View clinical trials related to Colorectal Cancer.Filter by:
To evaluate the feasibility and precision of stereotaxic navigation in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.
The overall aim with this study is to gain a deeper understanding of patient perceptions regarding empowerment in relation to a health platform.
Two metaanalyses of studies on the prognostic significance of circulating cancer cells in colorectal cancer indicated, that the presence of circulating tumour cells (CTC) in the peripheral blood is the negative prognostic factor. However there is no sufficient evidence that disseminated tumour cells (DTC) in the bone marrow of the colorectal cancer patients influence the prognosis. There is the evidence that right-sided and left- sided cancers may have different biology and different prognosis. Therefore in this study the investigators concentrated on the left colon and rectum locations with the locally advanced cancer being the main area of interest. The aim of this study was to analyse the relation of DTC with the tumor characteristics, cancer progression and survival in left sided colorectal cancer.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a global burden and one of the most frequent types of cancer. Colorectal cancer therapy is complex and surgery remains the cornerstone for its treatment, combined with chemotherapy and radiotherapy. At diagnosis time, stage II / III is the predominant . There is a growing interest on the potential effect of perioperative anesthetic management on cancer growth and spread. Preclinical studies suggest that opioids could promote direct tumor growth, angiogenesis, metastasis and immunosuppression of cellular and humoral responses, mainly mediated by Mu opioid receptor 1 (MOR-1) activation. Association between increased expression of MOR-1and or perioperative opioids use and shorter DFS or OS has been demonstrated in lung, prostate, gastric and esophagus cancers. Furthermore a pooled analysis suggested that methylnaltrexone, a peripherally acting Mu-opioid receptor antagonist (PAMORA) was associated with increased survival in patients with advanced cancer. Thus, the expression of the MOR-1 is an indicator of poor prognosis in some cancer types, but its relevance in colon cancer is unknown. The hypothesis of this study is that the increased MOR-1expression in tumor samples from colorectal cancer could be associated to poor disease free survival. These findings would be of great clinical relevance in order to avoid perioperative opioid use in oncological patients. Moreover PAMORAs could be a valuable tool in perioperative antitumor treatment, since currently these drugs are currently used with confirmed tolerability and low adverse effects in the management of opioid-induced constipation (Opioid Induced Constipation-OIC). Besides MOR 1 expression could constitute a biomarker that guide the investigators to perform neoadjuvant therapy.
This study is to assess how a theoretically guided mHealth communication informed by evidence of thoughts and affect about colorectal cancer can enhance how an existing mHealth (cell/mobile based text messaging health promotion) intervention increased physical activity in healthy adults.
The study aims to compare the results between colonoscopies with two different attachments on the distal end of the colonoscope.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer mortality in Switzerland, and kills 1600 people annually. Most deaths could be prevented by screening, but the 2012 Swiss national health survey found that only 40% of 50-75-year-olds had been tested within recommended intervals (26% with colonoscopy in the last 10 year, 7% with fecal occult blood test [FOBT] in the last 2 years, and 7% with both). If screening starts at age 50, in the average risk population absolute risk of dying from CRC at age 80 can be cut from 2% to 1%, reducing relative risk by 50%. Since 2013, Switzerland has reimbursed screening by colonoscopy every 10 years or FOBT every 2 years for adults 50-69 years old. Conforming to current recommendations, the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) officially recognizes both screening modalities. When patients are offered a choice of screening test (colonoscopy vs. FOBT), they are as likely to opt for one as the other. Patient preferences are unlikely to vary much between PCP practices, so distribution of colonoscopy and FOBT within each practice should also be roughly equal. Family physicians are recognized as the most trusted professional to discuss CRC screening in Switzerland. However, many primary care physicians (PCPs) prefer prescribing colonoscopy over FOBT, but physician preference for method seems to vary widely between regions. If physician preferences and local medical culture currently influence choice of method more strongly than patient preferences, encouraging PCPs to diagnose patient preferences for screening method may reduce the number of PCPs who prescribe only one method. An earlier study in Switzerland showed that training PCPs and giving them educational support and decision aids raised the number who intend to prescribe colonoscopy and FOBT in equal proportions. A randomized controlled trial in the US showed