METHODS: Patients referred to the Endoscopic Unit for colonoscopy were recruited for the study. Stool samples were collected prior to bowel preparation, and tested for occult blood with both gFOBT and FIT. Dietary restriction was not imposed. To assess the validity of either tests or in combination to detect a neoplasm or cancer in the colon, their false positive rates, their sensitivity (true positive rate) and the specificity (true negative rate) were analyzed and compared.
RESULTS: One hundred and three patients were analysed. The sensitivity for picking up any neoplasia was 53% for FIT, 40% for gFOBT and 23.3% for the combination. The sensitivities for picking up only carcinoma were 77.8% , 66.7% and 55.5%, respectively. The specificity for excluding any neoplasia was 91.7% for FIT, 74% for gFOBT and 94.5% for a combination, whereas for excluding only carcinomas they were 84%, 73.4% and 93.6%. Of the 69 with normal colonoscopic findings, FOBT was positive in 4.3%, 23.2 %and 2.9% for FIT, gFOBT, or combination of tests respectively.
CONCLUSION: FIT is the recommended method if we are to dispense with dietary restriction in our patients because of its relatively low-false positivity and better sensitivity and specificity rates.
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.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to document the process of designing and developing a mobile app for community education on colorectal cancer and assess the usability of the prototype.
METHODS: The nominal group technique (NGT) was used for the content development of the mobile app. NGT involving community educationists and clinicians combined with community representatives as the target users identified relevant health information and communication strategies including features for a user-friendly mobile app. The prototype was developed using framework Ionic 1, based on the Apache Cordova and Angular JS (Google). It was published in the Google Play store. In total, 50 mobile phone users aged 50 years and above and who had never been diagnosed with any type of cancer were invited to download and use the app. They were asked to assess the usability of the app using the validated Malay version of System Usability Scale Questionnaire for the Assessment of Mobile Apps questionnaire. The One-sample t test was used to assess the usability score with a cut-off value of 68 for the usable mobile app.
RESULTS: The Colorectal Cancer Awareness Application (ColorApp) was successfully developed in the local Malay language. The NGT discussion had suggested 6 main menus in the ColorApp prototype, which are Introduction, Sign and Symptoms, Risk Factors, Preventive Measures, Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, and immunochemical fecal occult blood test kit. A total of 2 additional artificial intelligence properties menus were added to allow user-ColorApp interaction: Analyze Your Status and ColorApp Calculator. The prototype has been published in the Google Play store. The mean usability score was 72 (SD 11.52), which indicates that ColorApp is a usable mobile app, and it can be used as a tool for community education on colorectal cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: ColorApp mobile app can be used as a user-friendly tool for community education on colorectal cancer.
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: 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 desk review was conducted from August to October in 2018, to examine, review and describe the historical perspective, strategic planning and implementation of the current CRC screening program in Malaysia.
RESULTS: The main policy documents related to CRC screening are the National Strategic Plan for Cancer Control Programme 2016-2020, the Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of Colorectal Carcinoma 2017, and the Implementation Guideline for CRC Screening in Malaysia 2014. Several papers have been published on the epidemiology of CRC in Malaysia. Between 2014 and 2018, 127,957 men and women were screened using immunochemical Faecal Occult Blood Test (iFOBT); 9.3% had positive iFOBT results and were referred for colonoscopy. For those who underwent colonoscopy, CRC detection rate was 4.1% and 13.9% for pre-malignant conditions. Barriers were identified along the continuum of screening process, including patient, provider, and system factors.
CONCLUSION: Although population-level organised screening programmes are preferable to opportunistic screening, the CRC programme in Malaysia was tailored to meet the needs of the population based on available existing resources. A well-mapped budget for the entire screening programme continuum, a strong partnership between stakeholders and an opportunistic screening strategy is crucial to address the rising incidence of CRC.
METHODS: Using qualitative study method, a phone interview was conducted with 16 patients to elicit their views on the reasons for failure to attend the colonoscopy procedure following a positive stool test. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and translated before proceeded with the data analysis. Content analysis was made on the translated interview, followed by systematic classification of data by major themes.
RESULTS: Reasons for nonattendance were categorized under five main themes; unnecessary test, fear of the procedure, logistic obstacles (subthemes; time constraint, transportation problem), social influences, and having other health priority. Lacking in information about the procedure during the referral process was identified to cause misperception and unnecessary worry towards colonoscopy. Fear of the procedure was commonly cited by female respondents while logistic issues pertaining to time constraint were raised by working respondents.
CONCLUSIONS: More effective communication between patients and health care providers are warranted to avoid misconception regarding colonoscopy procedure. Support from primary care doctors, customer-friendly appointment system, use of educational aids and better involvement from family members were among the strategies to increase colonoscopy compliance.
