METHODS: The findings for a few outcome indicators, ranging from the iFOBT uptake to the CRC and polyp detection rates, were generated from the data contributed by 583 public health clinics between 2014 and 2018. The trends in their changes were also evaluated.
RESULTS: The iFOBT uptake constantly increased over the years (p < 0.001), totaling 2.29 % (n = 127,957) as at 2018. Nearly 10 % (n = 11,872) of the individuals screened had a positive test result. Of those who underwent colonoscopy (n = 6,491), 4.04 % (n = 262) and 13.93 % (n = 904) were found to have CRC and polyps, respectively.
CONCLUSION: An uptrend in the CRC screening uptake was witnessed following the introduction of the iFOBT in public health clinics.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: The association of metabolically defined body size phenotypes with colorectal cancer was investigated in a case-control study nested within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study. Metabolic health/body size phenotypes were defined according to hyperinsulinaemia status using serum concentrations of C-peptide, a marker of insulin secretion. A total of 737 incident colorectal cancer cases and 737 matched controls were divided into tertiles based on the distribution of C-peptide concentration amongst the control population, and participants were classified as metabolically healthy if below the first tertile of C-peptide and metabolically unhealthy if above the first tertile. These metabolic health definitions were then combined with body mass index (BMI) measurements to create four metabolic health/body size phenotype categories: (1) metabolically healthy/normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m2), (2) metabolically healthy/overweight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2), (3) metabolically unhealthy/normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m2), and (4) metabolically unhealthy/overweight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2). Additionally, in separate models, waist circumference measurements (using the International Diabetes Federation cut-points [≥80 cm for women and ≥94 cm for men]) were used (instead of BMI) to create the four metabolic health/body size phenotype categories. Statistical tests used in the analysis were all two-sided, and a p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. In multivariable-adjusted conditional logistic regression models with BMI used to define adiposity, compared with metabolically healthy/normal weight individuals, we observed a higher colorectal cancer risk among metabolically unhealthy/normal weight (odds ratio [OR] = 1.59, 95% CI 1.10-2.28) and metabolically unhealthy/overweight (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.01-1.94) participants, but not among metabolically healthy/overweight individuals (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.65-1.42). Among the overweight individuals, lower colorectal cancer risk was observed for metabolically healthy/overweight individuals compared with metabolically unhealthy/overweight individuals (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.96). These associations were generally consistent when waist circumference was used as the measure of adiposity. To our knowledge, there is no universally accepted clinical definition for using C-peptide level as an indication of hyperinsulinaemia. Therefore, a possible limitation of our analysis was that the classification of individuals as being hyperinsulinaemic-based on their C-peptide level-was arbitrary. However, when we used quartiles or the median of C-peptide, instead of tertiles, as the cut-point of hyperinsulinaemia, a similar pattern of associations was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: These results support the idea that individuals with the metabolically healthy/overweight phenotype (with normal insulin levels) are at lower colorectal cancer risk than those with hyperinsulinaemia. The combination of anthropometric measures with metabolic parameters, such as C-peptide, may be useful for defining strata of the population at greater risk of colorectal cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The questionnaires were distributed in the Umra Private Hospital in Selangor. The questionnaire had four parts and covered social-demographic questions, respondent knowledge about CRC and colorectal tests, attitude towards CRC and respondentaction regarding CRC. More than half of Malay participants (total n=187) were female (57.2%) and 36.9% of them were working as professionals.
RESULTS: The majority of the participants (93.6%) never had a CRC screening test. The study found that only 10.2% of the study participants did not consider that their chances of getting CRC were high. A high percentage of the participants (43.3%) believed that they would have good chance of survival if the cancer would be found early. About one third of the respondents did not want to do screening because of fear of cancer, and concerns of embarrassment during the procedure adversely affected attitude to CRC screening as well. Age, gender, income, family history of CRC, vegetable intake and physical activity were found to be significant determinants of knowledge on CRC.