that when patients were offered both FOBT and colonoscopy rather than only colonoscopy alone, more patients were screened for CRC. Offering choice of method may thus increase overall screening rates. The Swiss Sentinel Surveillance Network (Sentinella) is a cooperative surveillance project including the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH), PCPs representatives and the five Swiss institutes of family medicine. A sample of 150 to 250 general practitioners, internists and pediatricians in private practices from all regions of Switzerland report weekly morbidity data to the network using irreversibly anonymized patient data collected during consultations. In 2017, 91 out of 129 eligible PCPs of the Sentinella network participated in a cross-sectional data collection on CRC screening. The Sentinella network appears ideally suited to perform an intervention in order to modify screening practices and measure outcomes using the same collection form as in 2017. This study will test the benefits of a prepackaged training program in participatory medicine sent by post to PCPs in Switzerland. The package is designed to improve their diagnoses of patient preferences for screening and screening method (colonoscopy or FOBT). The study begins with the hypothesis that giving PCPs evidence summaries on CRC screening, decision aids for patients, and performance feedback on the 2017 data collection will increase the number of PCPs whose patients include at least one screened with FOBT, and who will prescribe at least one FOBT/FIT (Fecal Immunochemical Test) instead of prescribing only colonoscopy. This might reduce variation in care between PCP practices by increasing variation in methods of screening prescribed within each PCP practices. Analyses from the 2017 data collection suggest that fewer patients refused CRC testing in practices that offered both methods than in practices that offered only colonoscopy. This intervention might increase screening rates overall, while respecting patient's autonomy to refuse the test and to be prescribed the test they prefer. The study will compare outcomes among PCPs allocated to the intervention group to those in the control group, and will be measured by collecting anonymous structured patient data on 40 consecutive patients by PCPs and questionnaires filled by PCPs. The study is designed to fit within the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework for structuring data collection. RE-AIM ensures that a study's outcomes for future implementation and dissemination works are collected. The RE-AIM criteria will be used to identify the translatability and public health impact of this intervention, and for making clear to future stakeholders the internal and external validity of study results.
In Switzerland, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cause of death from cancer with 1600 persons dying from CRC each year. CRC screening can prevent most of these deaths. If screening begins at age 50, with either colonoscopy or faecal immunological test (FIT), the absolute risk of dying from CRC at age 80 can be cut in half. The choice between CRC screening methods can be seen as preference-sensitive condition. FIT can detect CRC at a similar rate as colonoscopy, but cannot detect as many polyps and advanced polyps as colonoscopies. Colonoscopy would seem the best choice for patients who want to reduce their risk of developing CRC or dying from CRC, but colonoscopy is an invasive procedure with rare but serious adverse effects. Patients who choose FIT do not need to prepare their bowels, or take a day off, but instead sample their own stool at home and mail the test to the laboratory. Offering the choice of test might also increase overall screening rates. Guidelines from the US Services Task Force (USPSTF) suggest shared decision making as a method for increasing adherence to screening and elicit patients' preferences for screening options. Family physicians are recognized as the most trusted professional to discuss CRC screening in Switzerland. However, many primary care physicians (PCPs) appear to prefer colonoscopy over FIT, and the preferred method seems to vary widely between regions. Physician preferences and local medical culture likely determine these choices more than patient preference. It may be possible to reduce the number of PCPs who prescribe only one screening method by encouraging them to diagnose their patient's preferences for screening method. In Switzerland, training PCPs with educational support and decision aids increased the number who intend to prescribe both screening modalities in equal proportions (prescription of both colonoscopy and FIT in equal proportions). To implement the intervention and determine how and if it changes PCP practice over time, the study will be conducted in quality circles (QCs) of PCPs. QCs are usually groups of 6 to 12 PCPs who meet regularly to reflect on their practice. QCs are a multifaceted, step-based intervention for quality improvement that has gained international traction because they can foster long-lasting behaviour change. In Switzerland, 80% of all PCPs attend QC regularly. Through QCs following the principles of Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) quality