Influence of perception of colorectal cancer risk and patient bowel preparation behaviors: a study in minority populations

Figures & data

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of patients classified based on risk of colorectal cancer before colonoscopy

Characteristic	Group 1 total n, (%)	Group 2 total n, (%)	P-value Groups 1, 2	Group 3 total n, (%)	P-value Groups 1, 3
Age, years	51.46±4.26*	63.14±8.76	0.0001‡	50.77±10.65	0.112
Ethnicity (%)
African Americans	380 (38)	387 (34.4)	0.1367	86 (34.4)	0.3066
Hispanics	620 (62)	548 (65.6)	0.1367	164 (65.6)	0.3066
Male sex, n (%)	336 (33.6)	306 (36.6)	0.18	73 (29.2)	0.200
Full-dose preparation protocol	925 (92.5)	778 (93.1)	0.587	230 (92)	0.789
ComorbiditiesΩ n (%)
Diabetes	258 (25.8)	300 (35.9)	0.0035‡	46 (18.4)	0.100
CVA	19 (1.9)	18 (2.1)	0.740	4 (1.6)	1.000
Cirrhosis	11 (1.1)	12 (1.4)	0.534	2 (0.8)	1.000
CKD	68 (6.8)	60 (7.2)	0.782	15 (6)	0.776
Dementia	6 (0.6)	6 (0.7)	0.778	1 (0.4)	1.000
Constipation	212 (21.2)	49 (19.6)	0.6029	177 (21.2)	1.0000
Medications€ n (%)
BB	214 (21.4)	305 (36.5)	0.0001‡	41 (16.4)	0.08
CCB	224 (22.4)	237 (28.3)	0.0035‡	44 (17.6)	0.10
Opiates	264 (26.4)	240 (28.7)	0.2701	56 (22)	0.22
TCA	61 (6.1)	48 (5.7)	0.7672	17 (6.8)	0.66

Notes:

* Plus-minus values are the mean ± standard deviation

‡ P<0.05 was considered statistically significant

€ comorbidities were not mutually exclusive, with any one patient possibly having multiple comorbidities

Ω medications were not mutually exclusive, with any one patient possibly using multiple medications.

Abbreviations: BB, beta-blockers; CCB, calcium channel blockers; CKD, chronic kidney disease; CVA, cerebrovascular accident; TCA, tricyclic antidepressants.

Figure 1 Quality of bowel preparation in patients classified based on the risk of colorectal cancer before colonoscopy.

Table 2 Quality of bowel preparation in patients classified based on risk of colorectal cancer before colonoscopy

Quality of bowel preparation	Group 1 total n, (%)	Group 2 total n, (%)	P-value Groups 1, 2	Group 3 total n, (%)	P-value Groups 1, 3
Good	324 (32.4)	379 (45.4)		153 (61.2)
Fair	390 (39.0)	307 (36.7)	0.0001‡	67 (26.8)	0.0001‡
Poor	286 (28.6)	149 (17.8)		30 (12)
Inadequate	676 (67.6)€	456 (54.6)€	0.0001‡	97 (38.8)€	0.0001‡

Notes:

‡ P<0.05 was considered statistically significant

€ total number of inadequate bowel preparations was the sum of numbers of fair and poor bowel preparations.

Figure 2 Quality of bowel preparation in Hispanic patients classified based on the risk of colorectal cancer before colonoscopy.

Figure 3 Quality of bowel preparation in African American patients classified based on the risk of colorectal cancer before colonoscopy.

Table 3 Quality of bowel preparation in Hispanic patients classified based on risk of colorectal cancer before colonoscopy

Quality of bowel preparation	Group 1 total n, (%)	Group 2 total n, (%)	P-value Groups 1, 2	Group 3 total n, (%)	P-value Groups 1, 3
Good	198 (31.9)	252 (45.9)		105 (64.0)
Fair	242 (39.0)	200 (36.4)	0.0001‡	38 (23.1)	0.0001‡
Poor	180 (29.0)	96 (17.5)		21 (12.8)
Inadequate	422 (68.0)€	296 (54.0)€	0.0001‡	59 (35.9)€	0.0001‡

Notes:

‡ P<0.05 was considered statistically significant

€ total number of inadequate bowel preparations was the sum of numbers of fair and poor bowel preparations.

Table 4 Quality of bowel preparation in African American patients classified based on the risk of colorectal cancer before colonoscopy

Quality of bowel preparation	Group 1 total n, (%)	Group 2 total n, (%)	P-value Groups 1, 2	Group 3 total n, (%)	P-value Groups 1, 3
Good	126 (33.1)	127 (44.2)		48 (55.8)
Fair	148 (28.9)	107 (37.2)	0.0032‡	29 (33.7)	0.0001‡
Poor	106 (27.8)	53 (18.4)		9 (10.4)
Inadequate	254 (66.8)€	160 (55.7)€	0.0037‡	38 (44.1)€	0.0001‡

Notes:

‡ P<0.05 was considered statistically significant

€ total number of inadequate bowel preparations was the sum of numbers of fair and poor bowel preparations.

Table 5 Adenoma detection rate in the three study groups

Variable	Group 1 total n, (%)	Group 2 total n, (%)	P-value Groups 1, 2	Group 3 total n, (%)	P-value Groups 1, 3
Adenoma detection rate (%)	220 (22)	96 (38.4)	0.0001‡	280 (33.6)	0.0001‡

Note:

‡ P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.