Cited by 13Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments

Sociodemographic factors and strategies in colorectal cancer screening: a narrative review and practical recommendations

Moons, Lara, Mariman, An, Vermeir, Peter, Colemont, Luc, Clays, Els, Van Vlierberghe, Hans, Vogelaers, Dirk·2020·Acta Clinica Belgica

Abstract

Background: Worldwide colorectal cancer is a frequently occurring cancer with a high disease burden. It is the second most frequent cancer in women and the third in men. The incidence of colorectal cancer is increasing because of ageing and unhealthy lifestyles.Aim: We aimed to perform a narrative literature review on methods and strategies for screening for colorectal cancer prior to colonoscopy.Design: Narrative literature review.Methods: The databases PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and The Cochrane Library were searched using keywords: ‘colorectal cancer’, ‘(mass) screening’, ‘occult blood’, ‘prevention’, ‘socioeconomic status’, ‘early diagnosis’, ‘Europe’ and ‘ethnicity’/‘ethnic groups’.Results: 18 articles were included. Multiple randomised controlled trials have shown that screening programmes with faecal occult blood tests (FOBT), guaiac-FOBT (gFOBT) and immunochemical FOBT (iFOBT) represent a valid prevention strategy. Most studies favour iFOBT, because of ease to use, resulting in a higher uptake of screening, as well as a higher detection rate. A higher uptake is also achieved by mailing of the test. Overall the uptake of screening is higher in women, although more cancers are diagnosed in men. This can be explained by a lower sensitivity of FOBT in women. Furthermore, a strong correlation was found between a low socio-economic status and a low uptake of screening. The screening age lies between 50-74 years.Conclusion: Colorectal cancer is characterized by a significant incidence, morbidity and mortality. Systematic screening is effective for early detection. A non-selective test with iFOBT currently has the best validity with a higher sensitivity in men.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17843286.2018.1563736

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moons, L., Mariman, A., Vermeir, P., Colemont, L., Clays, E., Van Vlierberghe, H., & Vogelaers, D.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • Ghent University Hospital (BE)
  • vzw Stop Darmkanker, Antwerp, Belgium
  • Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Corresponding author
Moons, Lara
Venue
Acta Clinica Belgica
Published
2019-01-04
Volume
75
Issue
1
Pages
33-41
ISSN
  • 1784-3286 (ISSN-L)
  • 2295-3337
OpenAlex
W2906747139
Cited by
13
References
20
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 2
FWCI
0.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Acta Clinica Belgica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Keywords
colorectal cancer screening, fecal occult blood test, socioeconomic status, screening uptake, early diagnosis, ethnic groups, screening age, colorectal cancer incidence
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Demography, Female, Humans, Male, Sex Factors, Socioeconomic Factors, Colorectal Neoplasms, Early Detection of Cancer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review