Can a print‐based intervention increase screening for first degree relatives of people with colorectal cancer? A randomised controlled trial

Objective: To test the effectiveness of a targeted print‐based intervention to improve screening adherence in first degree relatives of people with colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: People with CRC and their adult first degree relatives were identified through a population‐based cancer registry and randomly allocated as a family unit to the intervention or control condition. The control group received general information about CRC screening. The intervention group received printed advice regarding screening that was targeted to their risk level. Screening adherence was assessed at baseline and at 12 months via self report. Results: 752 (25%) index cases and 574 (34%) eligible first degree relatives consented to take part in the trial and completed baseline interviews. At 12 months, 58% of first degree relatives in the control group and 61% in the intervention group were adherent to screening guidelines (mixed effects logistic regression group by time interaction effect =2.7; 95%CI=1.2–5.9; P=0.013). Subgroup analysis indicated that the intervention was only effective for those with the lowest risk. Conclusions: Provision of personalised risk information may have a modest effect on adherence to CRC screening recommendations among first degree relatives of people diagnosed with CRC. Implications : Improved strategies for identifying and engaging first degree relatives are needed to maximise the population impact of the intervention.     

Survey on colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and practices of general practice physicians in Lazio, Italy

BACKGROUND: Several international guidelines have recommended the involvement of general practitioners (GPs) in screening programs, but current evidence suggests this is very difficult. We implemented a survey to understand the attitudes, knowledge, and practices regarding colorectal cancer screening of GPs in the Lazio region. METHODS: Survey of all GPs working in 13 of the 50 districts in Lazio using a mail-in questionnaire. RESULTS: Out of 1192 GPs, 699 responded (59%). Ninety-four percent consider CRC a preventable disease. Knowledge about oncological screenings is higher in GPs using the guidelines as source of information. Twenty-five percent properly recommend the available screening tests for colorectal cancer, 22% do not recommend any, 6% under-recommend, and 47% over-recommend. Adequate knowledge of oncological screenings is positively associated with correct recommendation. Thirty-two percent of GPs recommend inappropriate follow-up tests for patients with positive fecal occult blood test. CONCLUSIONS: The low response rate reveals the lack of GP's interest in screening. Knowledge about screening and use of guidelines as sources of scientific information are important factors to improve attitudes about screening, but there is a large percentage of well-informed GPs who do not recommend colorectal cancer screening at all. Currently, many GPs do not properly follow the patients up after a positive FOBT.     

Colorectal cancer screening: discussions with first degree relatives

Screening by faecal occult blood test and colonoscopy is recommended for first degree relatives of people with colorectal cancer. While it is known that screening participation among relatives is low, relatives' beliefs and attitudes towards screening have not been explored at an indepth level. In this study, four focus group discussions with first degree relatives of people with colorectal cancer were held. Discussions were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and the data were independently coded and analysed by the authors. Three main themes were identified: risk, understanding, and screening. Perceived risk was determined by family history, age and gender. Of concern, there was limited understanding of the asymptomatic nature of screening with most relatives initially 'screened' after consulting a doctor with colorectal symptoms. These findings need to be considered in screening programs.     

Interest in genetic testing among first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients

PURPOSE: The present study examined colorectal cancer screening behaviors, risk perceptions, and willingness to receive genetic testing to determine colorectal cancer susceptibility. METHODS: We recruited 95 first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients, then conducted a brief telephone interview using a structured questionnaire that elicited information on sociodemographics, cancer screening behaviors, risk perceptions, and interest in genetic testing. RESULTS: Among these high-risk individuals who were aged 40 years or older, only 31% reported fecal occult blood testing within the past year and 59% reported undergoing sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy within the past 5 years. The majority of participants believed their relative risk of colorectal cancer was increased (68%). Eighty-four percent of the participants indicated that they would have a genetic test if one were available. Participants who believed that <50% of colorectal cancers were caused by heredity were more likely to be interested in genetic testing than were participants who believed that 50% or more of colorectal cancers were caused by heredity. Referral source, sociodemographic factors, clinical factors, and perceived personal risk were not significantly associated with interest in genetic testing. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the demand for colorectal cancer susceptibility testing may be high among individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer. We also observed that a substantial number of first-degree relatives were not adhering to colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Accurate information on the genetic aspects of colorectal cancer and the benefits and limitations of genetic testing may help relatives of colorectal cancer patients make informed decisions about whether to undergo enhanced screening and genetic testing.     

