscopy was independently associated with first FOBT (odds ratio, (OR)), 1.61; 95% confidence interval ((95% CI), 1.16-2.25); and no colonoscopy and no information with first FOBT (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.02-3.97), FOBT kit not received from the GP (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.67-3.14), and socio-economically deprived area (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.98-5.08). Colonoscopy uptake varied significantly across GPs (P=0.01).

Conclusion: Socio-economic factors, GP-related factors, and history of previous FOBT influenced colonoscopy uptake after a positive FOBT. Interventions should target GPs and individuals performing their first screening FOBT and/or living in socio-economically deprived areas.

Citing Articles

Reasons for No Colonoscopy After an Unfavorable Screening Result in Dutch Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Nationwide Questionnaire.

Bertels L, van Asselt K, van Weert H, Dekker E, Knottnerus B Ann Fam Med. 2022; 20(6):526-534.

PMID: 36443069 PMC: 9705029. DOI: 10.1370/afm.2871.

Time to Colonoscopy After Abnormal Stool-Based Screening and Risk for Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality.

San Miguel Y, Demb J, Martinez M, Gupta S, May F Gastroenterology. 2021; 160(6):1997-2005.e3.

PMID: 33545140 PMC: 8096663. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.01.219.

Implementing a multilevel intervention to accelerate colorectal cancer screening and follow-up in federally qualified health centers using a stepped wedge design: a study protocol.

Kim K, Polite B, Hedeker D, Liebovitz D, Randal F, Jayaprakash M Implement Sci. 2020; 15(1):96.

PMID: 33121536 PMC: 7599111. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-020-01045-4.

Low Rates of Colonoscopy Follow-up After a Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test in a Medicaid Health Plan Delivered Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

Green B, Baldwin L, West I, Schwartz M, Coronado G J Prim Care Community Health. 2020; 11:2150132720958525.

PMID: 32912056 PMC: 7488888. DOI: 10.1177/2150132720958525.

Time to colonoscopy, cancer probability, and precursor lesions in the Danish colorectal cancer screening program.

Kaalby L, Rasmussen M, Zimmermann-Nielsen E, Buijs M, Baatrup G Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 11:659-667.

PMID: 31440102 PMC: 6679696. DOI: 10.2147/CLEP.S206873.

References

Fisher D, Jeffreys A, Coffman C, Fasanella K . Barriers to full colon evaluation for a positive fecal occult blood test. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006; 15(6):1232-5. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0916. View

Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Watson E, Towler B, Irwig L . Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (hemoccult): an update. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008; 103(6):1541-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2008.01875.x. View

Weller D, Coleman D, Robertson R, Butler P, Melia J, Campbell C . The UK colorectal cancer screening pilot: results of the second round of screening in England. Br J Cancer. 2007; 97(12):1601-5. PMC: 2360273. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604089. View

Pornet C, Dejardin O, Morlais F, Bouvier V, Launoy G . Socioeconomic determinants for compliance to colorectal cancer screening. A multilevel analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009; 64(4):318-24. DOI: 10.1136/jech.2008.081117. View

Paterson W, Depew W, Pare P, Petrunia D, Switzer C, Veldhuyzen van Zanten S . Canadian consensus on medically acceptable wait times for digestive health care. Can J Gastroenterol. 2006; 20(6):411-23. PMC: 2659924. DOI: 10.1155/2006/343686. View

Frederiksen B, Jorgensen T, Brasso K, Holten I, Osler M . Socioeconomic position and participation in colorectal cancer screening. Br J Cancer. 2010; 103(10):1496-501. PMC: 2990593. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605962. View

Dupont-Lucas C, Dejardin O, Dancourt V, Launay L, Launoy G, Guittet L . Socio-geographical determinants of colonoscopy uptake after faecal occult blood test. Dig Liver Dis. 2011; 43(9):714-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2011.03.003. View

Etzioni D, Yano E, Rubenstein L, Lee M, Ko C, Brook R . Measuring the quality of colorectal cancer screening: the importance of follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006; 49(7):1002-10. DOI: 10.1007/s10350-006-0533-2. View

Turner B, Weiner M, Yang C, Tenhave T . Predicting adherence to colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy on the basis of physician appointment-keeping behavior. Ann Intern Med. 2004; 140(7):528-32. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-7-200404060-00013. View

10.

Rao S, Schilling T, Sequist T . Challenges in the management of positive fecal occult blood tests. J Gen Intern Med. 2009; 24(3):356-60. PMC: 2642561. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-008-0893-5. View

11.

Steele R, Kostourou I, McClements P, Watling C, Libby G, Weller D . Effect of gender, age and deprivation on key performance indicators in a FOBT-based colorectal screening programme. J Med Screen. 2010; 17(2):68-74. DOI: 10.1258/jms.2010.009120. View

12.

Von Wagner C, Baio G, Raine R, Snowball J, Morris S, Atkin W . Inequalities in participation in an organized national colorectal cancer screening programme: results from the first 2.6 million invitations in England. Int J Epidemiol. 2011; 40(3):712-8. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyr008. View

13.

Merlo J, Chaix B, Ohlsson H, Beckman A, Johnell K, Hjerpe P . A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: using measures of clustering in multilevel logistic regression to investigate contextual phenomena. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006; 60(4):290-7. PMC: 2566165. DOI: 10.1136/jech.2004.029454. View

14.

Guagliardo M . Spatial accessibility of primary care: concepts, methods and challenges. Int J Health Geogr. 2004; 3(1):3. PMC: 394340. DOI: 10.1186/1476-072X-3-3. View

15.

Gellad Z, Almirall D, Provenzale D, Fisher D . Time from positive screening fecal occult blood test to colonoscopy and risk of neoplasia. Dig Dis Sci. 2008; 54(11):2497-502. PMC: 3726721. DOI: 10.1007/s10620-008-0653-8. View

16.

Seeff L, Nadel M, Klabunde C, Thompson T, Shapiro J, Vernon S . Patterns and predictors of colorectal cancer test use in the adult U.S. population. Cancer. 2004; 100(10):2093-103. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20276. View

17.

Moss S, Campbell C, Melia J, Coleman D, Smith S, Parker R . Performance measures in three rounds of the English bowel cancer screening pilot. Gut. 2011; 61(1):101-7. PMC: 3230830. DOI: 10.1136/gut.2010.236430. View

18.

Ferlay J, Shin H, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin D . Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2011; 127(12):2893-917. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.25516. View

19.

Morris S, Baio G, Kendall E, von Wagner C, Wardle J, Atkin W . Socioeconomic variation in uptake of colonoscopy following a positive faecal occult blood test result: a retrospective analysis of the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Br J Cancer. 2012; 107(5):765-71. PMC: 3425978. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.303. View

20.

Jimbo M, Myers R, Meyer B, Hyslop T, Cocroft J, Turner B . Reasons patients with a positive fecal occult blood test result do not undergo complete diagnostic evaluation. Ann Fam Med. 2009; 7(1):11-6. PMC: 2625842. DOI: 10.1370/afm.906. View