Bowel cancer screening for women at midlife

References

• Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2017. Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality (ACIM) books: colorectal cancer. Canberra: AIHW. 2018. Available from: www.aihw.gov.au/acim-books
   Google Scholar
• Steins Bisschop CN, van Gils CH, Emaus MJ, et al. Weight change later in life and colon and rectal cancer risk in participants in the EPIC-PANACEA study. Am J Clin Nutr 2014;99:139–47
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrari P, Jenab M, Norat T, et al. Lifetime and baseline alcohol intake and risk of colon and rectal cancers in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition (EPIC). Int J Cancer 2007;121:2065–72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leufkens AM, Van Duijnhoven FJ, Siersema PD, et al. Cigarette smoking and colorectal cancer risk in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;9:137–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy N, Norat T, Ferrari P, et al. Dietary fibre intake and risks of cancers of the colon and rectum in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition (EPIC). PLoS One 2012;7:e39361
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norat T, Bingham S, Ferrari P, et al. Meat, fish, and colorectal cancer risk: the European Prospective Investigation into cancer and nutrition. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:906–16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothwell PM, Wilson M, Elwin CE, et al. Long-term effect of aspirin on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: 20-year follow-up of five randomised trials. Lancet 2010;376:1741–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burn J, Gerdes AM, Macrae F, et al. Long-term effect of aspirin on cancer risk in carriers of hereditary colorectal cancer: an analysis from the CAPP2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011;378:2081–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Algra AM, Rothwell PM. Effects of regular aspirin on long-term cancer incidence and metastases: a systematic comparison of evidence from observational studies versus randomised trials. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:518–27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Kruijsdijk RC, Visseren FL, Ridker PM, et al. Individualised prediction of alternate-day aspirin treatment effects on the combined risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease and gastrointestinal bleeding in healthy women. Heart 2015;105:369–76
   Google Scholar
• Farrell B, Godwin J, Richards S, Warlow C. The United Kingdom transient ischaemic attack (UK-TIA) aspirin trial: final results. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1991;54:1044–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuzick J, Thorat MA, Bosetti C, et al. Estimates of benefits and harms of prophylactic use of aspirin in the general population. Ann Oncol 2015;26:47–57
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nan H, Hutter CM, Lin Y, et al. Association of aspirin and NSAID use with risk of colorectal cancer according to genetic variants. JAMA 2015;313:1133–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook NR, Lee IM, Gaziano JM, et al. Low-dose aspirin in the primary prevention of cancer: the Women's Health Study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005;294:47–55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cancer Council Australia. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention, early detection and management colorectal cancer. 2018. Available from: https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australia/Guidelines: Colorectal_cancer
   Google Scholar
• Aaltonen L, Johns L, Järvinen H, et al. Explaining the familial colorectal risk associated with mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient and MMR-stable tumours. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:356–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cancer Institute NSW. eviQ Cancer Genetics Referral Guidelines for Colorectal cancer or Polyposis Risk Assessment and Consideration of Genetic Testing. Sydney. 2018. Available from: https://www.eviq.org.au/Category/tabid/65/categoryid/6/Default.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Syngal S, Brand RE, Church JM, et al. ACG clinical guideline: genetic testing and management of hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. Am J Gastroenterol 2015;110:223–62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balmaña J, Balaguer F, Cervnates A, et al. Familial risk-colorectal cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines. Ann Oncol 2013;24(Suppl 6):vi73–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australian Government Department of Health. The Australian bowel screening pilot program and beyond: final evaluation report. 2005. Available from: http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/content/9C0493AFEB3FD33CCA-257D720005C9F2/
   Google Scholar
• Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. National Bowel Cancer Screening Program: monitoring report 2016. Cancer Series no. 98. Cat. No.CAN 97. Canberra: AIHW. 2016. Available from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer-screening/bowel-cancer-screening-program-monitoring-2016/contents/table-of-contents
   Google Scholar
• Ananda SS, McLaughlin SJ, Chen F, et al. Initial impact of Australia's national bowel cancer screening program. Med J Aust 2009;191:378–81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris M, Iacopettta B, Platell C. Comparing survival outcomes for patients with colorectal cancer treated in public and private hospitals. Med J Aust 2007;186:296–300
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lew JB, St John DJB, Xu XM, et al. Long-term evaluation of benefit, harms and cost-effectiveness of the national bowell cancer screening program in Australia: a modelling study. Lancet Public Health 2017;2:e331–40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieberman D. Screening for colorectal cancer in individuals at average risk: current methods and emerging issues. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:10–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Stegmaier C, et al. Risk of progression of advanced adenomas to colorectal cancer by age and sex: estimates based on 840149 screening colonoscopies. Gut 2007;56:1585–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Appleyard M, Grimpen F, Spucches C, et al. Participation in the national bowel cancer screening program and screening outcomes in Queensland. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;26:29
   Google Scholar
• Parker MA, Robinson MH, Scholefield JH, Hardcastle JD. Psychiatric morbidity and screening for colorectal cancer. J Med Screen 2002;9:7–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatto NM, Frucht H, Sundararajan V, et al. Risk of perforation after colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:230–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viiala CH, Zimmerman M, Cullen DJ, Hoffman NE. Complication rates of colonoscopy in an Australian teaching hospital environment. Intern Med J 2003;33:355–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality (ACIM) books: Bowel Cancer. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2014. Available from: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea//Download-Asset.aspx?id =60129558412
