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).
OBJECTIVES: This study analysed the knowledge, attitudes and practices of working women in Kedah state, Malaysia, about cervical cancer and Pap smear tests and the associations of knowledge, attitudes and practices with socio-demographic factors.
METHODS: This cross-sectional questionnaire study analysed knowledge, attitudes and practices among 210 female entrepreneurs who received funding from Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia (AIM) in Kedah state. Women were included if they were married or previously married, aged 20-65 years and had not been diagnosed with cervical cancer.
RESULTS: Most subjects could not recall common symptoms of cervical cancer, such as bleeding between periods, and did not know or were unsure of the suitable age for Pap smear tests and the interval between tests. Although most subjects agreed that Pap smear tests were necessary, some gave priority to other issues. About half (55.2%) had undergone Pap smear tests, but only 38.6% had been tested within the previous five years. Use of hormonal contraceptives, higher knowledge score, and higher attitude score were associated with Pap smear testing within the previous 5 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge regarding cervical cancer and Pap smear testing and attitudes toward testing were poor among most participants. These factors were significantly associated with lack of actual testing.
METHODS: From October 2011 to June 2015, 1,778 asymptomatic women, aged 40-74 years, underwent subsidised mammographic screening. All patients had a clinical breast examination before mammographic screening, and women with mammographic abnormalities were referred to a surgeon. The cancer detection rate and variables associated with a recommendation for adjunct ultrasonography were determined.
RESULTS: The mean age for screening was 50.8 years and seven cancers (0.39%) were detected. The detection rate was 0.64% in women aged 50 years and above, and 0.12% in women below 50 years old. Adjunct ultrasonography was recommended in 30.7% of women, and was significantly associated with age, menopausal status, mammographic density and radiologist's experience. The main reasons cited for recommendation of an adjunct ultrasound was dense breasts and mammographic abnormalities.
DISCUSSION: The cancer detection rate is similar to population-based screening mammography programmes in high-income Asian countries. Unlike population-based screening programmes in Caucasian populations where the adjunct ultrasonography rate is 2-4%, we report that 3 out of 10 women attending screening mammography were recommended for adjunct ultrasonography. This could be because Asian women attending screening are likely premenopausal and hence have denser breasts. Radiologists who reported more than 360 mammograms were more confident in reporting a mammogram as normal without adjunct ultrasonography compared to those who reported less than 180 mammograms.
CONCLUSION: Our subsidised opportunistic mammographic screening programme is able to provide equivalent cancer detection rates but the high recall for adjunct ultrasonography would make screening less cost-effective.
METHODS: This was a cross sectional study of 1,312 respondents selected using a multistage design. Questionnaires relating to the demographic characteristics, socioeconomic profiles, social and physical environment, knowledge and perception of cancer screening were gathered. Multiple logistic regression models were used to examine the variables and their association with poor perceptions of cancer screening.
RESULTS: Overall, 871(66.4%) respondents had poor perceptions of cancer screenings; 68.4% among males and 64.4% among females. In the multivariable analysis in the category of income, the bottom 40% and lower middle 40%, had not subscribed to health insurance, had poor social support, absence of any family history of cancer or comorbid illnesses, no previous attendance for cancer screening and poor knowledge of cancer, all of which were associated with their poor cancer screening perceptions.
CONCLUSION: One way of developing cancer screening services to detect cancer in its early stage could include efforts to reach people with less awareness about cancer screening tests, lower socioeconomic status, and inadequate social support. Particular consideration should be taken to locate those who never had health insurance or attended cancer screening tests to provide the appropriate resources.
METHODS: Two cross-sectional, anonymized, online surveys were completed between July and December 2022 by physicians diagnosing and treating HCC (55 questions on risk factors, surveillance, diagnosis, and treatment) and patients ≥ 18 years old diagnosed with HCC (36 questions on disease knowledge, quality of life, and experiences of diagnosis and treatment).
RESULTS: Responses were received from 276 physicians in all 7 countries and 130 patients in Thailand, Taiwan, and Vietnam. From the physician's perspective, surveillance programs are widespread but identify insufficient HCC cases; only 18% are early-stage HCC at diagnosis. From the patient's perspective, knowledge of risk factors increases after diagnosis, but few seek support from patient associations; patients would benefit from better communication from their doctors. Treatment affordability and side effects are key issues for patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of the risk factors for HCC should be raised in primary care and the general population, and surveillance should identify early-stage HCC. Because patients rely on their doctors for support, doctors should better understand their patients' needs, and patients could be supported by trained nurses or case managers. Programs are needed to increase patients' access to proven HCC treatments.
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.