CONCLUSIONS: The major barriers identified towards CRC screening identified in our study were fear of pain and embarrassment. The findings have implications for understanding of similarities and differences in attitude to CRC amongst elderly patients in other cultural/ geographic regions.
METHODS: Participants aged ≥40 years (n = 730) from randomly selected households in Selangor State Malaysia, completed interview-based assessments. Campaign reach was assessed in terms of responses to an adapted questionnaire that was used in evaluations in other countries. The impact of the campaign was assessed in terms of awareness, confidence to detect symptoms and self-efficacy to discuss symptoms with a doctor as captured by the Cancer Awareness Measure (CAM). CAM was administered before-and-after campaign implementation and responses by BCAC recognisers (i.e. participants who recognised one or more of the BCAC television, radio or print advertisements when prompted) and non-recognisers (i.e. participants who did not recognise any of the BCAC advertisements) were compared analytically. Logistic regression analysed comparative differences in cancer awareness by socio-demographic characteristics and recognition of the BCAC materials.
RESULTS: Over 65% of participants (n = 484) recognised the BCAC-CRC. Campaign-recognisers were significantly more likely to be aware of each CRC symptom at follow-up and were more confident about noticing symptoms (46.9% vs 34.9%, p = 0.018) compared to non-recognisers. There was no difference between groups in terms of self-efficacy to see a doctor about symptoms. Improved symptoms awareness at follow-up was lower for Indians compared to Malays (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.53, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.34, 0.83, p = 0.005). Health service use data did not indicate an increase in screening activity during or immediately after the campaign months.
CONCLUSION: Overall, the findings of the evaluation indicated that the culturally adapted, evidence-based mass media intervention improved CRC symptom awareness among the Malaysian population; and that impact is more likely when a campaign operates a differentiated approach that matches modes of communication to the ethnic and social diversity in a population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The questionnaire was distributed in eight major cities in West Malaysia during the World Health Digestive Day (WDHD) campaign. Two thousand four hundred and eight respondents participated in this survey.
RESULTS: Generally, awareness of colorectal cancer was found to be relatively good. Symptoms such as change in bowel habit, blood in the stool, weight loss and abdominal pain were well recognized by 86.6%, 86.9%, 83.4% and 85.6% of the respondents, respectively. However, common risk factors such as positive family history, obesity and old age were acknowledged only by less than 70% of the respondents. Almost 80% of the respondents are willing to take the screening test even without any apparent symptoms. Colonoscopy is the preferred screening method, but only 37.5% were willing to pay from their own pocket to get early colonoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: Continous cancer education should be promoted with more involvement from healthcare providers in order to make future colorectal cancer screening programs successful.
METHODS: We performed a MEDLINE search via OVID with the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms "Colorectal Neoplasms"[Mesh] and "Malaysia"[Mesh], and PubMed with the key words "colorectal cancer" and "Malaysia" from 1990 to 2015 for studies reporting any clinical, societal, and economical findings associated with colorectal cancer in Malaysia. Incidence and mortality data were retrieved from population-based cancer registries/databases.
RESULTS: In Malaysia, colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer in males and the third most common cancer in females. The economic burden of colorectal cancer is substantial and is likely to increase over time in Malaysia owing to the current trend in colorectal cancer incidence. In Malaysia, most patients with colorectal cancer have been diagnosed at a late stage, with the 5-year relative survival by stage being lower than that in developed Asian countries. Public awareness of the rising incidence of colorectal cancer and the participation rates for colorectal cancer screening are low.
CONCLUSION: The efficiency of different screening approaches must be assessed, and an organized national screening program should be developed in a phased manner. It is essential to maintain a balanced investment in awareness programs targeting general population and primary care providers, focused on increasing the knowledge on symptoms and risk factors of colorectal cancer, awareness on benefits of screening, and promotion of healthy life styles to prevent this important disease.
METHODS: We recruited 2264 individuals from The Malaysian Cohort participants aged 35-65 years who consented to colorectal screening using the iFOBT kit from July 2017 until January 2019.
