4.3 Article

Improving compliance to colorectal cancer screening using blood and stool based tests in patients refusing screening colonoscopy in Germany

期刊

BMC GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-230X-14-183

关键词

Colorectal cancer; Screening; Non-invasive test; Blood test; Septin9; Colonoscopy; FIT

资金

  1. Abbott GmbH Co.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Despite strong recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, participation rates are low. Understanding factors that affect screening choices is essential to developing future screening strategies. Therefore, this study assessed patient willingness to use non-invasive stool or blood based screening tests after refusing colonoscopy. Methods: Participants were recruited during regular consultations. Demographic, health, psychological and socioeconomic factors were recorded. All subjects were advised to undergo screening by colonoscopy. Subjects who refused colonoscopy were offered a choice of non-invasive tests. Subjects who selected stool testing received a collection kit and instructions; subjects who selected plasma testing had a blood draw during the office visit. Stool samples were tested with the Hb/ Hp Complex Elisa test, and blood samples were tested with the Epi proColon (R) 2.0 test. Patients who were positive for either were advised to have a diagnostic colonoscopy. Results: 63 of 172 subjects were compliant to screening colonoscopy (37%). 106 of the 109 subjects who refused colonoscopy accepted an alternative non-invasive method (97%). 90 selected the Septin9 blood test (83%), 16 selected a stool test (15%) and 3 refused any test (3%). Reasons for blood test preference included convenience of an office draw, overall convenience and less time consuming procedure. Conclusions: 97% of subjects refusing colonoscopy accepted a non-invasive screening test of which 83% chose the Septin9 blood test. The observation that participation can be increased by offering non-invasive tests, and that a blood test is the preferred option should be validated in a prospective trial in the screening setting.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据