Mammographic surveillance of asymptomatic breast cancer relatives in general practice: rate of re-attendance and GP- and patient-related barriers

BACKGROUND: Several guidelines have been formulated for mammographic screening of breast cancer relatives. No studies have examined the adherence of GPs and their patients to these recommendations. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the rate of re-attendance of breast cancer relatives for mammographic screening requested by GPs and specify the barriers for non-attending follow-up mammography. METHODS: The study included all asymptomatic women aged 35 years or older with a first-degree family history of breast cancer, referred for mammography to our department of radiology by their GP between 1 January 1992 and 1 September 1994. Reasons for not re-attending mammography within 2 years were obtained by sending a questionnaire to GPs and, if necessary, telephone calls to GPs or their patients. The questionnaire was accompanied by a reminder, in which we advised re-attendance. The number of women who still underwent repeated mammographic screening within the 2 months following the reminder was determined. RESULTS: In 123 out of 234 patients (52.6%) follow-up mammography had been performed within 2 years. Barriers to undergoing follow-up mammography were GP-related in 70.3% of cases and patient-related in 29.7%. Of the 111 non-re-attenders, 52 (47.7%) still underwent follow-up mammography within 2 months after the reminder. This examination was performed more often if the barriers to re-attendance were GP-related rather than patient-related (57.7% versus 24.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 13.0- 53.9). Significantly more patients re-attended after the reminder if the GP-related barrier was an insufficient retrieval system rather than disagreement with mammography guidelines (81.3% versus 20.0%, 95% CI 40.4-82.0). CONCLUSIONS: Many breast cancer relatives did not undergo regular mammographic screening. Non-re-attendance resulted from a limited degree of acceptance and implementation of the screening recommendations by physicians as well as reluctance of the patient to adhere to such recommendations. A reminder, generated by a radiology department, may increase the performance of follow-up mammography.      

The view from two sides: a qualitative study of community and medical perspectives on screening for colorectal cancer using FOBT

BACKGROUND: Population-wide screening for people at average risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) by faecal occult blood test (FOBT) is under consideration in Australia. METHODS: Qualitative methods were used to examine the views of community members who did (n = 18) or did not (n = 12) participate in a pilot program of FOBT screening. In addition, views were obtained from general practitioners (GPs) and specialist gastroenterologists directly involved in the implementation of the program. Two focus group sessions were conducted with screening participants and interviews were conducted with nonparticipants, GPs and gastroenterologists. RESULTS: The findings suggest that CRC screening by FOBT distributed to households by mail was well accepted by the community and by the medical practitioners involved in its implementation. The trial had little negative effect on general practice. Both medical practitioners and consumers raised concerns about the efficacy of FOBT screening. Medical practitioners were also concerned about the potential burden mass screening could place on the public (government-funded) health care sector. CONCLUSIONS: It would seem that CRC screening using FOBT will not enjoy unqualified support from the community or from medical practitioners involved in the continuum of screening. Information about the objectives of screening programs, in general, and the efficacy of FOBT screening in particular, needs to be provided to the community to ensure informed individual choice.     

Cervical screening among immigrant Vietnamese women seen in general practice: current rates, predictors and potential recruitment strategies

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain cervical screening rates among Vietnamese women attending Vietnamese-speaking general practitioners (GPs) in Sydney, their recall of opportunistic recruitment by these GPs and their preferences for strategies to encourage screening. METHOD: Women born in Vietnam aged 18-69 years were recruited through the waiting room of their GP and completed questionnaires in either Vietnamese or Chinese before and after their consultation. RESULTS: Of 355 women seen during the survey period, 170 were ineligible. Of those eligible, 118 women (64% response rate) completed waiting room questionnaires. Of 86 women 'at risk', 56 (65%) reported having a cervical smear within two years or due on that day; 26 (86%) of those 30 women overdue for screening reported visiting a GP at least twice in the past six months. After adjustment for age and education, women who were more acculturated or had resided in Australia for the most years remained significantly more likely to be screened (p = 0.027 and p = 0.037 respectively). In the follow-up questionnaire, returned by 49 women (52%) who agreed to receive it, recall of opportunistic advice from the GP was low. Female GPs, free screening and more information in Vietnamese were the three most popular recruitment strategies. CONCLUSION: Study confirms low participation rates in cervical screening by Vietnamese women using self-report. Recent immigrants and the least acculturated are least likely to be screened. IMPLICATIONS: A community-based strategy involving Vietnamese-speaking GPs shows promise, inviting behavioural evaluation.     

