Back to Search Start Over

A feces collection paper does not enhance participation in a fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program: randomized clinical trial.

Authors :
Denters MJ
Deutekom M
Bossuyt PM
Fockens P
Dekker E
Source :
European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) [Eur J Cancer Prev] 2013 Jul; Vol. 22 (4), pp. 299-304.
Publication Year :
2013

Abstract

Discomfort with the collection of a stool sample is a frequently cited barrier for participation in fecal test-based colorectal cancer screening. The objective was to evaluate whether a feces collection paper enhances participation in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer screening program. Randomized clinical trial. Second round of a biannual Dutch FIT-based colorectal cancer screening program pilot. A random sample of 10 265 individuals from the general population, men and women aged 50-75 years at an average risk for colorectal cancer, was eligible for participation. Invitees were randomized to an FIT-only group (n=5136) or an FIT in combination with a feces collection paper group (n=5129). The main outcome measure was participation in screening. Overall, 5367 tests of 10 265 were returned (52%). In the FIT-only group, 2694 tests were returned [52%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 51-54%] versus 2673 tests in the collection paper group (52%; 95% CI: 51-54%). This difference in the participation rate was not significant (relative risk: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.97-1.04). A feces collection paper does not increase participation rates in FIT-based colorectal cancer screening. Future studies should explore other ways of facilitating participation in colorectal cancer screening programs.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1473-5709
Volume :
22
Issue :
4
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP)
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
23169243
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1097/CEJ.0b013e32835b3882