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Preventive Services Taskforce. Screening for colorectal cancer US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA 2016;315:2564–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quintero E, Castells A, Bujanda L, et al. Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2012;366:657–706
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Investigators, Atkin WS, Edwards R, et al. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010;375:1624–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee (AHTAC). Colorectal cancer screening: a report of the Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services; 1997. Available from: https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/297195
   Google Scholar
• Ahlquist DSA, Sargent DJ, Loprinzi CL, et al. Stool DNA and occult blood testing for screen detection of colorectal neoplasia. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:441–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Church TR, Wandell M, Lofton-Day C, et al. Prospective evaluation of methylated SEPT9 in plasma for detection of asymptomatic colorectal cancer. Gut 2014;63:317–25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Agency for Research on Cancer. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2010. Available from: http://www.kolorektum.cz/res/file/guidelines/CRC-screening-guidelines-EC-2011-02-03.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Anagnostopoulos A, McKay VH, Cooper I, et al. Identifying lynch syndrome in women presenting with endometrial cancer under the age of 50 years. Int J Gynaecol Cancer 2017;27:931–7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bocci G, Troiano G, Messina G, et al. Factors that could influence women’s participation in colorectal cancer screening: an Italian study. Ann Ig 2017;29:151–60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinberg DS, Miller S, Rodoletz M, et al. Colorectal cancer knowledge is not associated with screening compliance or intention. J Cancer Educ 2009;24:225–32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taskila T, Wilson S, Damery S, et al. Factors affecting attitudes towards colorectal cancer screening in the primary care population. Br J Cancer 2009;101:250–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim SE, Perez-Stable EJ, Wong S, et al. Association between cancer risk perception and screening behavior among diverse women. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:728–34
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Denberg TD, Kraus H, Soenksen A, et al. Rates of screening colonoscopy are not increased when women are offered a female endoscopist in a health promotion outreach program. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:1014–19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domati F, Travlos E, Cirilli C, et al. Attitude of the Italian general population towards prevention and screening of the most common tumours, with special emphasis on colorectal malignancies. Intern Emerg Med 2009;4:213–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisinger F, Bouhnik AD, Malavolti L, et al. Cancer survivors: familial risk perception and management advice given to their relatives. Fam Cancer 2011;10:147–55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinberg DS, Turner BJ, Wang H, et al. A survey of women regarding factors affecting colorectal cancer screening compliance. Prev Med 2004;38:669–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McQueen A, Vernon SW, Meissner HI, et al. Are there gender differences in colorectal cancer test use prevalence and correlates? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:782–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Power E, Miles A, von Wagner C, et al. Uptake of colorectal screening: system, provider and individual factors and strategies to improve participation. Future Oncol 2009;5:1371–88
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beydoun HA, Beydoun MA. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening behaviours among average-risk older adults in the United States. Cancer Causes Control 2008;19:339–59
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishnan S, Wolf JL. Colorectal cancer screening and prevention in women. Womens Health 2011;7:213–26
   Google Scholar
• Mandelson MT, Curry SJ, Anderson LA, et al. Colorectal cancer screening participation by older women. Am J Prev Med 2000;19:149–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thu-Thon E, Charles R, Froger P, et al. [The impact of a general practitioner training program on the colorectal cancer screening participation rate]. Sante Publique 2013;25:775–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wardle J, Miles A, Atkin W. Gender differences in utilisation of colorectal cancer screening. J Med Screen 2005;12:20–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PASSI. Rapporto Nazionale passi 2013. 2013. Available from: http://www.epicentro.iss.it/passi/rapporto2013/campione.asp
   Google Scholar
• Stockwell DH, Woo P, Jacobson BC, et al. Determinants of colorectal cancer screening in women undergoing mammography. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:1875–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rat C, Pogu C, Le Donné D, et al. Effect of physician notification regarding nonadherence to colorectal screening on patient participation in fecal immunochemical test cancer screening: a randomised clinical trial. JAMA 2017;318:816–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beral V. Million Women Study Collaborators. Breast cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the Million Women Study. Lancet 2003;362:419–27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Floud S, Barnes I, Verfürden M, et al. Disability and participation in breast and bowel cancer screening in England: a large prospective study. Br J Cancer 2017;117:1711–14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green BB, BlueSpruce J, Tuzzio L, et al. Reasons for never and intermittent completion of colorectal cancer screening after receiving multiple rounds of mailed fecal tests. BMC Public Health 2017;17:531
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reuland DS, Brenner AT, Hofman R, et al. Effect of combined patient decision aid and patient navigation vs usual care for colorectal screening in a vulnerable patient population: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2017;177:967–74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson C, Flight I, Zajac I, et al. Web-based communication strategies designed to improve intention to minimize risk for colorectal cancer: Randomised controlled trial. JMIR Cancer 2018;4:e2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• U.S. Preventive Services Taskforce. Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. preventive services taskforce recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:627–37
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krist AH, Woolf SH, Hochheimer C, et al. Harnessing information technology to inform patients facing routine decisions: cancer screening as a test case. Ann Fam Med 2107;15:217–24
   Google Scholar
• Lin GA, Halley M, Rendle KA, et al. An effort to spread decision aids in five California primary care practices yielded low distribution, highlighting hurdles. Health Aff 2013;32:311–20
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar