scholarly journals Feasibility Study to Assess the Impact of a Lifestyle Intervention during Colorectal Cancer Screening in France

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 3685
Author(s):  
Inge Huybrechts ◽  
Nathalie Kliemann ◽  
Olivia Perol ◽  
Anne Cattey-Javouhey ◽  
Nicolas Benech ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Cancer Prevention ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Feasibility Study ◽  
Hospital Staff ◽  
Educational Material ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Lifestyle Recommendations

Current evidence suggests that 30–50% of cancers are attributable to established lifestyle risk factors. Cancer-screening has been identified as an opportunity for delivering advice on lifestyle behaviour change for cancer prevention. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptance of promoting advice on the latest evidence-based lifestyle recommendations for cancer prevention at the time of colorectal cancer screening at two hospitals in Lyon, France. This feasibility study included 49 patients (20 men and 29 women) who were invited for colonoscopy. Patients received a leaflet with lifestyle recommendations for cancer prevention, accompanied with a logbook to plan and monitor their behavioural changes. Feedback from patients, hospital staff, and researchers was received via evaluation questionnaires (n = 26) completed after testing the educational material for at least two weeks and via two focus group discussions (n = 7 and n = 9 respectively) organized at the end of the study. All interviewed patients were interested in lowering their cancer risk, and the majority felt ready to change their lifestyle (88%), although most did not know how to decrease their risk of cancer (61%). All patients found the educational material easy to understand and sufficiently attractive and 50% of the patients reported having achieved at least one of the healthy behaviours recommended within the two weeks following the intervention. All hospital staff and almost all patients (92%) involved found that the screening program and the visits planned for colonoscopy was an appropriate moment to provide them with the educational material. This feasibility study has shown that the content, paper-based format, and time of delivery of the intervention were adequate. Health professionals seem to be willing to provide lifestyle recommendations, and patients appear interested in receiving advice for lowering their cancer risk during screening visits.

scholarly journals Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a clinical practice guideline

BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l5515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lise M Helsingen ◽  
Per Olav Vandvik ◽  
Henriette C Jodal ◽  
Thomas Agoritsas ◽  
Lyubov Lytvyn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Cancer Incidence ◽  
Individual Risk ◽  
Optimal Care ◽  
Weak Recommendation ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Screening Trials

AbstractClinical questionRecent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: “Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?”Current practiceNumerous guidelines recommend screening, but vary on recommended test, age and screening frequency. This guideline looks at the evidence and makes recommendations on screening for four screening options: faecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy.RecommendationsThese recommendations apply to adults aged 50-79 years with no prior screening, no symptoms of colorectal cancer, and a life expectancy of at least 15 years. For individuals with an estimated 15-year colorectal cancer risk below 3%, we suggest no screening (weak recommendation). For individuals with an estimated 15-year risk above 3%, we suggest screening with one of the four screening options: FIT every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy (weak recommendation). With our guidance we publish the linked research, a graphic of the absolute harms and benefits, a clear description of how we reached our value judgments, and linked decision aids.How this guideline was createdA guideline panel including patients, clinicians, content experts and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. A linked systematic review of colorectal cancer screening trials and microsimulation modelling were performed to inform the panel of 15-year screening benefits and harms. The panel also reviewed each screening option’s practical issues and burdens. Based on their own experience, the panel estimated the magnitude of benefit typical members of the population would value to opt for screening and used the benefit thresholds to inform their recommendations.The evidenceOverall there was substantial uncertainty (low certainty evidence) regarding the 15-year benefits, burdens and harms of screening. Best estimates suggested that all four screening options resulted in similar colorectal cancer mortality reductions. FIT every two years may have little or no effect on cancer incidence over 15 years, while FIT every year, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy may reduce cancer incidence, although for FIT the incidence reduction is small compared with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Screening related serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events are rare. The magnitude of the benefits is dependent on the individual risk, while harms and burdens are less strongly associated with cancer risk.Understanding the recommendationBased on benefits, harms, and burdens of screening, the panel inferred that most informed individuals with a 15-year risk of colorectal cancer of 3% or higher are likely to choose screening, and most individuals with a risk of below 3% are likely to decline screening. Given varying values and preferences, optimal care will require shared decision making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document