Screening participation for people at increased risk of colorectal cancer due to family history: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 619 Downloads
We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis of observational studies to identify and summarise the level of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation for people at increased risk due to family history of the disease. Medline, Cinhal, Embase and PsychInfo databases were comprehensively searched between January 1995 and May 2012 to identify relevant articles. To be included, studies had to report on screening for people who had at least one first-degree relative with CRC and no previous personal diagnosis of the disease. Pooled screening participation levels were calculated for each screening modality. Seventeen studies, accounting for a total of 13,269 subjects with a family history of CRC met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies, including a total of 6,901 subjects had a pooled faecal occult blood testing screening participation (at least once) of 25 % (95 % CI 12–38). Five studies including a total of 5,091 subjects had a pooled sigmoidoscopy-based screening participation (at least once) of 16 % (95 % CI 7–27). Seven studies including a total of 9,965 subjects had pooled participation colonoscopy-based screening (at least once) of 40 % (95 % CI 26–54). There was a significant level of screening heterogeneity between studies. This review identified a substantial underuse of CRC screening for people at increased risk of developing the disease. It highlights the potential opportunity that exists for increasing screening participation among this segment of the population and the need to adjust the current CRC screening policies towards that objective.
KeywordsColorectal cancer Family history Screening Guidelines
Driss Ait Ouakrim was supported by a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation PhD scholarship (CSIRO, Preventative Heath Flagship). The study was conducted independently of funding agencies. Mark Jenkins is supported by a National Health & Medical Research Council, Australia Senior Research Fellow grant. The study was conducted independently of funding agencies.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 9.Carstensen B, Soll-Johanning H, Villadsen E, Sondergaard JO, Lynge E (1996) Familial aggregation of colorectal cancer in the general population. Int J Cancer 68(4):428–435. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19961115)68:4<428:AID-IJC5>3.0.CO;2-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement (2008). Ann Intern Med 149(9):627–637Google Scholar
- 18.Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al (2008) Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin 58(3):130–160. doi: 10.3322/CA.2007.0018 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Cockburn J, Paul C, Tzelepis F, McElduff P, Byles J (2002) Screening for bowel cancer among NSW adults with varying levels of risk: a community survey, 3 edn. The Cancer Council NSW Cancer Education Research Program, School of Medical Practice and Population Health, University of Newcastle, Wallsend, New South Wales. email@example.com, pp 236–41Google Scholar
- 47.Manne S, Markowitz A, Winawer S et al (2003) Understanding intention to undergo colonoscopy among intermediate-risk siblings of colorectal cancer patients: a test of a mediational model, 1 edn. Prev Med An Int J Devot Pract Theory. Elsevier Science, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- 52.Levitzky BE, Brown CC, Heeren TC, Schroy PC 3rd (2011) Performance of a risk index for advanced proximal colorectal neoplasia among a racially/ethnically diverse patient population (risk index for advanced proximal neoplasia). Am J Gastroenterol 106(6):1099–1106. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2011.20 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 57.Madlensky L, McLaughlin J, Goel V (2003) A comparison of self-reported colorectal cancer screening with medical records. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 12(7):656–659Google Scholar