Impact of screening participation on modelled mortality benefits of a multi-cancer early detection test by socioeconomic group in England.

BACKGROUND: Cancer burden is higher and cancer screening participation is lower among individuals living in more socioeconomically deprived areas of England, contributing to worse health outcomes and shorter life expectancy. Owing to higher multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test sensitivity for poor-prognosis cancers and greater cancer burden in groups experiencing greater deprivation, MCED screening programmes may have greater relative benefits in these groups. We modelled potential differential benefits of MCED screening between deprivation groups in England at different levels of screening participation. METHODS: We applied the interception multi-cancer screening model to cancer incidence and survival data made available by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service in England to estimate reductions in late-stage diagnoses and cancer mortality from an MCED screening programme by deprivation group across 24 cancer types. We assessed the impact of varying the proportion of people who participated in annual screening in each deprivation group on these estimates. RESULTS: The modelled benefits of an MCED screening programme were substantial: reductions in late-stage diagnoses were 160 and 274 per 100 000 persons in the least and most deprived groups, respectively. Reductions in cancer mortality were 60 and 99 per 100 000 persons in the least and most deprived groups, respectively. Benefits were greatest in the most deprived group at every participation level and were attenuated with lower screening participation. CONCLUSIONS: For the greatest possible population benefit and to decrease health inequalities, an MCED implementation strategy should focus on enhancing equitable, informed participation, enabling equal participation across all socioeconomic deprivation groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05611632.

Patients' experience of using colonoscopy as a diagnostic test after a positive FOBT/FIT: a systematic review of the quantitative literature.

OBJECTIVES: Faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) are among the most used screening modalities for colorectal cancer (CRC). Colonoscopy is also widely used as a screening and diagnostic test for adults with a positive FOBT/FIT. Patient experience of colonoscopy is an important component for most CRC screening programmes. Individuals with negative experiences are less likely to engage with colonoscopy in the future and can deter others from attending colonoscopy when invited. This review synthesised data on patient experience with colonoscopy, following a positive result, to provide insights into how to improve patient experience within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched for quantitative questionnaire studies evaluating patient-reported experience with colonoscopy, following a positive screening FOB/FIT result. The search was limited to studies published between 2000 and 2021 (ie, when the first FOBT/FIT screening programmes for CRC were introduced). Data-driven and narrative summary techniques were used to summarise the literature. RESULTS: In total, six studies from the UK (n=4), Spain (n=1) and the Netherlands (n=1) were included in the review (total participants: 152 329; response rate: 68.0-79.3%). Patient experiences were categorised into three 'stages': 'pre-colonoscopy', 'during the test' and 'post-colonoscopy'. Overall, patients reported a positive experience in all six studies. Bowel preparation was the most frequently endorsed issue experienced pre-test (experienced by 10.0-41.0% of individuals, across all studies), pain and discomfort for during the test (experienced by 10.0-21.0% of participants) and abdominal pain and discomfort after the test (these were experienced by 14.8-22% of patients). CONCLUSION: This review highlighted that patient-reported experiences associated with colonoscopy were generally positive. To improve the colonoscopy experience, bowel screening centres should investigate means to: make bowel preparation more acceptable, make colonoscopy less painful and reduce post-colonoscopy symptoms.

Barriers to colonoscopy in UK colorectal cancer screening programmes: Qualitative interviews with ethnic minority groups.

OBJECTIVE: People from ethnic minority backgrounds are less likely to attend colonoscopy, following faecal immunochemical test screening, and are more likely to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer at an advanced stage as a result. The aim of this research was to explore the barriers and facilitators to attending colonoscopy, perceived by ethnic minority groups living in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Semi-structured online and telephone interviews were conducted with thirty men and women of Black-African (n = 5), Black-Caribbean (n = 5), South Asian (n = 10) and White British (n = 10) descent. Participants were eligible for screening, but had not necessarily been invited for colonoscopy. All interviews were conducted in the participant's first language and were assessed using Framework-analysis, in line with a conceptual framework developed from previous interviews with healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Five thematic groups of barriers and facilitators were developed: 'Locus of control', 'Cultural attitudes and beliefs', 'Individual beliefs, knowledge and personal experiences with colonoscopy and cancer', 'Reliance on family and friends' and 'Health concerns'. Differences were observed, between ethnic groups, for: 'Locus of control', 'Cultural attitudes and beliefs' and 'Reliance on family and friends'. Black and South Asian participants frequently described the decision to attend colonoscopy as lying with 'God' (Muslims, specifically), 'the doctor', or 'family' (Locus of control). Black and South Asian participants also reported relying on friends and family for 'language, transport and emotional support' (Reliance on family and friends). Black-African participants, specifically, described cancer as 'socially taboo' (Cultural attitudes and beliefs). CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight several targets for culturally-tailored interventions to make colonoscopy more equitable.

The Role of Type 2 Diabetes in Patient Symptom Attribution, Help-Seeking, and Attitudes to Investigations for Colorectal Cancer Symptoms: An Online Vignette Study.

OBJECTIVES: Type 2 diabetes is associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced-stage cancer diagnosis. To help diagnose cancer earlier, this study aimed at examining whether diabetes might influence patient symptom attribution, help-seeking, and willingness to undergo investigations for possible CRC symptoms. METHODS: A total of 1307 adults (340 with and 967 without diabetes) completed an online vignette survey. Participants were presented with vignettes describing new-onset red-flag CRC symptoms (rectal bleeding or a change in bowel habits), with or without additional symptoms of diabetic neuropathy. Following the vignettes, participants were asked questions on symptom attribution, intended help-seeking, and attitudes to investigations. RESULTS: Diabetes was associated with greater than two-fold higher odds of attributing changes in bowel habits to medications (OR = 2.48; 95% Cl 1.32-4.66) and of prioritising diabetes-related symptoms over the change in bowel habits during medical encounters. Cancer was rarely mentioned as a possible explanation for the change in bowel habits, especially among diabetic participants (10% among diabetics versus 16% in nondiabetics; OR = 0.55; 95% CI 0.36-0.85). Among patients with diabetes, those not attending annual check-ups were less likely to seek help for red-flag cancer symptoms (OR = 0.23; 95% Cl 0.10-0.50). CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of possible cancer symptoms was low overall. Patients with diabetes could benefit from targeted awareness campaigns emphasising the importance of discussing new symptoms such as changes in bowel habits with their doctor. Specific attention is warranted for individuals not regularly attending healthcare despite their chronic morbidity.

The role of defensive information processing in population-based colorectal cancer screening uptake.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, colorectal cancer screening participation remains low despite the availability of home-based testing and numerous interventions to increase uptake. To be effective, interventions should be based on an understanding of what influences individuals' decisions about screening participation. This study investigates the association of defensive information processing (DIP) with fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer screening uptake. METHODS: Regression modeling of data from a cross-sectional survey within a population-based FIT screening program was conducted. The survey included the seven subdomains of the McQueen DIP measure. The primary outcome variable was the uptake status (screening user or nonuser). Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) for screening nonuse by DIP (sub)domain score, with adjustments made for sociodemographic and behavioral factors associated with uptake. RESULTS: Higher scores (equating to greater defensiveness) on all DIP domains were significantly associated with lower uptake in the model adjusted for sociodemographic factors. In the model with additional adjustments for behavioral factors, the suppression subdomains of "deny immediacy to be tested" (OR, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.65; p < .001) and "self-exemption" (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68-0.96; p < .001) independently predicted nonuse of FIT-based screening. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study outside the United States that has identified DIP as a barrier to colorectal cancer screening uptake, and it is the first focused specifically on FIT-based screening. The findings suggest that two suppression barriers, namely denying the immediacy to be tested and self-exempting oneself from screening, may be promising targets for future interventions to improve uptake.

Patient experience and satisfaction with symptomatic faecal immunochemical testing: an explanatory sequential mixed-methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) can rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in symptomatic adults. To date, there has been little research exploring experiences of FIT for this population. AIM: To explore patient experience and satisfaction with FIT in an 'early adopter' site in England. DESIGN: Explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach combining mailed quantitative surveys with semi-structured telephone interviews. METHOD: Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyse quantitative data. Thematic analysis was used to assess qualitative transcripts. RESULTS: The survey had 260 responders, and it found that satisfaction with FIT was high (88.7%). Compared with test satisfaction, the proportion of responders satisfied with their GP consultation and how they received their results was lower (74.4% and 76.2%, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that increased area-level deprivation and not receiving an explanation of the purpose of the test were associated with lower satisfaction with the GP consultation (both P-values <0.05), while increased area-level deprivation and not receiving results from the GP were associated with lower satisfaction with receiving results (both P-values <0.05). Interviews with responders (n = 20) helped explain the quantitative results. They revealed that 'not knowing the purpose of the test' caused 'anxiety' and 'confusion', which led to dissatisfaction. 'Not receiving results from GP' was considered 'unacceptable', as this left patients with a 'niggling doubt' and lack of diagnosis or assurance that they did not have cancer. CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction with symptomatic FIT is high. Efforts to improve satisfaction should focus on ensuring that patients understand the purpose of the test and always receive their test results.

Testing temporal frames of colorectal cancer risks: evidence from randomized online experiments.

Low perceived risk of is associated with a low probability of engaging in risk preventive behaviours. Temporal framing has been suggested to make the risk seem higher, as narrower time frames appear to increase perceived risk and intentions to engage in risk-preventive behaviours. In two online experiments, we tested how manipulating risk information about colorectal cancer (CRC) influenced risk perception and preventive behaviours. 902 men and women aged 45-54 were recruited from an English online panel. Study 1 (N = 132) investigated how communicating CRC mortality instead of incidence rates influences risk perception, using both yearly and daily frames. In study 2 (N = 770), CRC incidence was described as occurring yearly, daily or hourly. The primary outcome measures were risk perception, intention to engage in preventive behaviours and whether participants chose to read information about ways to reduce CRC risk or skip it to finish the survey. Study 1 did not find a difference in intentions based on information about the risk of developing vs the risk of dying of CRC. Study 2 found that, while communicating CRC incidence occurring as every day increased information-seeking behaviour compared to every year and every hour (57.4% vs 45.9% vs 45.6%, p = 0.012), individuals in the daily condition were less likely to get all comprehension questions right (69.9% vs 78.2% vs 85.0%, respectively, p = 0.015). Temporal framing had no impact on perceived risk or intentions to engage in risk-reducing behaviours. While manipulating risk information in terms of temporal framing did not increase perceived risk, it may influence people's decision to engage with the information in the first place.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Clinical Nurse Specialists and Patients With Cancer: A Pan-Specialty Cross-sectional Survey.

PURPOSE/AIMS: Uptake and delivery of cancer services across the United Kingdom have been significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to understand the impact of the pandemic on the working practices of clinical nurse specialists and their patient interactions across different cancer specialties. DESIGN: We performed a cross-sectional survey exploring nurses' experiences of delivering care during the pandemic, as well as their perceptions of the concerns that cancer patients were experiencing. METHODS: Clinical nurse specialists working in London cancer services were invited to complete an online questionnaire. Nurses' experiences and their perceptions of patients' concerns were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Fifty-four nurses participated. Almost half had been redeployed to other clinical areas during the pandemic (n = 19). COVID-19 discussions added 5 to 10 minutes on average to most consultations, with nurses either working longer/unpaid hours (34%) or spending less time talking to patients about cancer (39%) to deal with this. Approximately 50% of nurses would have liked additional information and support from their hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical nurse specialist time and resources have been stretched during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospitals need to work with nursing staff to ensure the specific information needs of cancer patients are being met.

Why are most colorectal cancers diagnosed outside of screening? A retrospective analysis of data from the English bowel screening programme.

OBJECTIVE: Despite several interventions to increase participation in England, most colorectal cancers (CRCs) are diagnosed outside of the screening programme. The aims of this study were to better understand why most CRCs are diagnosed externally, the extent to which this is due to suboptimal uptake of screening, and the extent to which it is due to other factors, such as false-negative test results. SETTING / METHODS: We performed a clinical audit of 1011 patients diagnosed with CRC at St Mark's Hospital (Harrow, UK) between January 2017 and December 2020. Data on the diagnostic pathway and screening history of individuals were extracted from the bowel cancer screening system and assessed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 446/1011 (44.1%) patients diagnosed with CRC were eligible for screening at the time of diagnosis. Of these, only 115/446 (25.8%) were diagnosed through screening. Among those diagnosed via non-screening pathways, 210/331 (63.4%) had never taken part in screening, 31/331 (9.4%) had taken part but were not up to date, and 89/331 (26.9%) had taken part and were up-to-date (of these, 82/89 [92.2%] had received a normal or weak positive test result, and 5/89 [5.6%] had received a positive result and declined colonoscopy). CONCLUSION: Nearly two-thirds of screening eligible patients diagnosed through a non-screening pathway had never taken part in screening. This represents the single largest source of inefficiency within the screening programme, followed by missed findings and inconsistent participation. Given the improved outcomes associated with screen-detected cancers, there is a strong public health mandate to encourage participation.

Evaluation of the Call for a Kit intervention to increase bowel cancer screening uptake in Lancashire, England.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 'Call for a Kit' health promotion intervention that was initiated in Lancashire, England to improve bowel cancer screening uptake. METHODS: Within the intervention, screening non-responders are called and invited to attend a consultation with a health promotion team member at their primary care practice. In this audit, we analysed the proportion of those contacted who attended the in-person clinic versus those who received a phone consultation, the number returning a test kit from in-person versus phone consultations, and the extent to which test kit return was moderated by sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: In 2019, 68 practices participated in the intervention which led to 10,772 individuals being contacted; 2464 accepted the invitation to an in-person consultation, of whom 1943 attended. A further 1065 agreed to and attended a consultation over the phone. The 3008 consultations resulted in 2890 test kits being ordered, of which 1608 (55.6%) were returned. The intervention therefore yielded a 14.9% response rate in the total cohort; 71.5% of test kits came from individuals attending the in-person consultation. Women and those registered with a practice in socioeconomically deprived areas were less likely to return the test kit. Individuals with a black, mixed or a non-Indian/Pakistani Asian ethnic background were significantly more likely to accept the offer of an in-person consultation and return the test kit. CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrated the strong likelihood of people returning a test kit after an in-person appointment but also the usefulness of using phone consultations as a safety net for people unable or unwilling to attend in-person clinics.

Demographic and psychological predictors of community pharmacists' cancer-related conversations with patients: a cross-sectional analysis and survey study.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the role of community pharmacy in the early diagnosis and prevention of cancer. This study set out to examine how often community pharmacists (CPs) encourage patients to spot or respond to potential signs and symptoms of cancer, and how often they help people to make an informed decision about taking part in bowel cancer screening. METHODS: Data from 400 UK CPs, who completed the 2018 Cancer Research UK Healthcare Professional Tracker survey, were analysed. The primary outcomes were: 'how often CPs encourage patients to spot or respond to potential signs and symptoms of cancer' and 'how often CPs encourage eligible people to make an informed decision to participate in bowel cancer screening'. Associations between behaviours and demographic and psychological variables (Capability, Opportunity and Motivation) were assessed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Most (n = 331, 82.8%) CPs reported occasionally, frequently or always encouraging patients to spot or respond to potential signs and symptoms of cancer, while only half (n = 203, 50.8%) reported occasionally, frequently or always helping people make an informed decision to participate in bowel cancer screening. Female sex (aOR: 3.20, 95%CI: 1.51, 6.81; p < 0.01) and increased Opportunity (aOR: 1.72, 95%CIs: 1.12, 2.64; p < 0.05) and Motivation (aOR: 1.76, 95%CIs: 1.37, 2.27; p < 0.001) were associated with encouraging patients to spot or respond to potential signs and symptoms of cancer; all three psychological variables were associated with helping people to make an informed decision to participate in bowel cancer screening (Capability: aOR: 1.39, 95%CIs: 1.26, 1.52, p < 0.001; Opportunity: aOR: 1.44, 95%CIs: 1.11, 1.87; p < 0.01; Motivation: aOR: 1.45, 95%CIs: 1.05, 2.00; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Most CPs encourage patients to spot or respond to potential cancer symptoms, while only half help them make an informed decision to participate in bowel cancer screening. A multifaceted approach, targeting multiple COM-B components, is required to change these behaviours.

Adenoma characteristics associated with post-polypectomy proximal colon cancer incidence: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is less effective at reducing cancer incidence in the proximal colon compared to the distal colorectum. We aimed to identify adenoma characteristics associated with proximal colon cancer (PCC). METHODS: Endoscopy and pathology data for patients with ≥1 adenoma detected at baseline colonoscopy were obtained from 17 UK hospitals between 2001 and 2010. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PCC, and, for comparison, distal CRC incidence, by adenoma characteristics. RESULTS: Among 18,431 patients, 152 and 105 developed PCC and distal CRC, respectively, over a median follow-up of 9.8 years. Baseline adenoma characteristics positively associated with PCC incidence included number (≥3 vs. < 3: aHR 2.10, 95% CI: 1.42-3.09), histology (tubulovillous/villous vs. tubular: aHR 1.61, 95% CI: 1.10-2.35) and location (any proximal vs. distal only: aHR 1.70, 95% CI: 1.20-2.42), for which there was borderline evidence of heterogeneity by subsite (p = 0.055). Adenoma dysplasia (high vs. low grade) was associated with distal CRC (aHR 2.42, 95% CI: 1.44-4.04), but not PCC (p-heterogeneity = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline adenoma number, histology and proximal location were independently associated with PCC and may be important to identify patients at higher risk for post-polypectomy PCC.

Behavioural Challenges Associated With Risk-Adapted Cancer Screening.

Cancer screening programmes have a major role in reducing cancer incidence and mortality. Traditional internationally-adopted protocols have been to invite all 'eligible individuals' for the same test at the same frequency. However, as highlighted in Cancer Research UK's 2020 strategic vision, there are opportunities to increase effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and reduce harms of screening programmes, by making recommendations on the basis of personalised estimates of risk. In some respects, this extends current approaches of providing more intensive levels of care outside screening programmes to individuals at very high risk due to their family history or underlying conditions. However, risk-adapted colorectal cancer screening raises a wide range of questions, not only about how best to change existing programmes but also about the psychological and behavioural effects that these changes might have. Previous studies in other settings provide some important information but remain to be tested and explored further in the context of colorectal screening. Conducting behavioural science research in parallel to clinical research will ensure that risk-adapted screening is understood and accepted by the population that it aims to serve.

Testing Enhanced Active Choice to Optimize Acceptance and Participation in a Population-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Malta.

Opt-out strategies have been shown to improve participation in cancer screening; however, there are ethical concerns regarding the presumed consent. In this study, we tested an alternative opt-in strategy, called: "enhanced active choice," in which the response options summarize the consequences of the decision. The study was conducted as part of the Maltese colorectal cancer screening program, which offers men and women, aged 60-64, a "one-off" fecal immunochemical test (FIT). A total of 8349 individuals were randomly assigned to receive either an invitation letter that featured a standard opt-in strategy (control condition), or an alternative letter with a modified opt-in strategy (enhanced active choice condition). Our primary outcome was participation three months after the invitation was delivered. Additionally, we also compared the proportion who said they wanted to take part in screening. We used multivariable logistic regression for the analysis. Overall, 48.4% (N = 4042) accepted the invitation and 42.4% (N = 3542) did the screening test. While there were no statistically significant differences between the two conditions in terms of acceptance and participation, enhanced active choice did increase acceptance among men by 4.6 percentage points, which translated to a significant increase in participation of 3.4 percentage points. We conclude that enhanced active choice can improve male screening participation. Given the higher risk of CRC in men, as well as their lower participation screening, we believe this to be an important finding.

Barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test screening for colorectal cancer: A key informant interview study.

OBJECTIVES: People who are referred for colonoscopy, following an abnormal colorectal cancer (CRC) screening result, are at increased risk of CRC. Despite this, many individuals decline the procedure. The aim of this study was to investigate why. METHODS: As little is currently known about non-attendance at follow-up colonoscopy, and follow-up of abnormal screening results is a nurse-led process, we decided to conduct key informant interviews with Specialist Screening Practitioners ([SSPs] nurses working in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Program). Interviews were conducted online. Transcripts were assessed using inductive and deductive coding techniques. RESULTS: 21 SSPs participated in an interview. Five main types of barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy were described, namely: Sociocultural, Practical, Psychological, Health-related and COVID-related. Key psychological and sociocultural factors included: 'Fear of pain and discomfort associated with the procedure' and 'Lack of support from family and friends'. Key practical, health-related and COVID-related factors included: 'Family and work commitments', 'Existing health conditions as competing priorities' and 'Fear of getting COVID-19 at the hospital'. CONCLUSIONS: A range of barriers and facilitators to follow-up colonoscopy exist. Future studies conducted with patients are needed to further explore barriers to colonoscopy. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Strategies to reduce non-attendance should adopt a multifaceted approach.

