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 ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review according to the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005). We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Google Scholar using a combination of terms such as "colorectal cancer", "screening" and "low-middle-income countries". Studies of CRC screening interventions/programmes conducted in the general adult population in LMICs as well as policy reviews (of interventions in LMICs) and commentaries on challenges and opportunities of delivering CRC screening in LMICs, published in the English language before February 2020 will be included in this review. The title and abstract screen will be conducted by one reviewer and two reviewers will screen full-texts and extract data from included papers, independently, into a data charting template that will include criteria from an adapted template for intervention description and replication checklist and implementation considerations. The presentation of the scoping review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews guidance.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There are no ethical concerns. The results will be used to inform colorectal screening interventions in LMICs. We will publish the findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present them at relevant conferences.
METHODS: A prospective study of 485 consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy during a 22-month period was performed. All patients answered a detailed questionnaire. Indications for colonoscopy and the findings were recorded.
RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 55.7 +/- 14.7 years. There were 221 (45.6%) males and 264 (54.4%) females. Sixty-five (13.4%) were Malays, 298 (61.4%) were Chinese and 112 (23.1%) were Indians. Multiple backward stepwise regression analysis revealed that independent predictors for colorectal cancer (odds ratio [95% CI]) were the presence of rectal bleeding (4.3 [4.0-8.0]) and iron deficiency anemia (4.0 [3.6-10.2]). In those aged 50 and over, male gender (4.5 [2.2-9.3]) and abdominal pain (3.1 [1.4-6.7]) were also significant positive predictors of cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: With the ever-increasing demand for gastrointestinal endoscopy, the appropriate utilization of colonoscopy is essential to afford prompt patient evaluation. Our study supports the need to prioritize the use of colonoscopy in patients with rectal bleeding and iron deficiency anemia. In the older patient where the background prevalence of colorectal cancer is higher, referral for colonoscopy is also justified.
METHODS: A professional group was formed by 36 experts of the Asian Novel Bio-Imaging and Intervention Group (ANBI2 G) members. Representatives from 12 Asia-Pacific countries participated in the meeting. The group organized three consensus meetings focusing on diagnostic endoscopy for gastrointestinal neoplasia. The Delphi method was used to develop the consensus statements.
RESULTS: Through the three consensus meetings with debating, reviewing the literature and regional data, a consensus was reached at third meeting in 2016. The consensus was reached on a total of 10 statements. Summary of statements is as follows: (i) Adequate bowel preparation for high-quality colonoscopy; (ii) Antispasmodic agents for lesion detection; (iii) Image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) for polyp detection; (iv) Adenoma detection rate for quality indicators; (v) Good documentation of colonoscopy findings; (vi) Complication rates; (vii) Cecal intubation rate; (viii) Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) for polyp detection; (ix) Macroscopic classification using indigocarmine spray for characterization of colorectal lesions; and (x) IEE and/or magnifying endoscopy for prediction of histology.
CONCLUSION: This consensus provides guidance for carrying out endoscopic diagnosis and characterization for early-stage colorectal neoplasia based on the evidence. This will enhance the quality of endoscopic diagnosis and improve detection of early-stage colorectal neoplasia.
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: 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).
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: We systematically followed a five-step scoping review framework to identify and review relevant literature about CRC screening in LMICs, written in the English language before February 2020. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar for studies targeting the general, asymptomatic, at-risk adult population. The TIDieR tool and an implementation checklist were used to extract data from empirical studies; and we extracted data-informed insights from policy reviews and commentaries.
RESULTS: CRC screening interventions (n = 24 studies) were implemented in nine middle-income countries. Population-based screening programmes (n = 11) as well as small-scale screening interventions (n = 13) utilised various recruitment strategies. Interventions that recruited participants face-to-face (alone or in combination with other recruitment strategies) (10/15), opportunistic clinic-based screening interventions (5/6) and educational interventions combined with screening (3/4), seemed to be the strategies that consistently achieved an uptake of > 65% in LMICs. FOBT/FIT and colonoscopy uptake ranged between 14 and 100%. The most commonly reported implementation indicator was 'uptake/reach'. There was an absence of detail regarding implementation indicators and there is a need to improve reporting practice in order to disseminate learning about how to implement programmes.
CONCLUSION: Opportunities and challenges for the implementation of CRC screening programmes were related to the reporting of CRC cases and screening, cost-effective screening methods, knowledge about CRC and screening, staff resources and training, infrastructure of the health care system, financial resources, public health campaigns, policy commitment from governments, patient navigation, planning of screening programmes and quality assurance.
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.