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

BMC Gastroenterology

Bertram Wiedenmann⁶  Rudolf Tauber⁵  Mathias Zimmermann⁵  Jens Dhein²  Theo deVos¹  Philipp Schatz³  Harald Bias⁴  Anne Keil⁴  Sebastian Geiger⁶  Andreas Adler⁶ 

[1] Epigenomics Inc., Seattle, WA, USA;Abbott Molecular, Wiesbaden, Germany;Berlin, Germany;Institute for Occupational Medicine, Charité-University Hospitals Berlin, Berlin, Germany;Institute for Laboratory Medicine, Clinical Chemistry and Pathobiochemistry, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin and Labor Berlin, Charité Vivantes GmbH, Berlin, Germany;Central Interdisciplinary Endoscopy Unit, Department for Internal Medicine with focus on Hepatology, Gastroenterology and Metabolic Diseases, University Hospitals Berlin, Charité-Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany

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

Others  :  1121778
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-230X-14-183

 received in 2014-03-07, accepted in 2014-10-09,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

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® 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.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Adler et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F: GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013. Available from: [http://globocan.iarc.fr webcite] accessed on 13/05/2014
• [2]Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh JW, Comber H, Forman D, Bray F: Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 2013, 49(6):1374-1403.
• [3]Kuipers EJ, Rosch T, Bretthauer M: Colorectal cancer screening – optimizing current strategies and new directions. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2013, 10(3):130-142.
• [4]Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Jansen L, Knebel P, Stock C, Hoffmeister M: Reduced risk of colorectal cancer up to 10 y after screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2013. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2013.09.001
• [5]U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Screening for Colorectal Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. AHRQ Publication 08-05124-EF-3, October 2008. [http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf08/colocancer/colors.htm webcite]
• [6]Joseph DA, King JB, Miller JW, Richardson LC: Prevalence of colorectal cancer screening among adults–behavioral risk factor surveillance system, United States, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012, 61(Suppl):51-56.
• [7]OECD: Screening, survival and mortality for colorectal cancer. In Health at a Glance: Europe 2012. OECD Publishing; 2012. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264183896-48-en webcite]
• [8]Stock C, Ihle P, Brenner H: Colonoscopy and fecal occult blood test use in Germany: results from a large insurance-based cohort. Endoscopy 2011, 43:771-779.
• [9]Adler A, Roll S, Marowski B, Drossel R, Rehs HU, Willich SN, Riese J, Wiedenmann B, Rösch T, Berlin Private-Practice Gastroenterology Working Group: Appropriateness of colonoscopy in the era of colorectal cancer screening: a prospective, multicenter study in a private-practice setting (Berlin Colonoscopy Project 1, BECOP 1). Dis Colon Rectum 2007, 50:1628-1638.
• [10]Adler A, Lieberman D, Aminalai A, Aschenbeck J, Drossel R, Mayr M, Mroß M, Scheel M, Schröder A, Keining C, Stange G, Wiedenmann B, Gauger U, Altenhofen L, Rösch T: Data quality of the German screening colonoscopy registry. Endoscopy 2013, 45(10):813-818.
• [11]Adler A, Wegscheider K, Lieberman D, Aminalai A, Aschenbeck J, Drossel R, Mayr M, Mroß M, Scheel M, Schröder A, Gerber K, Stange G, Roll S, Gauger U, Wiedenmann B, Altenhofen L, Rosch T: Factors determining the quality of screening colonoscopy: a prospective study on adenoma detection rates, from 12,134 examinations (Berlin colonoscopy project 3, BECOP-3). Gut 2013, 62(2):236-241.
• [12]Gimeno García AZ: Factors influencing colorectal cancer screening participation. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2012, 2012:483417. doi:10.1155/2012/483417. Epub 2011 Dec 1
• [13]Inadomi J, Vijan S, Janz NK, Fagerlin A, Thomas JP, Lin YV, Munoz R, Lau C, Somsouk M, El-Nachef N, Hayward RA: Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: a randomized clinical trial of competing strategies. Arch Intern Med 2012, 172(7):575-582.
• [14]Weiss G, Rösch T: Potential of a new blood test for colorectal cancer screening – the septin 9 gene biomarker. Eur Oncol 2010, 6(1):51-54.
• [15]Payne S: From discovery to the clinic: the novel DNA methylation biomarker mSEPT9 for the detection of colorectal cancer in blood. Epigenomics 2010, 2(4):575-585.
• [16]Warren JD, Xiong W, Bunker AM, Vaughn CP, Furtado LV, Roberts WL, Fang JC, Samowitz WS, Heichman KA: Septin 9 methylated DNA is a sensitive and specific blood test for colorectal cancer. BMC Med 2011, 9:133. BioMed Central Full Text
• [17]Tóth K, Sipos F, Kalmár A, Patai AV, Wichmann B, Stoehr R, Golcher H, Schellerer V, Tulassay Z, Molnár B: Detection of methylated SEPT9 in plasma is a reliable screening method for both left- and right-sided colon cancers. PLoS One 2012, 7(9):e46000. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046000. Epub 2012 Sep 25
• [18]German Census 2011 Data [https://ergebnisse.zensus2011.de/?locale=en# webcite] accessed Sept. 15th, 2014
• [19]Schoppmeyer K, Spieker H, Mossner J: Failure of screening or failure to screen? Dtsch Arztebl Int 2009, 106(12):195-201.
• [20]Ziegler M, Shubrin-Giese B, Buhner M: Attitude to secondary prevention and concerns about colonoscopy are independent predictors of acceptance of screening colonoscopy. Digestion 2010, 81:120-126.
• [21]Steckelberg A, Hulfenhaus C, Haastert B, Muhlhauser I: Effect of evidence based risk information on “informed choice” in colorectal cancer screening: randomized controlled trial. BMJ 2011, 342:d3193. doi:10.1136/bmj.d3193
• [22]Moiel D, Thompson J: Early detection of colon cancer-the Kaiser Permanente northwest 30-year history: how do we measure success? Is it the test, the number of tests, the stage, or the percentage of screen-detected patients? Perm J 2011, 4:30-38.
• [23]Benning TM, Dellaert BGC, Dirksen CD, Severens JL: Preferences for potential innovations in non-invasive colorectal cancer screening: a labeled discrete choice experiment for a Dutch screening campaign. Acta Oncol 2014. doi:10.3109/0284186X.2013.877159