Search

Objective During the last two decades, organised colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been widely implemented. It remains to be established if screen-detected CRC (SD-CRC) is associated with reduced long-term requirements for treatment as compared with patients with non-screen-detected CRC (NSD-CRC). Study design and methods This nationwide cohort study evaluated differences in treatment and healthcare contacts from the date of diagnosis to two years after comparing patients with SD-CRC and NSD-CRC. Data were collected from national healthcare registers, including patients aged 50–75 years and diagnosed with CRC between January 1st 2014 and March 31st 2018. Analyses were stratified into UICC stages and adjusted for sex, 5-year age groups, type of cancer (colonic/rectal), and Charlson comorbidity index score to address healthy user bias. Results In total, 12,040 patients were included, 4708 with SD-CRC and 7332 with NSD-CRC. In patients with SD-CRC, the duration of hospitalisation and rate of emergency surgery were reduced by 38 % (relative risk [RR] = 0.62) and 66 % (RR = 0.34), respectively. Moreover, this group was characterised by a 75 % reduction in oncological outpatient visits (RR = 0.35) and a reduced number of treatments with chemotherapy (RR = 0.57) and radiotherapy (RR = 0.50). There were no significant differences between the two populations in the rates of metastasectomy and the number of contacts with primary healthcare providers. Conclusion Compared to patients with NSD-CRC, patients with SD-CRC experience less hospitalisation and treatment within the first two years after diagnosis., Objective: During the last two decades, organised colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been widely implemented. It remains to be established if screen-detected CRC (SD-CRC) is associated with reduced long-term requirements for treatment as compared with patients with non-screen-detected CRC (NSD-CRC). Study design and methods: This nationwide cohort study evaluated differences in treatment and healthcare contacts from the date of diagnosis to two years after comparing patients with SD-CRC and NSD-CRC. Data were collected from national healthcare registers, including patients aged 50–75 years and diagnosed with CRC between January 1st 2014 and March 31st 2018. Analyses were stratified into UICC stages and adjusted for sex, 5-year age groups, type of cancer (colonic/rectal), and Charlson comorbidity index score to address healthy user bias. Results: In total, 12,040 patients were included, 4708 with SD-CRC and 7332 with NSD-CRC. In patients with SD-CRC, the duration of hospitalisation and rate of emergency surgery were reduced by 38 % (relative risk [RR] = 0.62) and 66 % (RR = 0.34), respectively. Moreover, this group was characterised by a 75 % reduction in oncological outpatient visits (RR = 0.35) and a reduced number of treatments with chemotherapy (RR = 0.57) and radiotherapy (RR = 0.50). There were no significant differences between the two populations in the rates of metastasectomy and the number of contacts with primary healthcare providers. Conclusion: Compared to patients with NSD-CRC, patients with SD-CRC experience less hospitalisation and treatment within the first two years after diagnosis.

Objectives: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer. Many countries in Europe have already implemented systematic screening programmes as per the recommendations by the European Union. The impact of screening is highly dependent on participation rates. The aim of the study was to identify barriers, facilitators and modifiers to participation in systematised, stool sample–based, publicly financed CRC screening programmes. Study design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google Scholar and PsycINFO was undertaken. We included both qualitative and quantitative studies reporting on barriers and facilitators (excluding sociodemographic variables) to participation in stool sample–based CRC screening. Barriers and facilitators to participation were summarised and analysed. Results: The inclusion criteria were met in 21 studies. Reported barriers and facilitators were categorised into the following seven themes (examples): psychology (fear of cancer), religion (believing cancer is the will of God), logistics (not knowing how to conduct the test), health-related factors (mental health), knowledge and awareness (lack of knowledge about the test), role of the general practitioner (being supported in taking the test by the general practitioner), and environmental factors (knowing someone who has participated in a screening programme). Six studies reported that non-participation was not due to a negative attitude towards screening for CRC. Conclusion: Many barriers to screening were found. It is important to work with peoples' fear of screening. Moreover, this review suggests that it might be possible to increase participation rates, if the population-wide awareness and knowledge of potential health benefits of CRC screening are increased and proper logistical support is provided.