Randomised trial of intensive academic detailing to promote opportunistic recruitment of women to cervical screening by general practitioners

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a multifaceted intervention involving intensive academic detailing for general practitioners (GPs) to improve recruitment of women for cervical screening. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomisation trial involving 39 general practices in inner-metropolitan Sydney. GPs' knowledge, propensity to an opportunistic approach, competence and confidence were assessed by self-report before and after the intervention. To measure GP behaviour, recall of an opportunistic discussion about cervical screening was determined in cross-sectional samples of female patients at baseline (n = 1,090) and post-test (n = 1,062). RESULTS: Knowledge improved marginally in both groups but there were no changes in other GP self-reported measures. At post-test, women attending GPs in the intervention group were no more likely than those in the control group to recall an opportunistic inquiry about their cervical screening status (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40-1.08). Women in the intervention group who were overdue for cervical screening were no more likely than their control group counterparts at post-test to recall advice about cervical screening (OR 2.16, 95% CI 0.75-6.14) or written information (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.04-26.5). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive academic detailing does not improve an opportunistic approach to cervical screening in general practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE: In an evidence-based climate, implementation of academic detailing as a strategy to improve cervical screening rates in general practice would be premature.     

Program to improve colorectal cancer screening in a low-income, racially diverse population: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE More effective strategies are needed to improve rates of colorectal cancer screening, particularly among the poor, racial and ethnic minorities, and individuals with limited English proficiency. We examined whether the direct mailing of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) kits to patients overdue for such screening is an effective way to improve screening in this population. METHODS All adults aged 50 to 80 years who did not have documentation of being up to date with colorectal cancer screening as of December 31, 2009, and who had had at least 2 visits to the community health center in the prior 18 months were randomized to the outreach intervention or usual care. Patients in the outreach group were mailed a colorectal cancer fact sheet and FOBT kit. Patients in the usual care group could be referred for screening during usual clinician visits. The primary outcome was completion of colorectal cancer screening (by FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy) 4 months after initiation of the outreach protocol. Outcome measures were compared using the Fisher exact test. RESULTS Analyses were based on 104 patients assigned to the outreach intervention and 98 patients assigned to usual care. In all, 30% of patients in the outreach group completed colorectal cancer screening during the study period, compared with 5% of patients in the usual care group (P <.001). Nearly all of the screenings were by FOBT. The groups did not differ significantly with respect to the percentage of patients making a clinician visit or the percentage for whom a clinician placed an order for a screening test. CONCLUSIONS The mailing of FOBT kits directly to patients was efficacious for promoting colorectal cancer screening among a population with high levels of poverty, limited English proficiency, and racial and ethnic diversity. Non-visit-based outreach to patients may be an important strategy to address suboptimal rates of colorectal cancer screening among populations most at risk for not being screened.     

Promoting cancer screening among the first-degree relatives of breast and colorectal cancer patients: the design of two randomized trials

BACKGROUND: In this paper two large nationwide trials are described, both of which will test a comparable telephone-based counseling intervention to promote cancer screening among the first-degree relatives (FDRs) of breast and colorectal cancer patients. The unit of randomization will be the family unit of eligible FDRs. Access to FDRs will be obtained from their relatives with cancer. Selected intervention and design issues are reviewed, including how both projects will respond to FDRs who exhibit significant levels of cancer-specific anxiety or distress and how potential high-risk cancer families will be accommodated. METHODS: Pursuant to the development of both studies, two feasibility surveys were conducted to determine whether patients would grant access to their FDRs and whether the FDRS identified by these patients would be receptive to the telephone intervention. RESULTS: Approximately 80% (106 of 132) of breast cancer patients agreed to provide access to their eligible FDRs when contacted on-site at participating hospitals and clinics. Of those subsequently selected for telephone follow-up (n = 95 or 90%), 80% (n = 76) were successfully contacted by telephone, and of these 97% (n = 74) provided the names and telephone numbers of their FDRs. Among colorectal cancer patients contacted on-site (n = 46), 96% (n = 44) agreed to provide access to their FDRs, and of those contacted by telephone (n = 33 or 75%), 91% (n = 30) provided the requested information about their FDRs. Once contacted, 95% of breast cancer FDRs (55 of 58) and 91% of colorectal cancer patients (51 of 56) endorsed the intervention strategy. CONCLUSIONS: It is argued that this intervention, if proven effective, could provide an exportable strategy for reaching large numbers of high-risk individuals to promote cancer screening.     