RESULTS: The response rate and positive iFOBT test rate of this study were 79.6% and 13.1% respectively. Among those with positive results, 125 individuals (52.7%) underwent colonoscopy; CRC was detected in six of them while 45 others (36.0%) had polyps. The overall CRC detection rate was 0.3% while the colorectal neoplasia detection rate (both colorectal cancer and colorectal polyps) was 2.3%. The APCS scoring indicated a significant association with colorectal neoplasia risk, with increasing trend by severity from moderate to high risk (3.46-11.14) compared to low risk. Most of the participants who were positive for iFOBT were those at high risk.
CONCLUSIONS: The awareness of CRC risk and iFOBT screening are important strategies for early detection of CRC. We showed a CRC detection rate of 0.3 % among those who volunteered to have the iFOBT screening.
METHODS: A literature search of PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus was carried out. The search strategy was restricted to human subjects and studies are published in English. Data on sensitivity and specificity were extracted and pooled. Heterogeneity was assumed at significance level of p < 0.10 and was tested by chi squared. Degree of heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic, and values of less than 25% is considered as homogenous. All analyses were performed using the software Meta-Disc.
RESULTS: A total of eleven studies were suitable for data synthesis and analysis. Five studies were analyzed for the accuracy of genetic testing, the pooled estimate for sensitivity and specificity were 71% (95% CI: 66, 75%) and 95% (95% CI: 93, 97%) respectively. Another group of studies which had been evaluated for the accuracy of FOBT, the pooled sensitivity was 31% (95% CI: 25, 38%) while the pooled specificity was 87% (95% CI: 86, 89%).
CONCLUSIONS: FOBTs is recommended to use as population-based screening tools for colorectal cancer while genetic testing should be focusing on patients with moderate and high risk individuals.
METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of medical oncology, surgical oncology, surgery, gastroenterology, health technology assessment, cancer epidemiology, pathology, radiology, radiation oncology, and patient advocacy experts. The Expert Panel reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus-based process with additional experts (Consensus Ratings Group) for two round(s) of formal ratings.
RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from eight guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations form the evidence base. These guidelines, along with cost-effectiveness analyses, provided evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more.
CONCLUSION: In nonmaximal settings, for people who are asymptomatic, are ages 50 to 75 years, have no family history of colorectal cancer, are at average risk, and are in settings with high incidences of colorectal cancer, the following screening options are recommended: guaiac fecal occult blood test and fecal immunochemical testing (basic), flexible sigmoidoscopy (add option in limited), and colonoscopy (add option in enhanced). Optimal reflex testing strategy for persons with positive screens is as follows: endoscopy; if not available, barium enema (basic or limited). Management of polyps in enhanced is as follows: colonoscopy, polypectomy; if not suitable, then surgical resection. For workup and diagnosis of people with symptoms, physical exam with digital rectal examination, double contrast barium enema (only in basic and limited); colonoscopy; flexible sigmoidoscopy with biopsy (if contraindication to latter) or computed tomography colonography if contraindications to two endoscopies (enhanced only).
OBJECTIVE: Thus, this research was conducted to evaluate the colorectal cancer screening program in the districts to provide insights intop its efficacy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross sectional study was conducted using data on the colorectal cancer screening program in 2013 involving Kota Setar and Kuala Muda districts in Malaysia. We determined the response rate of immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT), colonoscopy compliance, and detection rates of neoplasia and carcinoma. We also compared the response of FOBT by demographic background.
RESULTS: The response rate of FOBT for first iFOBT screening was 94.7% while the second iFOBT screening was 90.7%. Participants from Kuala Muda district were 27 times more likely to default while Indians had a 3 times higher risk of default compared to Malays. The colonoscopy compliance was suboptimal among those with positive iFOBT. The most common finding from colonoscopy was hemorrhoids, followed by tubular adenoma. Detection rate of carcinoma and neoplasia for our program was 1.2%.
CONCLUSIONS: In summary, the response rate of iFOBT was encouraging but the colonoscopy compliance was suboptimal which led to a considerably low detection rate.