Personalised Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies: Information Needs of the Target Population

Overview

Journal Prev Med Rep

Date 2023 Aug 21

PMID 37601828

Authors

Esther Toes-Zoutendijk

Lucie de Jonge

Emilie C H Breekveldt

Ida J Korfage

Juliet A Usher-Smith

Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar

Rebecca A Dennison

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Prior faecal Hemoglobin (f-Hb) concentrations of a negative fecal immunochemical test (FIT) can be used for risk stratification in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Individuals with higher f-Hb concentrations may benefit from a shorter screening interval (1 year), whereas individuals with undetectable f-Hb concentrations could benefit from a longer screening interval (3 year). Individuals' views on personalised CRC screening and information needed to make a well-informed decision is unknown. We conducted three semi-structured focus groups among individuals eligible for CRC screening (i.e. men and women aged 55 to 75) in the Netherlands. Thematic analysis was used to analyse participants' information need on personalised CRC screening strategies. Fourteen individuals took part. The majority were positive about CRC screening and indicated that they would participate in personalised CRC screening. The rationale for a longer interval among those at lowest risk was, however, unclear for many. The preferred information on individual risk was variable: ranging from full information to only information on the personalised strategy without mentioning the risk. It was not possible to address everyone's need with a single approach. Additional communications, e.g. public media campaigns, billboards, videos on social media, were also suggested as necessary. This study showed that preferences on receiving information on individual CRC risk varied substantially and no consensus was reached. Introducing a personalised screening programme will require careful communication, particularly around the rationale for the strategy, and a layered approach to deliver information.

References

Rainey L, van der Waal D, Broeders M . Dutch women's intended participation in a risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention programme: a survey study identifying preferences, facilitators and barriers. BMC Cancer. 2020; 20(1):965. PMC: 7539478. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07464-2. View

Tinmouth J, Llovet D, Sutradhar R, Tsiplova K, Roushani J, Lee A . Two randomized controlled trials for colorectal cancer screening invitations developed using a behavioral science approach. Prev Med. 2021; 155:106918. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106918. View

Kobayashi L, Waller J, Von Wagner C, Wardle J . A lack of information engagement among colorectal cancer screening non-attenders: cross-sectional survey. BMC Public Health. 2016; 16:659. PMC: 4966703. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3374-5. View

Usher-Smith J, Harvey-Kelly L, Rossi S, Harrison H, Griffin S, Stewart G . Acceptability and potential impact on uptake of using different risk stratification approaches to determine eligibility for screening: A population-based survey. Health Expect. 2020; 24(2):341-351. PMC: 8077132. DOI: 10.1111/hex.13175. View

Usher-Smith J, Mills K, Riedinger C, Saunders C, Helsingen L, Lytvyn L . The impact of information about different absolute benefits and harms on intention to participate in colorectal cancer screening: A think-aloud study and online randomised experiment. PLoS One. 2021; 16(2):e0246991. PMC: 7886213. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246991. View

Timmermans D, Ockhuysen-Vermey C, Henneman L . Presenting health risk information in different formats: the effect on participants' cognitive and emotional evaluation and decisions. Patient Educ Couns. 2008; 73(3):443-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.013. View

Henneman L, Timmermans D, Bouwman C, Cornel M, Meijers-Heijboer H . 'A low risk is still a risk': exploring women's attitudes towards genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility in order to target disease prevention. Public Health Genomics. 2010; 14(4-5):238-47. DOI: 10.1159/000276543. View

Meester R, van de Schootbrugge-Vandermeer H, Breekveldt E, de Jonge L, Toes-Zoutendijk E, Kooyker A . Faecal occult blood loss accurately predicts future detection of colorectal cancer. A prognostic model. Gut. 2022; 72(1):101-108. PMC: 9763180. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2022-327188. View

Degeling C, Barratt A, Aranda S, Bell R, Doust J, Houssami N . Should women aged 70-74 be invited to participate in screening mammography? A report on two Australian community juries. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(6):e021174. PMC: 6009633. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021174. View

10.

Thomas C, Mandrik O, Whyte S . Modelling cost-effective strategies for minimising socioeconomic inequalities in colorectal cancer screening outcomes in England. Prev Med. 2022; 162:107131. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107131. View

11.

Lippey J, Keogh L, Mann G, Campbell I, Forrest L . "A Natural Progression": Australian Women's Attitudes About an Individualized Breast Screening Model. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2019; 12(6):383-390. DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-18-0443. View

12.

Dorval M, Bouchard K, Chiquette J, Glendon G, Maugard C, Dubuisson W . A focus group study on breast cancer risk presentation: one format does not fit all. Eur J Hum Genet. 2012; 21(7):719-24. PMC: 3722946. DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.248. View

13.

Taylor L, Hutchinson A, Law K, Shah V, Usher-Smith J, Dennison R . Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of the general public: A mixed-methods systematic review. Health Expect. 2023; 26(3):989-1008. PMC: 10154794. DOI: 10.1111/hex.13739. View

14.

Piper M, Maratt J, Zikmund-Fisher B, Lewis C, Forman J, Vijan S . Patient Attitudes Toward Individualized Recommendations to Stop Low-Value Colorectal Cancer Screening. JAMA Netw Open. 2019; 1(8):e185461. PMC: 6324357. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.5461. View

15.

Hill S, Spink J, Cadilhac D, Edwards A, Kaufman C, Rogers S . Absolute risk representation in cardiovascular disease prevention: comprehension and preferences of health care consumers and general practitioners involved in a focus group study. BMC Public Health. 2010; 10:108. PMC: 2845101. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-108. View

16.

Toes-Zoutendijk E, van Leerdam M, Dekker E, van Hees F, Penning C, Nagtegaal I . Real-Time Monitoring of Results During First Year of Dutch Colorectal Cancer Screening Program and Optimization by Altering Fecal Immunochemical Test Cut-Off Levels. Gastroenterology. 2016; 152(4):767-775.e2. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.11.022. View

17.

Breekveldt E, Toes-Zoutendijk E, de Jonge L, Spaander M, Dekker E, van Kemenade F . Personalized colorectal cancer screening: study protocol of a mixed-methods study on the effectiveness of tailored intervals based on prior f-Hb concentration in a fit-based colorectal cancer screening program (PERFECT-FIT). BMC Gastroenterol. 2023; 23(1):45. PMC: 9948315. DOI: 10.1186/s12876-023-02670-1. View

18.

Scherer L, Valentine K, Patel N, Baker S, Fagerlin A . A bias for action in cancer screening?. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2018; 25(2):149-161. DOI: 10.1037/xap0000177. View

19.

Koitsalu M, Sprangers M, Eklund M, Czene K, Hall P, Gronberg H . Public interest in and acceptability of the prospect of risk-stratified screening for breast and prostate cancer. Acta Oncol. 2015; 55(1):45-51. DOI: 10.3109/0284186X.2015.1043024. View

20.

Dworkin S . Sample size policy for qualitative studies using in-depth interviews. Arch Sex Behav. 2012; 41(6):1319-20. DOI: 10.1007/s10508-012-0016-6. View