Prevention practices and cancer screening among general practitioners in Picardy, France

BACKGROUND: Due to their frequent contact with a large proportion of the population, general practitioners (GPs) appear to play a particularly important role in primary and secondary (screening) cancer prevention. The objective of this survey was to describe the attitudes of GPs in relation to the major risk factors of cancer, and the most frequent forms of cancer screening. METHODS: A questionnaire concerning primary prevention and cancer screening by GPs was sent to all doctors in the Picardy region. In total, 480 GPs agreed to participate in this survey (31%). The questions concerned primary prevention (alcohol, smoking, diet, sun exposure, etc.) and cancer screening (breast, cervix, colorectal, prostate and other cancers). GPs were also questioned about their perception of these preventive actions and the difficulties that they encounter in application of these measures. RESULTS: The most structured preventive action appears to concern smoking in terms of primary prevention. GPs report greater difficulties in the prevention of alcoholism or dietary advice. A marked diversity of clinical practice was also observed in terms of cancer screening, even for cancers for which clear guidelines have been defined, such as breast, cervical and colorectal cancer. CONCLUSION: GPs appear to be receptive to cancer prevention, but encounter many difficulties in daily application due to lack of time or poor patient compliance.     

Family history of gynaecological cancers: relationships to the incidence of breast cancer prior to age 55

As part of a multi-centre epidemiological study of cancer in women between the ages of 20 and 54, data were collected concerning family history of gynaecological cancers in the female relatives of 4730 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer and the relatives of 4688 women from the general population. Women who were diagnosed with breast cancer prior to age 45 were more likely than controls to have a mother or sister with ovarian cancer (odds ratio (OR): 1.50), endometrial cancer (1.29), and cervical cancer (1.53), although none of these elevations achieved statistical significance. The corresponding odds ratios for women diagnosed with breast cancer between the ages of 45 and 54 were 1.88, 0.84 and 0.93. The association with ovarian cancer was statistically significant in this group (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-3.19). In this latter group, having a first degree relative with ovarian cancer was associated approximately as strongly with breast cancer as was having a first degree relative with breast cancer. The results suggest that there may be a shared genetic basis for some cancers of the breast and ovary. From a clinical perspective, the results indicate that in setting appropriate levels of screening for breast cancer and in establishing an appropriate age at which to begin such screening for a particular woman, her family history of ovarian cancer should be considered in addition to her family history of breast cancer.     

Strategies to improve cancer screening in general practice: are guidelines the answer?

BACKGROUND: GPs are ideally placed to recommend appropriate cancer screening for their patients. However, opportunities to discuss screening are often missed and screening procedures are not always recommended in accordance with national policy. The development of clinical practice guidelines represents one strategy for improving cancer screening in general practice. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to ascertain Australian GPs' ratings of current clinical practice guidelines and their views of the likely usefulness of 18 strategies to improve cancer screening in general practice. METHOD: A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to a national random sample of 1271 GPs in May 1996. Responders rated the usefulness of each of eight clinical practice guidelines current at the time of the survey. They then rated the usefulness of each of 18 strategies for support of cancer screening. RESULTS: We received 855 completed questionnaires (a 67% response rate). There was greatest support for guidelines already available on breast and cervical cancer. The most popular strategy to improve cancer screening was seminars with experts in preventive care, rated as 'very useful' by 658 (77%), followed by NHMRC guidelines (597, 70%) and pamphlets for patients (587, 69%). There was less support for more innovative strategies including assessment and feedback (35%), case finding by nurse practitioners (11%) and academic detailing (10%). CONCLUSION: Responders indicated that strategies involving passive dissemination of information would be most useful for improving cancer screening in general practice. Identification of an effective combination of acceptable initiatives is needed.     

