Public preferences for using quantitative faecal immunochemical test versus colonoscopy as diagnostic test for colorectal cancer: evidence from an online survey

Author:

von Wagner ChristianORCID,Verstraete Wouter,Hirst Yasemin,Nicholson Brian D,Stoffel Sandro T,Laszlo Helga

Abstract

BackgroundThere has been interest in using the non-invasive, home-based quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in high-risk symptomatic patients.AimTo elicit public preferences for FIT versus colonoscopy (CC) and its delivery in primary care.Design & settingA cross-sectional online survey in England.MethodA total of 1057 adults (without CRC symptoms and diagnosis) aged 40–59 years were invited from an English online survey panel. Responders were asked to imagine they had been experiencing CRC symptoms that would qualify them for a diagnostic test. Participants were presented with choices between CC and FIT in ascending order of number of CRCs missed by FIT (from 1–10%). It was measured at what number of missed CRCs responders preferred CC over FIT.ResultsWhile 150 participants did not want either of the tests when both missed 1% CRCs, the majority (n = 741, 70.0%) preferred FIT to CC at that level of accuracy. However, this preference reduced to 427 (40.4%) when FIT missed one additional cancer. Women were more likely to tolerate missing CRC when using FIT. Having lower numeracy and perceiving a higher level of risk meant participants were less likely to tolerate a false negative test. Most of those who chose FIT preferred to return it by mail (62.2%), to be informed about normal test results by letter (42.1%), and about abnormal test results face to face (32.5%).ConclusionWhile the majority of participants preferred FIT over CC when both tests had the same sensitivity, tolerance for missed CRCs was low.

Publisher

Royal College of General Practitioners

Subject

Family Practice

Reference32 articles.

1. Cancer Research UK (2018) Bowel cancer incidence statistics. 13 Jan 2020. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bowel-cancer/incidence.

2. Rapid diagnostic pathways for suspected colorectal cancer: views of primary and secondary care clinicians on challenges and their potential solutions

3. Cancer Research UK (2016) Routes to diagnosis of bowel cancer. 13 Jan 2020. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bowel-cancer/diagnosis-and-treatment#heading-Zero.

4. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2017) Suspected cancer: recognition and referral. NICE guideline [NG12]. 13 Jan 2020. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng12.

5. An urgent referral strategy for symptomatic patients with suspected colorectal cancer based on a quantitative immunochemical faecal occult blood test

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3