Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Poor Knowledge of Personal and Familial Colorectal Cancer Risk and Screening Recommendations Associated with Advanced Colorectal Polyps

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and Aims

Advanced colorectal polyps (adenoma or sessile serrated polyp ≥ 1 cm, adenoma with villous features, adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, or any sessile serrated polyps with dysplasia) are associated with an increased risk of future advanced colorectal neoplasia and confer an increased risk of advanced neoplasia to first-degree family members. Professional societies therefore recommend more intensive surveillance of these polyps and earlier screening for first-degree relatives. The aim of this study was to assess knowledge of personal and familial risk and recommendations among patients with advanced colorectal polyps and identify predictors of knowledge.

Methods

An online survey was designed to assess the domains of knowledge and risk perception regarding personal and familial colorectal cancer risk and screening recommendations. After expert review and pilot testing, the 37-item survey was electronically sent to all patients diagnosed with an advanced colon or rectal polyp under the age of 60. Patient report of polyp findings was compared to documented findings in the medical record. Univariable and multivariable regressions were performed to evaluate predictors of knowledge.

Results

One hundred thirty-seven out of 344 (39.8%) eligible patients responded to the survey. 28.5% of participants reported that the polyp they had removed was precancerous. 54.8% of participants reported that they have a higher risk of CRC, and 65.2% reported that they should be undergoing colonoscopy surveillance in 3 years or less. 40.1% reported that their first-degree family members are at increased CRC risk, and 38.0% reported that first-degree family members should get earlier screening. Participants reported their endoscopists as their top source of information about risk and recommendations, though only 7.3% of endoscopists made recommendations for family members. Female gender and higher income were predictors of accurate knowledge, as endoscopist was the main source of knowledge.

Conclusions

Patients with advanced colorectal polyps have poor knowledge of personal and familial CRC risk and recommendations. Endoscopists who remove advanced polyps are in an ideal position to educate their patients about their personal risk and the risk and recommendations for first-degree family members.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CRC:

Colorectal cancer

FDR:

First-degree relative

MSTF:

Multi-society task force

NCCN:

National comprehensive cancer network

References

  1. Lowery JT, Ahnen DJ, Schroy PC 3rd, et al. Understanding the contribution of family history to colorectal cancer risk and its clinical implications: a state-of-the-science review. Cancer. 2016;122:2633–2645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Butterworth AS, Higgins JP, Pharoah P. Relative and absolute risk of colorectal cancer for individuals with a family history: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42:216–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tuohy TM, Rowe KG, Mineau GP, et al. Risk of colorectal cancer and adenomas in the families of patients with adenomas: a population-based study in Utah. Cancer. 2014;120:35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cottet V, Pariente A, Nalet B, et al. Colonoscopic screening of first-degree relatives of patients with large adenomas: increased risk of colorectal tumors. Gastroenterology. 2007;133:1086–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:844–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:307–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. NCCN. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: colorectal cancer screening. Volume 2014. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/colorectal_screening.pdf, 2013.

  8. Ely JW, Levy BT, Daly J, et al. Patient beliefs about colon cancer screening. J Cancer Educ. 2016;31:39–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Schroy PC 3rd, Lal SK, Wilson S, et al. Deficiencies in knowledge and familial risk communication among colorectal adenoma patients. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2005;39:298–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Patel SG, Ahnen DJ, Kinney AY, et al. Knowledge and uptake of genetic counseling and colonoscopic screening among individuals at increased risk for lynch syndrome and their endoscopists from the family health promotion project. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:285–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lowery JT, Horick N, Kinney AY, et al. A randomized trial to increase colonoscopy screening in members of high-risk families in the colorectal cancer family registry and cancer genetics network. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23:601–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gurmankin Levy A, Shea J, Williams SV, et al. Measuring perceptions of breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:1893–1898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Downing SM. Validity: on meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ. 2003;37:830–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kiviniemi MT, Bennett A, Zaiter M, et al. Individual-level factors in colorectal cancer screening: a review of the literature on the relation of individual-level health behavior constructs and screening behavior. Psychooncology. 2011;20:1023–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gravetter F, Forzano L-A. Research Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM, et al. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Roberts MC, Dotson WD, DeVore CS, et al. Delivery of cascade screening for hereditary conditions: a scoping review of the literature. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018;37:801–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding was provided by National Cancer Institute (Grant No. P30CA046934).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, 12631 E 17th Avenue, Room 7614, Campus Box 158, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA

    Swati G. Patel, Dennis J. Ahnen, Amitha Gumidyala, Jeannine Espinoza, Andrew Nicklawsky, Junxiao Hu, Derek Smith, Jan Lowery, Gregory Austin & Myles Cockburn

  2. Rocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Hospital, Aurora, CO, USA

    Swati G. Patel & Amitha Gumidyala

  3. University of Southern California School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Myles Cockburn

Authors
  1. Swati G. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dennis J. Ahnen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amitha Gumidyala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jeannine Espinoza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew Nicklawsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Junxiao Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Derek Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jan Lowery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Gregory Austin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Myles Cockburn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SP helped in study conception and design; generation, collection, assembly, analysis, and interpretation of data; drafting, critical revision, and final approval of the manuscript; study supervision. DA contributed to study conception and design; drafting, critical revision, and final approval of the manuscript; study supervision. AG was involved in generation, collection, assembly, analysis, and interpretation of data; drafting, critical revision, and final approval of the manuscript. JE helped in generation, collection, assembly, analysis, and interpretation of data. AN contributed to generation, collection, assembly, analysis, and interpretation of data; drafting, critical revision, and final approval of the manuscript. JH helped in generation, collection, assembly, analysis, and interpretation of data; drafting, critical revision, and final approval of the manuscript. DS contributed to study conception and design; generation, collection, assembly, analysis, and interpretation of data; drafting, critical revision, and final approval of the manuscript. JL helped in interpretation of data; drafting, critical revision, and final approval of the manuscript. GA was involved in study conception and design; drafting, critical revision, and final approval of the manuscript; study supervision. MC helped in study conception and design; drafting, critical revision, and final approval of the manuscript; study supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Swati G. Patel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patel, S.G., Ahnen, D.J., Gumidyala, A. et al. Poor Knowledge of Personal and Familial Colorectal Cancer Risk and Screening Recommendations Associated with Advanced Colorectal Polyps. Dig Dis Sci 65, 2542–2550 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-020-06167-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-020-06167-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation