Advertisement

Ist genderspezifische Vorsorge sinnvoll?

  • S. Belle
Schwerpunkt
  • 7 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Genderspezifische Betrachtung wird in der medizinischen Forschung zunehmend wichtiger.

Fragestellung

Sind genderspezifische Aspekte (am Beispiel der kolorektalen Vorsorgeuntersuchungen) für das Wissen über die Effektivität der Vorsorgeuntersuchungen wichtig? Können genderspezifische Ansätze helfen, mehr Personen für Vorsorgeuntersuchungen zu erreichen?

Material und Methoden

Es wurde eine PubMed- und Cochrane-Recherche zu Publikationen über genderspezifisches kolorektales Karzinomrisiko durchgeführt sowie die Effektivität der Screeninguntersuchungen und ihre Perzeption evaluiert.

Ergebnisse

Das genderspezifische Risiko, an einem kolorektalen Karzinom zu erkranken, und die unterschiedliche Effektivität der Screeninguntersuchungen macht eine genderspezifische Vorsorge notwendig. Die gezielte Adressierung des unterschiedlichen Erlebens von Krankheit kann helfen, Zielgruppen besser zu erreichen.

Schlussfolgerung

Die genderspezifische Vorsorge bietet die Möglichkeit einer realistischeren Darstellung der Risiko-Nutzen-Relation und hat das Potenzial, die Teilnahmeraten am Screening zu erhöhen.

Schlüsselwörter

Kolorektales Karzinom Sekundärprävention Geschlechtscharakteristika Screening Patientenbeteiligung 

Is sex- and gender-specific screening relevant?

Abstract

Background

The influence of sex and gender on medical conditions is becoming increasingly important in medical research.

Objectives

Are gender and sex differences (using the example of colorectal cancer screening) important for our understanding of the effectiveness of screening? Can we use gender and sex differences to enhance participation in mass screening.

Materials and methods

A search in PubMed and the Cochrane database focusing on gender-specific colorectal cancer risk, gender-specific screening efficacy and gender-specific health beliefs was conducted.

Results

The gender-specific colorectal cancer risk and the differences in efficacy of the screening tests demand a gender-specific screening. The integration of the different health beliefs may help to improve patient participation in screening and encourage a behavior change.

Conclusions

Gender- and sex-specific screening offers the possibility of a more realistic representation of the benefit–risk ratio and has the potential to increase screening participation rates.

Keywords

Colorectal neoplasms Secondary prevention Sex characteristics Mass screening Patient participation 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

S. Belle gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Atkin W, Wooldrage K, Parkin DM et al (2017) Long term effects of once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening after 17 years of follow-up: the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening randomised controlled trial. Lancet 389:1299–1311.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)30396-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I et al (2010) Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 375:1624–1633CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkin WS, Morson BC, Cuzick J (1992) Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after excision of rectosigmoid adenomas. N Engl J Med 326:658–662CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Jansen L et al (2014) Reduced risk of colorectal cancer up to 10 years after screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 146:709–717CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brenner H, Schrotz-King P, Holleczek B et al (2016) Declining bowel cancer incidence and mortality in Germany. Dtsch Arztebl Int 113:101–106PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Klerk CM, Vendrig LM, Bossuyt PM et al (2018) Participant-related risk factors for false-positive and false-negative fecal immunochemical tests in colorectal cancer screening: systematic review and Meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41395-018-0212-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Doubeni CA, Weinmann S, Adams K et al (2013) Screening colonoscopy and risk for incident late-stage colorectal cancer diagnosis in average-risk adults. Ann Intern Med 158:312–316CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farraye FA, Wong M, Hurwitz S et al (2004) Barriers to endoscopic colorectal cancer screening: are women different from men? Am J Gastroenterol 99:341–349CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferlitsch M, Reinhart K, Pramhas S et al (2011) Sex-specific prevalence of adenomas, advanced adenomas, and colorectal cancer in individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. JAMA 306:1352–1358CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Haack G, Köster M, Töppich J (2014) Information on early detection of colorectal cancer. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 57:380–387CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brenner H et al (2014) Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. BMJ 348:g2467.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2467 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoff G, Grotmol T, Skovlund E et al (2009) Risk of colorectal cancer seven years after flexible sigmoidoscopy screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 338:b1846CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Holme Ø, Loberg M, Kalager M et al (2014) Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 312:606–615CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kahi CJ, Imperiale TF, Juliar BE et al (2009) Effect of screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 7:770–775 (quiz 711)CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaminski MF, Polkowski M, Kraszewska E et al (2014) A score to estimate the likelihood of detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia at colonoscopy. Gut 63:1112–1119CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kolligs FT, Crispin A, Munte A et al (2011) Risk of advanced colorectal neoplasia according to age and gender. PLoS ONE 6:e20076CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krilaviciute A, Stock C, Brenner H (2017) International variation in the prevalence of preclinical colorectal cancer: Implications for predictive values of noninvasive screening tests and potential target populations for screening. Int J Cancer 141:1566–1575CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manser CN, Bachmann LM, Brunner J et al (2012) Colonoscopy screening markedly reduces the occurrence of colon carcinomas and carcinoma-related death: a closed cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc 76:110–117CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P et al (2013) Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med 369:1095–1105CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pox CP, Altenhofen L, Brenner H et al (2012) Efficacy of a nationwide screening colonoscopy program for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 142:1460–1467.e1462CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL et al (2012) Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med 366:2345–2357CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Segnan N, Armaroli P, Bonelli L et al (2011) Once-only sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: follow-up findings of the Italian Randomized Controlled Trial – SCORE. J Natl Cancer Inst 103:1310–1322CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Senore C, Inadomi J, Segnan N et al (2015) Optimising colorectal cancer screening acceptance: a review. Gut 64:1158–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shaukat A, Mongin SJ, Geisser MS et al (2013) Long-term mortality after screening for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 369:1106–1114CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stock C, Brenner H (2010) Utilization of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and fecal occult blood test in 11 European countries: evidence from the Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Endoscopy 42:546–556CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stock C, Ihle P, Schubert I et al (2011) Colonoscopy and fecal occult blood test use in Germany: results from a large insurance-based cohort. Endoscopy 43:771–781CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zajac IT, Duncan AC, Flight I et al (2016) Theory-based modifications of an advanced notification letter improves screening for bowel cancer in men: A randomised controlled trial. Soc Sci Med 165:1–9CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhan T, Hielscher T, Bilge A et al (2017) Invitation letters increase participation in colorectal cancer screening – results from an observational study. Z Gastroenterol 55:1307–1312CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.II. Medizinische KlinikUniversitätsmedizin MannheimMannheimDeutschland

Personalised recommendations