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: Stool samples were collected prospectively from symptomatic adults who had elective colonoscopy from September 2014 to January 2016 and were analyzed with the ScheBo M2-PK Quick test and laboratory detection of fecal hemoglobin.
RESULTS: The results were correlated to the colonoscopy findings and/or histopathology report. Eighty-five subjects (age of 56.8 ± 15.3 years [mean ± standard deviation]) were recruited with a total of 17 colorectal cancer (20.0%) and 10 colorectal adenoma patients (11.8%). The sensitivity of M2-PK test in colorectal cancer detection was higher than gFOBT (100% vs. 64.7%). M2-PK test had a lower specificity when compared to gFOBT (72.5% vs. 88.2%) in colorectal cancer detection. The positive and negative predictive values were 47.2% and 100% for M2-PK test and 57.9% and 90.9% for gFOBT.
CONCLUSION: Fecal M2-PK Quick test has a high sensitivity for detection of colorectal cancer when compared to gFOBT, making it the potential choice for colorectal tumor screening biomarker in the future.
METHODS: A cross sectional study was conducted in five health clinics under Kota Kinabalu district, Sabah, Malaysia Borneo involving 162 attendees with age of 50 years old and above. A validated self-administered questionnaire was used to collect the data. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determine the predictors of NS-FOBT.
RESULTS: The prevalence of NS-FOBT was 85.8% (n=139). Important predictors of NS-FOBT were age (aOR: 0.922; 95% CI: 0.855, 0.995; p=0.035), Bumiputera ethnicity (vs Non Bumiputera; aOR: 4.285; 95% CI: 1.384, 13.263; p=0.012), knowledge score (aOR: 0.921; 95% CI: 0.856, 0.99; p=0.027), and attitude score (aOR: 0.801; 95% CI: 0.702, 0.913; p=0.001).
CONCLUSION: There is high prevalence of NS-FOBT. Age, ethnicity, knowledge, and attitude were important predictors of NS-FOBT. Strategies are needed to improve FOBT screening rate among the public. Socio-culturally tailored health promotion strategies as well as strengthening the communication, collaboration, and education to enhance the role of family physician is vital in improving the CRC prevention and care.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted at five government-run health clinics in the state of Selangor. Adults with an average risk of colorectal cancer (age > 50 years, asymptomatic, and no family history of colorectal cancer) were recruited using systematic random sampling. An interviewer-administered questionnaire adapted from the Cancer Awareness Measure and Health Belief Model was used.
RESULTS: The median age of participants was 61 years (interquartile range, 56 to 66). Almost 60% of participants indicated their willingness to be screened. However, only 7.5% had undergone iFOBT. Good knowledge of risk factors of colorectal cancer, perceived susceptibility to the disease, and the doctor's recommendation were associated with increased willingness to be screened: adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.66 (95% CI, 1.12 to 2.46); aOR, 1.70 (95% CI, 1.08 to 2.70); and aOR, 5.76 (95% CI, 2.13 to 15.57), respectively. Nevertheless, being elderly (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.99) and high negative perception toward the testing method (iFOBT) (aOR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.30) were independently associated with lower willingness to be screened. Multivariable analysis within the average-risk individuals who were willing to be screened for colorectal cancer showed that the doctor's recommendations remained as an important cue for positive action, whereas negative perception toward the test was a significant barrier to the actual uptake of iFOBT.
CONCLUSION: The present findings must be factored in when tailoring colorectal cancer screening promotion activities in multiethnic, middle-income settings.
METHODS: An analytical cross-sectional study was conducted in a government health clinic of Penang from March to August 2019. Asymptomatic clinic attendees aged 50-75 years who had no prior awareness of CRC screening were recruited by systematic random sampling technique. Participants first received a standardised one to one health education, followed by an interview using a standardised questionnaire to assess their CRC screening intention and the relevant motivators and barriers. A submission of a sample for immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) was considered as an uptake of the CRC screening.
RESULTS: A total of 546 participants participated in this study. The mean age of the participants was 62.8 (SD=6.36). Majority of them were females (57.3%), Chinese (78.6%), who had attained primary or higher education (92.0%) and had comorbidities (87.0%). After a brief health education, 231 participants (42.3%) agreed to undergo iFOBT. The actual screening uptake rate in this study was 28%. Perceived benefit of the test (84.4%) was the most common motivators, while self-perceived non-vulnerability was the biggest impediment to CRC screening intention. Physicians' recommendation was the perceived most effective way in raising CRC awareness.
CONCLUSION: Participants prefer physicians to provide health education. Standardised brief health education is inadequate to stimulate CRC screening adherence. Future interventions will require in-depth understanding of patients' beliefs, risk perception, and affective responses.