Participants,Physicians or Programmes: Participants’ educational level and initiative in cancer screening

This study is an in-depth examination of at whose initiative (participant, physician or screening programme) individuals participate in cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening across the EU-28. Special attention is paid to (1) the association with educational attainment and (2) the country’s cancer screening strategy (organised, pilot/regional or opportunistic) for each type of cancer screened. Data were obtained from Eurobarometer 66.2 ‘Health in the European Union’ (2006). Final samples consisted of 10,186; 5443 and 9851 individuals for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer, respectively. Multinomial logistic regressions were performed. Surprisingly, even in countries with organised screening programmes, participation in screenings for cervical, breast and colorectal cancer was most likely to be initiated by the general practitioner (GP) or the participant. In general, GPs were found to play a crucial role in making referrals to screenings, regardless of the country’s screening strategy. The results also revealed differences between educational groups with regard to their incentive to participate in cervical and breast cancer screening and, to a lesser extent, in colorectal cancer screening. People with high education are more likely to participate in cancer screening at their own initiative, while people with less education are more likely to participate at the initiative of a physician or a screening programme. Albeit, the results varied according to type of cancer screening and national screening strategy.     

Familial colonoscopic screening: how do French general practitioners deal with patients and their high-risk relatives. A qualitative study

BackgroundScreening of colorectal cancer (CRC) can reduce incidence and mortality. First-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with CRC or advanced adenoma before the age of 65 (index patients) are at increased risk of CRC; however, the guidelines for screening of FDRs by colonoscopy are poorly followed.ObjectivesThe present study, conducted in the context of the COLOR3 interventional study project, aimed to explore the positioning of general practitioners (GPs) in familial CRC screening in France.MethodsFrom February 2020 to April 2021, 35 semi-structured interviews with GPs of index patients and/or their FDRs were conducted by telephone. The full-data transcribed corpus was subjected to horizontal thematic analysis.ResultsKnowledge and compliance with the guidelines vary greatly between GPs. Although initiating the diagnostic process, GPs do not consider themselves as actors in the flow of information concerning familial risk. Their accompaniment of index patients in this role varies. GPs should overcome barriers to implementing colonoscopic screening for FDRs. They underline the importance of exploring family history, but they lack the time and doubt the reliability of the information given by FDRs.ConclusionChallenges include circumventing gaps in knowledge, adherence to guidelines and improving family history updates. The GPs interviewed suggested personalised guidelines in specialists'' reports to initiate information campaigns raising awareness of familial risk, and to enhance coordination between organised screening and familial screening.     

Implementation of a pilot programme for screening for chlamydial infection in general practice

Objectives: To determine whether opportunistic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis, based on a selective screening algorithm, is possible in general practice in Belgium; to assess feasibility of the screening strategy with respect to workload, acceptability, and organisational aspects.

Methods: Implementation of a pilot screening programme by 37 GPs for a period of 15 weeks. GPs’ screening practices were registered and compared with the guidelines they had received. Outcome measures were: the number of patients included in the risk assessment, uptake of screening by eligible patients, prevalence of previously unidentified infection, and uptake of treatment. After the study period GPs evaluated a number of feasibility issues on a scoring form.

Results: 326 women underwent the risk assessment and 214 were tested by an amplification assay on a urine sample. Prevalence in women at risk was 6.4%. Overall effective screening rate was 77.6%; 9 of 11 positives took up treatment. Participating GPs found the strategy feasible and perceived that it was well accepted by their patients.

Discussion: The screening strategy was easily implemented by most GPs but some of them dropped out. The guidelines were followed relatively well and there were no major logistic problems. The uptake of treat ment was suboptimal. Efforts must be made to stimulate and educate more GPs to perform screening; laboratory and storage conditions should be optimised; refunding criteria should be revised; and overscreening must be avoided.     

