在结直肠癌筛查中,与粪便免疫化学检验和/或结肠镜检查相比,替代技术的可接受性:系统综述。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Journal of Medical Screening Pub Date : 2023-03-01 Epub Date: 2022-08-29 DOI:10.1177/09691413221109999
Omar Ali, Sunnia Gupta, Kate Brain, Kate J Lifford, Shantini Paranjothy, Sunil Dolwani
{"title":"在结直肠癌筛查中,与粪便免疫化学检验和/或结肠镜检查相比,替代技术的可接受性:系统综述。","authors":"Omar Ali, Sunnia Gupta, Kate Brain, Kate J Lifford, Shantini Paranjothy, Sunil Dolwani","doi":"10.1177/09691413221109999","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second largest cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Current CRC screening in various countries involves stool-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and/or colonoscopy, yet public uptake remains sub-optimal. This review assessed the literature regarding acceptability of alternative CRC screening modalities compared to standard care in average-risk adults.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science were conducted up to February 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2022. The alternative interventions examined were computed tomography colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colon capsule endoscopy and blood-based biomarkers. Outcomes for acceptability were uptake, discomfort associated with bowel preparation, discomfort associated with screening procedure, screening preferences and willingness to repeat screening method. A narrative data synthesis was conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Differences between intervention and comparison modalities in uptake did not reach statistical significance in most of the included studies. The findings do suggest FIT as being more acceptable as a screening modality than flexible sigmoidoscopy. There were no consistent significant differences in bowel preparation discomfort, screening procedure discomfort, screening preference and willingness to repeat screening between the standard care and alternative modalities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Current evidence comparing standard colonoscopy and stool-based CRC screening with novel modalities does not demonstrate any clear difference in acceptability. Due to the small number of studies available and included in each screening comparison and lack of observed differences, further research is needed to explore factors influencing acceptability of alternative CRC modalities that might result in improvement in population uptake within different contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":51089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Screening","volume":"30 1","pages":"14-27"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/dd/e4/10.1177_09691413221109999.PMC9925898.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Omar Ali, Sunnia Gupta, Kate Brain, Kate J Lifford, Shantini Paranjothy, Sunil Dolwani\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09691413221109999\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second largest cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Current CRC screening in various countries involves stool-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and/or colonoscopy, yet public uptake remains sub-optimal. This review assessed the literature regarding acceptability of alternative CRC screening modalities compared to standard care in average-risk adults.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science were conducted up to February 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2022. The alternative interventions examined were computed tomography colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colon capsule endoscopy and blood-based biomarkers. Outcomes for acceptability were uptake, discomfort associated with bowel preparation, discomfort associated with screening procedure, screening preferences and willingness to repeat screening method. A narrative data synthesis was conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Differences between intervention and comparison modalities in uptake did not reach statistical significance in most of the included studies. The findings do suggest FIT as being more acceptable as a screening modality than flexible sigmoidoscopy. There were no consistent significant differences in bowel preparation discomfort, screening procedure discomfort, screening preference and willingness to repeat screening between the standard care and alternative modalities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Current evidence comparing standard colonoscopy and stool-based CRC screening with novel modalities does not demonstrate any clear difference in acceptability. Due to the small number of studies available and included in each screening comparison and lack of observed differences, further research is needed to explore factors influencing acceptability of alternative CRC modalities that might result in improvement in population uptake within different contexts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51089,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Screening\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"14-27\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/dd/e4/10.1177_09691413221109999.PMC9925898.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Screening\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413221109999\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/8/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Screening","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413221109999","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:结肠直肠癌(CRC)是全球第三大常见癌症,也是导致癌症相关死亡的第二大原因。目前各国的 CRC 筛查包括粪便免疫化学检验(FIT)和/或结肠镜检查,但公众的接受度仍未达到最佳。本综述评估了有关替代性 CRC 筛查方式与标准治疗相比在普通风险成人中的可接受性的文献:方法:对截至 2022 年 2 月 3 日的 MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、Cochrane 和 Web of Science 进行了系统检索。所研究的替代性干预措施包括计算机断层扫描结肠造影术、柔性乙状结肠镜检查、结肠胶囊内镜检查和基于血液的生物标记物。可接受性结果包括接受率、与肠道准备相关的不适感、与筛查过程相关的不适感、筛查偏好以及重复筛查方法的意愿。结果:21 项研究符合纳入标准:结果:21 项研究符合纳入标准。在大多数纳入的研究中,干预模式和对比模式在接受率方面的差异未达到统计学意义。研究结果确实表明,作为一种筛查方式,FIT 比柔性乙状结肠镜检查更容易被接受。在肠道准备不适感、筛查过程不适感、筛查偏好和重复筛查意愿方面,标准治疗和替代方式之间没有一致的显著差异:结论:目前的证据表明,标准结肠镜检查和基于粪便的 CRC 筛查与新型模式相比,在可接受性方面没有明显差异。由于每次筛查比较所包含的研究数量较少,且缺乏可观察到的差异,因此需要进一步开展研究,探索影响 CRC 替代筛查方式可接受性的因素,以便在不同情况下提高人群的接受率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review.

Objective: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second largest cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Current CRC screening in various countries involves stool-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and/or colonoscopy, yet public uptake remains sub-optimal. This review assessed the literature regarding acceptability of alternative CRC screening modalities compared to standard care in average-risk adults.

Method: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science were conducted up to February 3rd, 2022. The alternative interventions examined were computed tomography colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colon capsule endoscopy and blood-based biomarkers. Outcomes for acceptability were uptake, discomfort associated with bowel preparation, discomfort associated with screening procedure, screening preferences and willingness to repeat screening method. A narrative data synthesis was conducted.

Results: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Differences between intervention and comparison modalities in uptake did not reach statistical significance in most of the included studies. The findings do suggest FIT as being more acceptable as a screening modality than flexible sigmoidoscopy. There were no consistent significant differences in bowel preparation discomfort, screening procedure discomfort, screening preference and willingness to repeat screening between the standard care and alternative modalities.

Conclusion: Current evidence comparing standard colonoscopy and stool-based CRC screening with novel modalities does not demonstrate any clear difference in acceptability. Due to the small number of studies available and included in each screening comparison and lack of observed differences, further research is needed to explore factors influencing acceptability of alternative CRC modalities that might result in improvement in population uptake within different contexts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Screening
Journal of Medical Screening 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
40
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Screening, a fully peer reviewed journal, is concerned with all aspects of medical screening, particularly the publication of research that advances screening theory and practice. The journal aims to increase awareness of the principles of screening (quantitative and statistical aspects), screening techniques and procedures and methodologies from all specialties. An essential subscription for physicians, clinicians and academics with an interest in screening, epidemiology and public health.
期刊最新文献
Age-specific differences in tumour characteristics between screen-detected and non-screen-detected breast cancers in women aged 40-74 at diagnosis in Sweden from 2008 to 2017. Association between time to colonoscopy after positive fecal testing and colorectal cancer outcomes in Alberta, Canada. Cancer screening programs in Japan: Progress and challenges. Strong association between reduction of late-stage cancers and reduction of cancer-specific mortality in meta-regression of randomized screening trials across multiple cancer types. Factors associated with private or public breast cancer screening attendance in Queensland, Australia: A retrospective cross-sectional study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1