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: 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.