Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Considering Gender Differences When Planning a Screening Program

  • Published:
Current Colorectal Cancer Reports

Abstract

In light of the huge population at risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and limited screening resources, shifting the use of screening tests from low-risk to high-risk groups is a valid option. This study reviews the gender of potential screenees as a factor influencing CRC screening yield and overall results. The higher risk of advanced neoplasia, better endoscopy performance, and greater endoscopy screening uptake in men should be taken into consideration when planning an optimized CRC screening program.

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

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Boyle P, Ferlay J: Cancer incidence and mortality in Europe, 2004. Ann Oncol 2005,16:481–488.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al.: Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008, 58:71–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wichman MW, Muller C, Hornung HM, et al.: Gender differences in long-term survival of patients with colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2001, 88:1092–1098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. McArdle CS, McMillan DC, Hole DJ: Male gender adversely affects survival following surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2003, 90:711–715.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH, et al.: Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2000, 343:162–168. (Published erratum appears in N Engl J Med 2000, 343:1204.)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Regula J, Rupinski M, Kraszewska E, et al.: Colonoscopy in colorectal-cancer screening for detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med 2006, 355:1863–1872.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. • Denis B, Ruetsch M, Strentz P, et al.: Short term outcomes of the first round of a pilot colorectal cancer screening programme with guaiac based faecal occult blood test. Gut 2007, 56:1579–1584. This was the first population-based FOBT study to report significant gender differences in the NNS to detect advanced neoplasia.

  8. •• Nguyen SP, Bent S, Chen Y-H, Terdiman JP: Gender as a risk factor for advanced neoplasia and colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009, 7:676–681. This recent meta-analysis of screening colonoscopy studies confirms and quantifies gender as a risk factor for advanced neoplasia.

  9. Imperiale TF, Wagner DR, Lin CY, et al.: Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults according to the distal colorectal findings. N Engl J Med 2000, 343:169–174.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schoenfeld P, Cash B, Flood A, et al.: Colonoscopic screening of average-risk women for colorectal neoplasia. N Engl J Med 2005, 352:2061–2068.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Stewart BT, Keck JO, Duncan AV, et al.: Difficult or incomplete flexible sigmoidoscopy: implications for a screening programme. Aust N Z J Surg 1999, 69:19–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Eloubeidi MA, Wallace MB, Desmond R, et al.: Female gender and other factors predictive of a limited screening flexible sigmoidoscopy examination for colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2003, 98:1634–1639.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Adams C, Cardwell C, Cook C, et al.: Effect of hysterectomy status on polyp detection rates at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2003, 57:848–853.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Aslinia F, Uradomo L, Steele A, et al.: Quality assessment of colonoscopic cecal intubation: an analysis of 6 years of continuous practice at a university hospital. Am J Gastroenterol 2006, 101:721–731.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Huppertz-Hauss G, et al.: The Norwegian Gastronet project: continuous quality improvement of colonoscopy in 14 Norwegian centres. Scand J Gastroenterol 2006, 41:481–487.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shah HA, Paszat LF, Saskin R, et al.: Factors associated with incomplete colonoscopy: a population based study. Gastroenterology 2007, 132:2297–2303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Saunders BP, Fukumoto M, Halligan S, et al.: Why is colonoscopy more difficult in women? Gastrointest Endosc 1996, 43:124–126.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Thiis-Evensen E, Hoff GS, Sauar J, et al.: Patient tolerance of colonoscopy without sedation during screening examination for colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2000, 52:606–610.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim WH, Cho YJ, Park JY, et al.: Factors affecting insertion time and patient discomfort during colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2000, 52:600–605.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ko CW, Riffle S, Shapiro JA, et al.: Incidence of minor complications and time lost from normal activities after screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007, 65:648–656.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. • Othman MO, Bradley AG, Choudhary A, et al.: Variable stiffness colonoscope versus regular adult colonoscope: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Endoscopy 2009, 41:17–24. This was the first meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare colonoscopy performance using variable-stiffness and regular adult colonoscopes.

  22. Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Dahler S, et al.: Improvement in caecal intubation rate and pain reduction by using 3-dimensional magnetic imaging for unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized trial of patients referred for colonoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2007, 42:885–889.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Evans R, Brotherstone H, Miles A, Wardle J: Gender differences in early detection of cancer. J Mens Health Gend 2005, 2:209–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Courtenay WH, McCreary DR, Merighi JR: Gender and ethnic differences in health beliefs and behaviours. J Health Psychol 2002, 7:219–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, et al.: Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with fecal occult blood test. Lancet 1996, 348:1472–1477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MHE, et al.: Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet 1996, 348:1472–1477.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tazi MA, Faivre J, Dassonville F, et al.: Participation in faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer in a well defined French population: results of five screening rounds from 1988 to 1996. J Med Screen 1997, 4:147–151.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Meissner HI, Breen N, Klabunde CN, Vernon SW: Patterns of colorectal cancer screening uptake among men and women in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006, 15:389–394.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Atkin WS, Hart A, Edwards R, et al.: Uptake, yield of neoplasia, and adverse effects of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. Gut 1998, 42:560–565.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Segnan N, Senore C, Andreoni B, et al.: Comparing attendance and detection rate of colonoscopy with sigmoidoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer screening. Gastroenterology 2007, 132:2304–2312.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hol L, Van Leerdam ME, Van Ballegooijen M, et al.: Screening for colorectal cancer; randomized trial comparing guaiac-based and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gut 2009, 59:62–68.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Frew E, Wolstenholme J, Whynes D: Mass population screening for colorectal cancer: factors influencing subjects’ choice of screening test. J Health Serv Res Policy 2001, 6:85–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Farraye FA, Wong M, Hurwitz S, et al.: Barriers to endoscopic colorectal cancer screening: are women different from men? Am J Gastroenterol 2004, 99:341–349.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Melton LJ 3rd: A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002, 97:3186–3194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wardle J, Williamson S, McCaffery K, et al.: Increasing attendance at colorectal cancer screening: testing the efficacy of a mailed, psychoeducational intervention in a community sample of older adults. Health Psychol 2003, 22:99–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. •• Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Stegmaier C, et al.: Risk of progression of advanced adenomas to colorectal cancer by age and sex: estimates based on 840,149 screening colonoscopies. Gut 2007, 56:1585–1589. This study estimated the risk of progression of advanced adenomas to colorectal cancer by combining data from the largest published cohort of screening colonoscopy participants and national cancer registry data.

  37. Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Arndt V, et al.: Gender differences in colorectal cancer: implications for age at initiation of screening. Br J Cancer 2007, 96:828–831.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. • Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, van Ballegooijen M, Zauber AG, et al.: Individualizing colonoscopy screening by sex and race. Gastrointest Endosc 2009, 70:96–108. This study is a microsimulation model–based cost-effectiveness analysis of individualizing colonoscopy screening by sex and race.

  39. Ness RM, Holmes AM, Klein R, Dittus R: Cost-utility of one-time colonoscopic screening for colorectal cancer at various ages. Am J Gastroenterol 2000, 95:1800–1811.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, Institute of Oncology and Medical Center for Postgraduate Education, Roentgen Street 5, 02-781, Warsaw, Poland

    Michal F. Kaminski & Jaroslaw Regula

Authors
  1. Michal F. Kaminski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jaroslaw Regula
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaroslaw Regula.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kaminski, M.F., Regula, J. Considering Gender Differences When Planning a Screening Program. Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep 6, 4–7 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-009-0035-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-009-0035-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation