Deaths and cardiopulmonary events following colorectal cancer screening-A systematic review with meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening programmes (CRCSPs) are implemented worldwide despite recent evidence indicating more physical harm occurring during CRCSPs than previously thought. Therefore, we aimed to review the evidence on physical harms associated with endoscopic diagnostic procedures during CRCSPs and, when possible, to quantify the risk of the most serious types of physical harm during CRCSPs, i.e. deaths and cardiopulmonary events (CPEs). METHODS: Systematic review with descriptive statistics and random-effects meta-analyses of studies investigating physical harms following CRCSPs. We conducted a systematic search in the literature and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: We included 134 studies for review, reporting findings from 151 unique populations when accounting for multiple screening interventions per study. Physical harm can be categorized into 17 types of harm. The evidence was very heterogeneous with inadequate measurement and reporting of harms. The risk of bias was serious or critical in 95% of assessments of deaths and CPEs, and the certainty of the evidence was very low in all analyses. The risk of death was assessed for 57 populations with large variation across studies. Meta-analyses indicated that 3 to 23 deaths occur during CRCSPs per 100,000 people screened. Cardiopulmonary events were assessed for 55 populations. Despite our efforts to subcategorize CPEs into 17 distinct subtypes, 41% of CPE assessments were too poorly measured or reported to allow quantification. We found a tendency towards lower estimates of deaths and CPEs in studies with a critical risk of bias. DISCUSSION: Deaths and CPEs during CRCSPs are rare, yet they do occur during CRCSPs. We believe that our findings are conservative due to the heterogeneity and low quality of the evidence. A standardized system for the measurement and reporting of the harms of screening is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration number CRD42017058844.

The risk of bleeding and perforation from sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analyses.

INTRODUCTION: Physical harm from Colorectal Cancer Screening tends to be inadequately measured and reported in clinical trials. Also, studies of ongoing Colorectal Cancer Screening programs have found more frequent and severe physical harm from screening procedures, e.g., bleeding and perforation, than reported in previous trials. Therefore, the objectives of the study were to systematically review the evidence on the risk of bleeding and perforation in Colorectal Cancer Screening. DESIGN: Systematic review with descriptive statistics and random-effects meta-analyses. METHODS: We systematically searched five databases for studies investigating physical harms related to Colorectal Cancer Screening. We assessed the internal and the external validity using the ROBINS-I tool and the GRADE approach. Harm estimates was calculated using mixed Poisson regression models in random-effect meta-analyses. RESULTS: We included 89 studies. Reporting and measurement of harms was inadequate in most studies. In effect, the risk of bias was critical in 97.3% and serious in 98.3% of studies. All GRADE ratings were very low. Based on severe findings with not-critical risk of bias and 30 days follow-up, the risk of bleedings per 100,000 people screened were 8 [2;24] for sigmoidoscopy, 229 [129;408] for colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test, 68 [39;118] for once-only colonoscopy, and 698 [443;1045] for colonoscopy following any screening tests. The risk of perforations was 88 [56;138] for colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test and 53 [25;112] for once-only colonoscopy. There were no findings within the subcategory severe perforation with long-term follow-up for colonoscopy following any screening tests and sigmoidoscopy. DISCUSSION: Harm estimates varied widely across studies, reporting and measurement of harms was mostly inadequate, and the risk of bias and GRADE ratings were very poor, collectively leading to underestimation of harm. In effect, we consider our estimates of perforation and bleeding as conservative, highlighting the need for better reporting and measurement in future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017058844.

Methodological Quality of PROMs in Psychosocial Consequences of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

Objective: This systematic review aimed to assess the adequacy of measurement properties in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used to quantify psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening among adults at average risk. Methods: We searched four databases for eligible studies: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase. Our approach was inclusive and encompassed all empirical studies that quantified aspects of psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. We assessed the adequacy of PROM development and measurement properties for content validity using The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. Results: We included 33 studies that all together used 30 different outcome measures. Two PROMs (6.7%) were developed in a colorectal cancer screening context. COSMIN rating for PROM development was inadequate for 29 out of 30 PROMs (97%). PROMs lacked proper cognitive interviews and pilot studies and therefore had no proven content validity. According to the COSMIN checklist, 27 out of 30 PROMs (90%) had inadequate measurement properties for content validity. Discussion: The majority of included PROMs had inadequate development and measurement properties. These findings shed light on the trustworthiness of the included studies' findings and call for reevaluation of existing evidence on the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. To provide trustworthy evidence about the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening, editors could require that studies provide evidence of the methodological quality of the PROM. Alternatively, authors should transparently disclose their studies' methodological limitations in measuring psychosocial consequences of screening validly.

Why do some participants in colorectal cancer screening choose not to undergo colonoscopy following a positive test result? A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to investigate why participants opted out of colonoscopy following a positive screening result for colorectal cancer. DESIGN: Semi-structured, qualitative, single interviews. We audio-recorded and transcribed all interviews verbatim and used Strauss and Corbin's concept of open, axial, and selective coding to identify the main categories shared across all interviews. These formed the basis of our findings. SETTING: A Danish national colorectal cancer screening programme. SUBJECTS: Single interviews with 13 participants who declined to have a colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reasons to decline colonoscopy after positive screening test. RESULTS: Participants gave 42 different reasons for deciding not to have a colonoscopy and we coded them into nine main categories; Practical barriers, Discomfort of the examination, Personal integrity, Multimorbidity, Feeling healthy, Not having the energy, Belief that cancer is not present, Risk of complications, and Distrust in the accuracy of the iFOBT. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that some practical barriers could be quite easily addressed, by offering the participants alternative management and procdures. IMPLICATIONS: Further research is needed to examine how widely our findings are represented in the general population, and how general practitioners should consult with patients who have opted out of colonoscopy, despite a positive screening result. Key points Some screening participants are reluctant to proceed with further diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer following a positive screening result. • Interviews with people, who had refused a follow-up colonoscopy, discovered nine categories (42 reasons) of reasons for refusal. • Reluctance can be addressed by offering support with pre-procedure preparations and alternatives to colonoscopy. • General practitioners face ethical dilemmas and challenges, when patients at risk of colorectal cancer decline to proceed with screening.