Colorectal cancer screening based on predicted risk: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Ekaterina Plys, Jean-Luc Bulliard, Aziz Chaouch, Marie-Anne Durand, Luuk van Duuren, Karen Brandle, Reto Auer, Florian Froehlich, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Douglas A Corley, Kevin Selby
{"title":"Colorectal cancer screening based on predicted risk: a pilot randomized controlled trial","authors":"Ekaterina Plys, Jean-Luc Bulliard, Aziz Chaouch, Marie-Anne Durand, Luuk van Duuren, Karen Brandle, Reto Auer, Florian Froehlich, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Douglas A Corley, Kevin Selby","doi":"10.1101/2024.03.15.24304344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background & Aims: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening relies primarily on colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Aligning utilization of these options with individual CRC risk (i.e. personalized screening) may maximize benefit with lower risks, individual burdens, and societal costs. We studied the effect of communicating personalized CRC risk and corresponding screening recommendations on appropriate screening uptake in an organized screening setting. Methods: Pilot randomized controlled trial among residents aged 50-69 years old not yet invited for screening in Vaud, Switzerland. The intervention was a mailed brochure communicating individual 15-year CRC risk and corresponding screening recommendation. The control group received a brochure comparing FIT and colonoscopy. The primary outcome was self-reported risk-appropriate screening (FIT if <3% risk, FIT or colonoscopy if ≥3% and <6%, colonoscopy if ≥6%), assessed by a mailed questionnaire at 6 months. A secondary outcome was overall screening uptake.\nResults: Of 5396 invitations, 1059 people responded (19%), of whom 258 were randomized to intervention and 257 to control materials (average 15-year risk 1.4% (SD 0.5), age 52.2 years (SD 2.2), 51% women). Risk-appropriate screening completion was 37% in the intervention group and 23% in the control group (absolute difference 14%, 95%CI 6%-22%, p<0.001). Overall screening uptake was 50% in the intervention and 49% in the control group (absolute difference 1%, 95CI -7%-10%, p=0.758).\nConclusions: In a population not known to be at elevated CRC risk, brochures providing personalized CRC risk and screening recommendations improved risk-appropriate screening without impacting overall screening uptake. This approach could be helpful for aligning screening methods, risks, and benefits with cancer risk.\nTrial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05357508.","PeriodicalId":501258,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Gastroenterology","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.15.24304344","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background & Aims: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening relies primarily on colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Aligning utilization of these options with individual CRC risk (i.e. personalized screening) may maximize benefit with lower risks, individual burdens, and societal costs. We studied the effect of communicating personalized CRC risk and corresponding screening recommendations on appropriate screening uptake in an organized screening setting. Methods: Pilot randomized controlled trial among residents aged 50-69 years old not yet invited for screening in Vaud, Switzerland. The intervention was a mailed brochure communicating individual 15-year CRC risk and corresponding screening recommendation. The control group received a brochure comparing FIT and colonoscopy. The primary outcome was self-reported risk-appropriate screening (FIT if <3% risk, FIT or colonoscopy if ≥3% and <6%, colonoscopy if ≥6%), assessed by a mailed questionnaire at 6 months. A secondary outcome was overall screening uptake. Results: Of 5396 invitations, 1059 people responded (19%), of whom 258 were randomized to intervention and 257 to control materials (average 15-year risk 1.4% (SD 0.5), age 52.2 years (SD 2.2), 51% women). Risk-appropriate screening completion was 37% in the intervention group and 23% in the control group (absolute difference 14%, 95%CI 6%-22%, p<0.001). Overall screening uptake was 50% in the intervention and 49% in the control group (absolute difference 1%, 95CI -7%-10%, p=0.758). Conclusions: In a population not known to be at elevated CRC risk, brochures providing personalized CRC risk and screening recommendations improved risk-appropriate screening without impacting overall screening uptake. This approach could be helpful for aligning screening methods, risks, and benefits with cancer risk. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05357508.
基于预测风险的大肠癌筛查:随机对照试验
背景& 目的:结直肠癌(CRC)筛查主要依靠结肠镜检查和粪便免疫化学检验(FIT)。将这些方法的使用与个人 CRC 风险(即个性化筛查)挂钩,可在降低风险、个人负担和社会成本的同时实现效益最大化。我们研究了在有组织的筛查环境中,传达个性化的 CRC 风险和相应的筛查建议对适当筛查吸收率的影响。方法:在瑞士沃州尚未被邀请进行筛查的 50-69 岁居民中进行试点随机对照试验。干预措施是邮寄一份宣传个人 15 年 CRC 风险和相应筛查建议的小册子。对照组则收到一本比较 FIT 和结肠镜检查的小册子。主要结果是自我报告的风险适当筛查(如果风险为 3%,则进行 FIT;如果风险≥3% 和 6%,则进行 FIT 或结肠镜检查;如果风险≥6%,则进行结肠镜检查),在 6 个月时通过邮寄问卷进行评估。次要结果是总体筛查接受率:在发出的 5396 份邀请中,有 1059 人(19%)做出了回应,其中 258 人被随机分配到干预材料中,257 人被随机分配到对照材料中(15 年平均风险为 1.4% (SD 0.5),年龄为 52.2 岁 (SD 2.2),51% 为女性)。干预组完成风险适当筛查的比例为 37%,对照组为 23%(绝对差异为 14%,95%CI 为 6%-22%,p<0.001)。干预组的总体筛查率为50%,对照组为49%(绝对差异1%,95CI -7%-10%,p=0.758):结论:在不知道是否存在高 CRC 风险的人群中,提供个性化 CRC 风险和筛查建议的小册子提高了风险适宜筛查率,但不会影响总体筛查率。这种方法有助于根据癌症风险调整筛查方法、风险和益处:试验注册:Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05357508。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信