Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Randomized Controlled Trial of Personalized Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment vs Education to Promote Screening Uptake.
Yen, Timothy; Qin, FeiFei; Sundaram, Vandana; Asiimwe, Edgar; Storage, Tina; Ladabaum, Uri.
Afiliação
  • Yen T; Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
  • Qin F; Quantitative Sciences Unit, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
  • Sundaram V; Quantitative Sciences Unit, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
  • Asiimwe E; Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
  • Storage T; Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
  • Ladabaum U; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Am J Gastroenterol ; 116(2): 391-400, 2021 02 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33009045
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Risk stratification has been proposed as a strategy to improve participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but evidence is lacking. We performed a randomized controlled trial of risk stratification using the National Cancer Institute's Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (CCRAT) on screening intent and completion.

METHODS:

A total of 230 primary care patients eligible for first-time CRC screening were randomized to risk assessment via CCRAT or education control. Follow-up of screening intent and completion was performed by record review and phone at 6 and 12 months. We analyzed change in intent after intervention, time to screening, overall screening completion rates, and screening completion by CCRAT risk score tertile.

RESULTS:

Of the patients, 61.7% of patients were aged <60 years, 58.7% female, and 94.3% with college or higher education. Time to screening did not differ between arms (hazard ratio 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.18], P = 0.24). At 12 months, screening completion was 38.6% with CCRAT vs 44.0% with education (odds ratio [OR] 0.80 [95% CI 0.47-1.37], P = 0.41). Changes in screening intent did not differ between the risk assessment and education arms (precontemplation to contemplation OR 1.52 [95% CI 0.81-2.86], P = 0.19; contemplation to precontemplation OR 1.93 [95% CI 0.45-8.34], P = 0.38). There were higher screening completion rates at 12 months in the top CCRAT risk tertile (52.6%) vs the bottom (32.4%) and middle (31.6%) tertiles (P = 0.10).

DISCUSSION:

CCRAT risk assessment did not increase screening participation or intent. Risk stratification might motivate persons classified as higher CRC risk to complete screening, but unintentionally discourage screening among persons not identified as higher risk.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Participação do Paciente / Neoplasias Colorretais / Detecção Precoce de Câncer / Modelo de Crenças de Saúde Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Participação do Paciente / Neoplasias Colorretais / Detecção Precoce de Câncer / Modelo de Crenças de Saúde Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article