Results of a pilot study of endoscopic screening of first degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients in Italy.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Screening recommendations for colorectal cancer include sigmoidoscopy in asymptomatic, average risk persons aged 50 and over and colonoscopy every three to five years in high risk groups. Little is known about the eligible population's compliance with endoscopic screening. This is the first Italian report of an endoscopic screening programme for colorectal cancer patients' relatives. DESIGN: In 1986, a pilot project for colorectal cancer screening by endoscopy in high risk subjects was started in the Desio (Milan, Italy) public health service region. The results obtained after seven years are described. SETTING: The names of 536 inhabitants with colorectal cancer diagnosed between January 1975 and December 1984 and their relatives' addresses were obtained from the Regione Lombardia Health System records and from the municipal registry offices respectively. PARTICIPANTS: From October 1986 to October 1993, 778 first degree relatives aged 20-75 were offered colonoscopy. MAIN RESULTS: After seven years, 233 (29.9%) had undergone endoscopic examination, mostly up to the splenic flexure. Being > 60 in age at the start of the programme negatively affected the participation (p < 0.05). Two cancers were detected and adenomatous polyps were found in another 24 of those screened (frequencies 0.9% and 10.3% respectively). Male gender (p < 0.05), increasing age in males (p < 0.01), and two or more affected relatives in females (p < 0.01) positively affected the frequency of polyps detection. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that about 30% of the eligible population would comply at least with sigmoidoscopic screening. The collaboration of family doctors and more widespread public information about the ability to cure colorectal cancer are necessary for better compliance.     

The reasons of general practitioners for promoting colorectal cancer mass screening in France

Implementation of colorectal cancer (CRC) mass screening is a public health priority. Obtaining the involvement of general practitioners (GPs) is crucial for ensuring participation by the general public. This study elicited GPs' reasons for promoting CRC screening. The method used was discrete choice modeling. Questionnaires with a set of pairs of hypothetical screening scenarios were sent to 700 GPs. Factors influencing GPs' screening practice were found to be: the effectiveness of the screening program, the proportion of false negatives and false positives, and their remuneration. Hence improving screening test sensitivity and setting up specific remuneration for conducting screening would help to increase GPs' participation in CRC screening in France.     

Reliability of collecting colorectal cancer stage information from pathology reports and general practitioners in Queensland

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the reliability of collecting colorectal stage information from pathology reports and general practitioners in Queensland, Australia. METHODS: A longitudinal study of colorectal cancer survivors conducted in 2003 and 2004 (n=1966, response rate=57%) obtained stage information from clinical specialists (n=1334), general practitioners (GP) (n=1417) and by extracting stage from pathology reports (n=1484). Reliability of stage information was determined by comparing stage from GPs and pathology reports with that reported by the clinical specialists, using a weighted kappa. RESULTS: GPs and pathology reports each had a similar level of agreement with clinical specialists, with kappa scores of 0.77 (0.75-0.80) (n=1042) and 0.78 (0.75-0.81) (n=1152), respectively. Results were similar when restricting to records staged by all three methods (n=847). GPs had similar levels of agreement with clinical specialists within each stage, although pathology reports tended to under-stage patients in Stage D (0.37). Collapsing stage into two categories (A or B, C or D) increased the reliability estimates from the pathology reports to 0.91 (0.88-0.93), but there was little change in GP estimates 0.79 (0.75-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Extractions from pathology reports are a valid source of broad stage information for colorectal cancer. IMPLICATIONS: In the absence of clinical stage data, access to pathology records by population-based cancer registries enables a more accurate assessment of survival inequalities in colorectal cancer survival.     

Cost-minimization analysis of genetic testing versus clinical screening of at-risk relatives for familial adenomatous polyposis

OBJECTIVE: Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a well-known hereditary colorectal cancer-predisposing syndrome. Genetic testing for colorectal cancer risk is now part of standard medical practice, but very little is known about the economic impact of this technology. The aim of this study was to assess, from a healthcare system perspective, the direct costs of two strategies for screening at-risk relatives of FAP patients: clinical screening versus genetic testing for FAP. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was carried out. Additional information was gathered from experts in research and clinical laboratories and in hospital departments. A decision tree was constructed to compare per-person and per-family costs of the two strategies for screening at-risk relatives of FAP patients. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the stability of the model across the full range of plausible values for all key parameters. RESULTS: According to the decision analysis, with FAP screening starting at puberty, the average screening costs are $3,181 and $2,259 (Canadian dollars), respectively, for the clinical screening and the genetic testing strategies. Genetic screening is cost saving up to a first screening age of 36. Sensitivity analysis shows that the results of the baseline analysis hold across a variety of assumptions concerning the parameter values. CONCLUSIONS: The genetic testing strategy is cost saving relative to the clinical screening alternative. Apart from its lower costs, it is associated with many other benefits. Accordingly, under predefined conditions, predictive genetic testing seems to be the optimal screening strategy for FAP.