Search

Introduction: The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTF-PHC) recently revised its screening recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC). We wished to assess the effect of this change on the screening beliefs and clinical practice of primary care physicians., Methods: We surveyed 160 primary-care physicians, quasi-randomly sampled, in June-July 2001 and again in April-July 2002, 9 months after publication of the guidelines. Descriptive statistics and McNemar chi2 analyses were carried out on data from physicians who responded to both surveys., Results: Of the those sampled, 47% responded to both surveys. After the publication of the CTF-PHC guidelines, the proportion reporting that they recommend CRC screening to their patients at average risk increased from 43% to 60% (p = 0.02). Before publication of the revised guidelines 48% stated that the CTF-PHC did not support screening, compared with 24% afterward (p = 0.01). CTF-PHC guidelines were acknowledged by 30% to be a source of CRC screening information. Around 9 months post-publication, 24% of the physicians stated their awareness of the revised screening guidelines. The most commonly cited reasons for not recommending CRC screening to average-risk patients were that the evidence is inconclusive and that CTF-PHC guidelines do not support screening., Conclusions: After publication of the revised CTF-PHC guidelines more primary-care physicians reported that they recommend CRC screening to their average-risk patients. The belief that the evidence is inconclusive nevertheless remains a considerable barrier to implementation. To increase the use of screening for CRC, additional strategies are required.

Background: The optimal follow-up strategy for colorectal cancer is unknown., Materials and Methods: We surveyed all Canadian radiation oncologists, medical oncologists and surgeons specializing in colorectal cancer to assess their recommendations for follow-up after potentially curative treatment, the beliefs and attitudes underlying these practices, and the cost implications of different follow-up strategies., Results: One hundred and sixty practitioners (58%) returned completed surveys. Most recommended clinical assessments every 3-4 months in the first 2 years including carcino-embryonic antigen testing, gradually decreasing in frequency over 5 years. Ninety per cent recommend a surveillance colonoscopy in the first year. The majority felt that specialist involvement in follow-up was important because of the increased opportunities for patients to contribute to research (76%) and teaching (73%). About half felt that specialists were more efficient at providing follow-up than primary care physicians, but these same physicians recommended significantly longer and more expensive follow-up routines on average than others. Primary care physicians were felt to be important allies, especially in managing the psychosocial concerns of patients., Conclusions: Surveillance practices are generally in keeping with published recommendations. Most specialists feel that they should remain involved in follow-up, but this may result in increased resource utilization.

The advent of the molecular world opening up for familial adenomatous polyposis and other genetically predisposed cancers has now provided us with wonderful tools to study these diseases. The challenges, however, clearly remain to transfer discoveries in the laboratory to improvements in the care of these patients.