Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review

Ali, Omar, Gupta, Sunnia, Brain, Kate ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9296-9748, Lifford, Kate J. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9782-2080, Paranjothy, Shantini ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0528-3121 and Dolwani, Sunil ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3113-5472 2024. Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Screening 30 (1) , pp. 14-27. 10.1177/09691413221109999

Preview

PDF - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial. Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

Objective Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second largest cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Current CRC screening in various countries involves stool-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and/or colonoscopy, yet public uptake remains sub-optimal. This review assessed the literature regarding acceptability of alternative CRC screening modalities compared to standard care in average-risk adults. Method Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science were conducted up to February 3rd, 2022. The alternative interventions examined were computed tomography colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colon capsule endoscopy and blood-based biomarkers. Outcomes for acceptability were uptake, discomfort associated with bowel preparation, discomfort associated with screening procedure, screening preferences and willingness to repeat screening method. A narrative data synthesis was conducted. Results Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Differences between intervention and comparison modalities in uptake did not reach statistical significance in most of the included studies. The findings do suggest FIT as being more acceptable as a screening modality than flexible sigmoidoscopy. There were no consistent significant differences in bowel preparation discomfort, screening procedure discomfort, screening preference and willingness to repeat screening between the standard care and alternative modalities. Conclusion Current evidence comparing standard colonoscopy and stool-based CRC screening with novel modalities does not demonstrate any clear difference in acceptability. Due to the small number of studies available and included in each screening comparison and lack of observed differences, further research is needed to explore factors influencing acceptability of alternative CRC modalities that might result in improvement in population uptake within different contexts.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Medicine
Publisher:	SAGE Publications
ISSN:	0969-1413
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	14 June 2022
Date of Acceptance:	6 June 2022
Last Modified:	27 Mar 2024 14:47
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/150491

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item