View clinical trials related to Colorectal Cancer Screening.
Filter by:The purpose of this study is to compare the effect of face-to-face training of general practitioners on the implementation of a shared decision (in the context of colorectal cancer screening), versus current practice (i.e. without training in the patient-centered approach).
The purpose of the research is to assess the impact of Protect Your Colon™, a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision aid, on patients' CRC screening behaviors. The Investigators hypothesize that Protect Your Colon™, through optimizing shared decision making, will lead to selection of a test that accurately matches patients' values and increase CRC screening uptake. To test this hypothesis, the investigators will conduct a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess if provision of Protect Your Colon™ improves communication on CRC screening, intent to complete screening, and ultimately uptake of screening vs. usual care.
This mixed methods study evaluates the effectiveness and feasibility of a multi-level (patient, team, organizations) intervention to optimize CRC screening for patients with diabetes in primary care safety-net settings.
Worldwide, there are 1,361,000 new cases of colorectal cancers (CRC) annually, with 694,000 deaths. However, the incidence varies by up to a factor of 10x between high and low incidence countries (eg. USA vs Mexico, incidence rate of 42.54 vs 7.44 / 100,000 inhabitants). Mexico is considered a low-incidence country, with 8,651 new cases and 4,694 deaths annually. CRC is a preventable and detectable disease. Screening programs established in high-incidence countries have managed to reduce the incidence and mortality from this disease and it is considered a cost-effective strategy. In less developed countries where there are no screening programs for CRC, the highest number of deaths occurs despite having the lowest number of cases. It is recognized that a barrier to establishing a screening program in a country with low incidence and limited resources is cost-effectiveness. The prevalence of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia (ACN) detected by screening colonoscopy in a Mexican cohort of 1172 INNSZ patients was 2.9%. In the US the prevalence is 7.6%. The number of colonoscopies to be performed to detect ACN was estimated at 34 for Mexico and 13 for the US, which suggests that the cost-effectiveness of screening colonoscopy could be 3 times lower in our country. In Mexico there is no national screening program for CRC. The eligible population (adults between 50 and 75 years old) for CRC screening is estimated in 20 million of Mexicans. It is recognized that Mexico does not have enough financial resources nor the infrastructure to screen the entire eligible population either by direct colonoscopy, or by FIT (fecal immunochemical test) followed by colonoscopy. With a 5% frequency of positive FIT, nearly 1,000,000 follow-up colonoscopies would be required annually in a population screening program. An alternative could be to offer screening based on risk, which means only offering screening to the highest-risk population. There are calculators to predict the risk of identifying ACN in a screening colonoscopy, however, none have been developed and validated in the Mexican population. The weight of the risk factors associated with ACN in the Mexican population could be different, so it is necessary to develop and validate an ACN risk calculator that allows the Mexican population to be stratified and to concentrate screening efforts on the population at highest risk.
The purpose of this study is to collect clinical specimens from subjects with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer/advanced adenoma or undergoing a screening colonoscopy and meeting study eligibility criteria.
The primary objective of this clinical trial will be to compare overall colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation between an active choice (fecal immunochemical test [FIT] or colonoscopy) and a sequential choice (FIT offered first, then colonoscoscopy offered in those still unscreened) arm. Secondarily, we will (1) compare the proportions of FIT vs. colonoscopy per arm, (2) compare active choice vs FIT only in the initial 3 months of the study, (3) characterize changes in physician knowledge and attitudes regarding CRC screening before and after an educational seminar delivered at the launch of the initiative, (4) characterize perceptions regarding the effect of the intervention on clinical practices, and (5) compare detection rates of CRC, adenomas and SSLs per arm, and the operational results of the outreach program across arms.
The rate of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in the U.S. remains low (under 65%), meaning that thousands of people die of colorectal cancer unnecessarily. Colorectal cancer screening tests range from more invasive and very sensitive for polyps and cancer (colonoscopy) to less invasive and less sensitive (e.g., fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)). Screening rates go up when patients consider all these tests, not just colonoscopy. Informing patients about their options for CRC screening could produce higher quality decisions, improve the match between patient preferences and tests performed, and increase uptake of CRC screening. Decision aids (DAs) are a promising tool for accomplishing this goal. Also, precision CRC prevention - providing information about an individual's specific risk for CRC - has great promise to increase uptake and improve decision making. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic is causing severe challenges to providing CRC screening and other prevention services. Health systems are trying to adapt, but these efforts have only begun and are poorly understood. Moreover, patient perceptions of disease risk and risk from COVID-19 are unknown.
Hypothesis 1. Study method achieves lower requirement for medications 2. Study method increases overall cecal intubation with comparable assessment of current experience and patient willingness to repeat future colonoscopy compared with conventional colonoscopy 3. Study method results in reduction in medication-related (cardiorespiratory) complications, faster turn around of patients, compared with conventional colonoscopy 4. Study method improves bowel preparation and increases polyp pickup rate Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for the high and the low risk healthy asymptomatic VA patients is being promoted (VHA directive). Compliance with this Directive will result in an increased number of VA patients undergoing colonoscopy. The demand for colonoscopy far exceeds the capacity available to perform the procedure in the VA system. The conventional practice for colonoscopy at VA facilities across the country is to perform colonoscopy under conscious sedation with air insufflation. Efficiency is governed by the fact that sedated patients require time and space for recovery and these are major limiting factors in the current setting for the use of colonoscopy for CRC screening. Methods that maintain a high success rate and good patient assessment improve overall compliance for surveillance colonoscopy. Our preliminary experience showed that patients are able to complete successful colonoscopy without sedation in 52% of cases when colonoscopy was aided by a water infusion in lieu of air insufflation method. In this group of patients, the shortened recovery time means a quick turn around of patient and a more efficient endoscopy service. Patients are able to communicate better with the staff and physician regarding their problem and discharge instructions, and not subjected to the amnesic effect of sedation. Next day follow-up of patient by telephone contact which requires commitment of staff time can be obviated. If this randomized study confirms the success of our preliminary findings and this technique is adopted by more endoscopists, a larger number of VA patients may benefit from less sedation complications and at the same time allow for more efficient colonoscopy screening services.