A study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found that ease of preparation prior to the screening test is an important determinant of colonoscopy uptake.
Research scientists in Italy, in an attempt to identify the most optimal method for colon cancer screening, compared different screening methods for colorectal cancer. The study found that ease of preparation prior to the screening test is an important determinant of screening uptake.
For the study, more than 16,000 subjects between 54 and 65 years of age were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 different screening methods:
Patients who tested positive to FIT or CTC were referred to OC work-up. The primary outcomes measured were participation rate (PR) and detection rate (DR) for cancer or advanced melanoma.
The study found that PR were 50.4% for first-round FIT, 28.1% for r-CTC, 25.2% for f-CTC, and 14.8% for OC, with statistically significant differences between the groups. For advanced neoplasia, DRs were 1.7% for first-round FIT, 5.5% for r-CTC, 4.9% for f-CTC, and 7.2% for OC, with statistically significant differences between CTC and FIT groups, but not between r-CTC and f-CTC groups.
Based on these results, the authors concluded that reduced preparation requirements might be the key to increased participation observed with CTC, and that could make the method an ideal tool for population screening for colorectal cancer (CRC).
Commenting on the study in an accompanying editorial in the same issue, Ernst J. Kuipers, MD, PhD, and Manon C. W. Spaander, MD, PhD, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, write that while no single screening method has been proven to be better than the other, follow-up to the screening is essential, which makes the current study important in combatting CRC. Ease of preparation for the CTC screening test might be the answer to improving acceptance by the population, they write.
Standard Criteria for Loss of Ambulation Needed in DMD
April 19th 2024A recent study suggests the differences between ambulation definitions for patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) can impact the identification of ambulant vs nonambulant individuals, and standard criteria across settings are needed.
Read More
Government agencies have created an online portal for the public to report potential anticompetitive practices in health care; there are changes coming to the “boxed warning” section for chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies (CAR T) to highlight T-cell blood cancer risk; questions about the safety of obesity medications during pregnancy have arisen in women on them who previously struggled with fertility issues.
Read More
Oncology Onward: A Conversation With Penn Medicine's Dr Justin Bekelman
December 19th 2023Justin Bekelman, MD, director of the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, sat with our hosts Emeline Aviki, MD, MBA, and Stephen Schleicher, MD, MBA, for our final episode of 2023 to discuss the importance of collaboration between academic medicine and community oncology and testing innovative cancer care delivery in these settings.
Listen
Gene, Light Therapy Combo Shows Promise Against Prostate Cancer Cells in Proof-of-Concept Study
April 18th 2024In their preclinical model, the researchers found efficacy both in vitro and in vivo by using CRISPR-Cas9 to mimic porphyria and combining the technology with light therapy.
Read More
Pegcetacoplan for PNH More Cost-Effective Than Anti-C5 Monoclonal Antibodies
April 18th 2024A cost-utility analysis conducted from the perspective of the Italian health system found that pegcetacoplan was more effective and less costly than 2 complement 5 (C5) inhibitors for the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH).
Read More