The Newcastle ENDOPREM™: a validated patient reported experience measure for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: Measuring patient experience of gastrointestinal (GI) procedures is a key component of evaluation of quality of care. Current measures of patient experience within GI endoscopy are largely clinician derived and measured; however, these do not fully represent the experiences of patients themselves. It is important to measure the entirety of experience and not just experience directly during the procedure. We aimed to develop a patient-reported experience measure (PREM) for GI procedures. DESIGN: Phase 1: semi-structured interviews were conducted in patients who had recently undergone GI endoscopy or CT colonography (CTC) (included as a comparator). Thematic analysis identified the aspects of experience important to patients. Phase 2: a question bank was developed from phase 1 findings, and iteratively refined through rounds of cognitive interviews with patients who had undergone GI procedures, resulting in a pilot PREM. Phase 3: patients who had attended for GI endoscopy or CTC were invited to complete the PREM. Psychometric properties were investigated. Phase 4 involved item reduction and refinement. RESULTS: Phase 1: interviews with 35 patients identified six overarching themes: anxiety, expectations, information & communication, embarrassment & dignity, choice & control and comfort. Phase 2: cognitive interviews refined questionnaire items and response options. Phase 3: the PREM was distributed to 1650 patients with 799 completing (48%). Psychometric properties were found to be robust. Phase 4: final questionnaire refined including 54 questions assessing patient experience across five temporal procedural stages. CONCLUSION: This manuscript gives an overview of the development and validation of the Newcastle ENDOPREM™, which assesses all aspects of the GI procedure experience from the patient perspective. It may be used to measure patient experience in clinical care and, in research, to compare patients' experiences of different endoscopic interventions.

Testing messages from behavioral economics to improve participation in a population-based colorectal cancer screening program in Cyprus: Results from two randomized controlled trials.

•Behavioral economic-based interventions have been suggested to increase uptake in CRC screening programmes.•This study tested the effectiveness of six behavioral economic-based messages in two field trials.•None of the messages increased screening participation.

Medication use and risk of proximal colon cancer: a systematic review of prospective studies with narrative synthesis and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Evidence of differences in the etiology of, and poorer survival from, proximal colon compared to the distal colorectum, necessitates research into its risk factors. This systematic review summarizes the evidence on medication use and proximal colon cancer risk. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for prospective studies investigating nine medication groups, namely non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), exogenous hormones, i.e., hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or oral contraceptives (OCs), statins, proton pump inhibitors, anti-hypertensives, metformin (an antidiabetic), antidiarrheals or laxatives, and the risk of proximal colon cancer. Narrative synthesis and meta-analyses, using random effects models to estimate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were conducted. RESULTS: Twenty nine publications investigating NSAIDs (n = 13), exogenous hormones [HRT (n = 9) or OCs (n = 4)] statins (n = 5), anti-hypertensives (n = 1), and metformin (n = 1) were included. Summary RRs reported a protective effect of aspirin use (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.89) but no associations between HRT (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83-1.02), OC (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.98-1.14) or statin use (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67-1.31), and proximal colon cancer incidence compared to never/non-use. One study on metformin and one on anti-hypertensives reported no association. Sources of between-study heterogeneity included study design, period of exposure ascertainment, exposure source, and exposure comparison, but this exploration was hindered by the small numbers of studies. CONCLUSION: Despite some studies on NSAID or HRT use, evidence on the impact of a range of medications on proximal colon cancer risk is limited. This highlights the need for more research to inform chemoprevention strategies.

Feasibility and acceptability of breath research in primary care: a prospective, cross-sectional, observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the feasibility and acceptability of breath research in primary care. DESIGN: Non-randomised, prospective, mixed-methods cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: Twenty-six urban primary care practices. PARTICIPANTS: 1002 patients aged 18-90 years with gastrointestinal symptoms. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: During the first 6 months of the study (phase 1), feasibility of patient enrolment using face-to-face, telephone or SMS-messaging (Short Message Service) enrolment strategies, as well as processes for breath testing at local primary care practices, were evaluated. A mixed-method iterative study design was adopted and outcomes evaluated using weekly Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, focus groups and general practitioner (GP) questionnaires.During the second 6 months of the study (phase 2), patient and GP acceptability of the breath test and testing process was assessed using questionnaires. In addition a 'single practice' recruitment model was compared with a 'hub and spoke' centralised recruitment model with regards to enrolment ability and patient acceptability.Throughout the study feasibility of the collection of a large number of breath samples by clinical staff over multiple study sites was evaluated and quantified by the analysis of these samples using mass spectrometry. RESULTS: 1002 patients were recruited within 192 sampling days. Both 'single practice' and 'hub and spoke' recruitment models were effective with an average of 5.3 and 4.3 patients accrued per day, respectively. The 'hub and spoke' model with SMS messaging was the most efficient combined method of patient accrual. Acceptability of the test was high among both patients and GPs. The methodology for collection, handling and analysis of breath samples was effective, with 95% of samples meeting quality criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Large-scale breath testing in primary care was feasible and acceptable. This study provides a practical framework to guide the design of Phase III trials examining the performance of breath testing in primary care.