RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Quantitative information on adverse reactions associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests is useful to estimate the balance between benefit and risk in different strategies. SETTING: Six Italian screening centres. METHODS: Thirty-day active follow-up (interview about side-effects and acceptability of the screening procedure and review of hospital admissions) among average-risk people undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), total colonoscopy (TC), fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in a multicentre randomized trial of CRC screening. Multivariable logistic models were used to assess determinants of completion rate and self-reported pain. RESULTS: The attendance rate following the first invitation and mail reminder was 28.2% (1696/6018) in the FS and 23.0% (1382/6021) in the TC arm. Response rate to the 30-day follow-up questionnaire was 88.6% (1502/1696) among people undergoing FS, and 86.7% (1198/1382) among those undergoing TC. The proportion of people complaining of serious reactions following bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR], 5.17; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.70-7.24) or reporting severe pain immediately after the exam (OR, 1.86; 95% CI 1.47-2.34) was higher for TC than for FS. The most common post-procedural complaints were abdominal distension and pain. People mentioning pain or bowel distension following preparation were more likely to report severe pain both after FS (OR, 2.13; 95% CI 1.52-2.97) and TC (OR: 2.03; 95% CI 1.41-2.90). The 30-day hospitalization rate was similar after FS, TC and FIT. CONCLUSIONS: Screenees reported higher pain levels after TC than FS. The proportion of people complaining of severe side effects after discharge was similar. Bowel preparation was poorly tolerated by people undergoing TC. Subjects' reactions to the bowel preparation was predictive of post-procedural discomfort. A commitment of at least 48 hours was required of people undergoing TC, compared with 3-4 for FS.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma/diagnóstico , Colonoscopía/efectos adversos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Sigmoidoscopía/efectos adversos , Carcinoma/epidemiología , Catárticos/efectos adversos , Catárticos/uso terapéutico , Colonoscopía/psicología , Colonoscopía/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/epidemiología , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/efectos adversos , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/psicología , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Entrevistas como Asunto , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dolor Postoperatorio/epidemiología , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Sigmoidoscopía/psicología , Sigmoidoscopía/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to study predictors of patients' participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: Men and women, aged 55-64 years, were randomized to the following: (i) biennial fecal occult blood test (FOBT) delivered by mail (n=2,266); (ii) FOBT delivered by a general practitioner (GP)/screening facility (n=5,893); (iii) "once-only" sigmoidoscopy (FS) (n=3,650); (iv) FS followed by FOBT for screenees with negative FS (n=10,867); and (v) patient's choice between FS and FOBT (n=3,579). A stratified (by screening arm) random sample of attenders and nonattenders was contacted by trained interviewers 4 months after the initial invitation. Subjects giving their consent were administered a questionnaire (available online) investigating perceptions of individual CRC risk, attitudes toward prevention, adoption of health protective behaviors, and reasons for attendance/nonattendance. Adjusted prevalence odds ratios (ORs) were computed by multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The response rate was 71.9% (701 of 975) among nonattenders and 88.9% (773 of 870) among attenders. Adjusting for screening arm, center, gender, age, and education, participation was significantly higher among people who consulted their GP before undergoing screening (OR: 4.24; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.11-5.78), who mentioned one first-degree relative with CRC (OR: 3.62; 95% CI: 2.02-6.49), who reported regular physical activity (OR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.33-2.55), and who read the mailed information (letter only: OR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.23-2.78; letter+leaflet: OR: 3.18; 95% CI: 2.12-4.76). People who considered screening to be ineffective (OR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.08-0.19), those who considered it to be effective but reported even moderate levels of anxiety (OR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.23-0.45), and those who mentioned previous knowledge of CRC screening tests were less likely to accept the invitation (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.34-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of health protective behaviors is associated with a higher attendance rate, whereas anxiety represents a strong barrier, even among people who deemed screening to be effective. Increasing the proportion of people who consult their GP when making a decision regarding screening might enhance participation.