improvement cycles, PCPs can find ways to lower structural barriers to screening, assess their screening practices, and give each other feedback. The study hypothesizes that providing PCPs with evidence summaries on CRC screening, decision aids for patients, and sample FIT tests will increase the number of patients screened for CRC, better balance the selection of screening methods (colonoscopy vs. FIT), increase the proportion of patients with whom PCPs discuss CRC testing, and increase the number of patients who make decision for or against CRC screening. The outcomes in PCPs of QCs allocated to the intervention group will be compared to those in the control group. The outcomes will be measured through anonymous structured patient data collected on 40 consecutive patients by PCPs and questionnaires filled by PCPs. To ensure that relevant outcomes important for future implementation and dissemination works are collected, the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework will be followed for structuring the data collection. The RE-AIM framework helps structure the collection of data on the characteristics of the participants invited who finally participate in the study (Reach), on the integration of the planned intervention in their work (Adoption), on the consistency of implementation of the planned intervention by study participants (Implementation), on the maintenance of the intervention effects over time (Maintenance), and finally, on the effectiveness of the intervention on the planned outcomes (Effectiveness). The RE-AIM criteria are useful for identifying the translatability and public health impact of this intervention, and for making clear to future stakeholders the internal and external validity of study results. This study will test the benefits of a multilevel training program in participatory medicine designed to help PCPs in Switzerland to better diagnose patient preferences for screening and method of screening method (colonoscopy or FIT) through. If the program is successful it will increase the proportion of patients who can decide to undergo testing or not and with which method. This should increase in number of patients who are screened or intend to be screened for CRC, and thus reduce CRC deaths in the longer term.
In this prospective study, the main goal is to evaluate the strength of Monomark -a monocyte-based transcriptomic test combined to a mathematical model- in patients with a positive FIT test. Therefore, in parallel to the routine FIT screening, blood samples will be harvested and the monocyte genetic profile will be determined. This fundamental study, will disclose the diagnostic power of a biomarker panel ("MonoMark") head to head with the well-established FIT diagnostic test, a core prerequisite for the routine use of this test as an alternative and more reliable CRC screening tool.
Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is a condition characterized by the presence of multiple serrated polyps (SPs) spread throughout the colorectum and is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). SPS is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as the presence of at least 5 SPs proximal to the sigmoid colon, of which 2 ≥10 mm in size (WHO criterion 1), the presence of at least 1 SP proximal to the sigmoid and a first degree relative with SPS (WHO criterion 2), or more than 20 SPs spread throughout the colon (WHO-criterion-3). In practice only WHO 1 and WHO 3 criteria are used. The condition seems rather common and more prevalent than other polyposis syndromes such as familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) (1:13.000). Several retrospective studies have shown that patients with SPS have an increased risk of developing CRC during endoscopic surveillance. Close endoscopic surveillance to prevent malignant progression of polyps has therefore been advised by several expert groups. However, due to a shortage of prospective data the optimal treatment and surveillance approach is largely unknown. The current study aims to prospectively evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of a personalized surveillance protocol for patients with SPS to prevent CRC that is being used in several Dutch and Spanish hospitals. Furthermore, the polyp burden, colonoscopy complication risk and rate of conversion from endoscopic surveillance to colorectal surgery will be examined. For this purpose, all eligible SPS patients are prospectively enrolled 2013 onwards, and surveyed according to the study protocol. Based on the amount and characteristics of the polyps encountered during surveillance colonoscopy, the next colonoscopy will be scheduled after either 1 year or 2 years. Patients will undergo surveillance after 1 year in case of: - Advanced adenoma (≥ 10 mm and/or high-grade dysplasia and/or 25% villous component) - Serrated polyp ≥ 10mm and/or SP containing dysplasia - Cumulative ≥5 sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) (irrespective of size), adenomas (irrespective of size) and/or hyperplastic polyps (HPs) ≥5mm - Surgery needed during previous (clearing or surveillance) endoscopy Patients will undergo surveillance after 2 years in case none of above is reached