Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major public health threat. Therefore, CRC screening uptake has been a focus with the established precancerous lesion and the strong association of early detection with staging and survival of the disease. However, CRC screening is relatively low in many countries. This article briefly discussed the current situation of CRC, recommendations, and current uptake of CRC screening in various countries. Besides that, this article also highlights the potential factors that help to predict the CRC screening uptake worldwide. Identification of those factors could guide policymakers to develop an effective strategy to improve the CRC screening uptake and ultimately improve the health outcome of the population.

Keywords

Colorectal cancer screening uptake predictors barriers for screening

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers in Asia and worldwide with an estimation of 10.9% of cancer death among men and 9.5% among women.¹ Mortality and morbidity associated with CRC are highly preventable with early diagnosis and treatment. Most of the CRC cases appear to develop from benign and precancerous polyps in which the incidence and mortality can be reduced by performing early screening through the removal of adenomatous polyps and sessile serrated polyps.² Therefore, it is vital to ensure that the uptake of CRC screening reaches the optimal level to reduce the overall CRC incidence and mortality. Previous studies reported that various factors influence the public's decision to avoid FOBT screening including sociodemographic and socioeconomic background,^3,4 health access factor,^5,6 preventive behaviour,⁷ as well as knowledge and attitude regarding CRC.^8-12 This review will briefly discuss the current situation of CRC, recommendations for CRC screening, and how various factors could affect the uptake of CRC screening.

Significance for public health

This study highlights the public health challenge in early screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). The prevalence of never screened for faecal occult blood test is relatively high. This review dissects the issue and further discuss on the predictors, which could guide policymakers in developing strategy to improve CRC screening uptake.

Global situation of colorectal cancer

In 2018, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) estimated that 18.1 million new cases and 9.6 million deaths were related to CRC. CRC was ranked as the third most common malignancy worldwide, and the third leading cause of cancer detected in men and women. Moreover, CRC is also second- highest cancer related to death after lung cancer worldwide.¹ The overall CRC trends of incidence and mortality vary between countries with an increasing trend was observed in low- and middle- income countries while a more stabilised and decreasing trend was observed in high-income countries.¹³ The decrease in CRC mortality can be partly explained by improved survival of CRC patients through the adoption of best practices of cancer management and treatment, early detection efforts, and removal of polyps. The introduction of screening methods might initially cause an increase in the incidence of CRC. However, in a long term, it has been shown to reduce the incidence of CRC by the removal of precancerous polyps via colonoscopy.¹⁴ An increase in risk factors such as physical inactivity, cigarette smoking, obesity, and low fibre diet have been associated with the increasing trend of CRC prevalence especially in low- and middle- income countries.¹⁵

CRC situation in South East Asia and Malaysia

The GLOBOCAN project reported that Malaysia has the thirdhighest overall incidence (18.3 per 100,000 population) of CRC in South East Asia (SEA) after Singapore (33.7 per 100,000) and Brunei (25.0 per 100,000).¹ Most SEA countries experiencing a rise in CRC due to an increase in lifestyle-related risk factors such as unhealthy dietary intake, physical inactivity, and obesity.

According to Malaysian National Cancer Registry, CRC is the second most common cancer (13.5% from all type of cancer) after breast cancer (19.0%) among the Malaysian population. It was reported that a total of 15,515 CRC cases were registered from 2012 to 2016. About gender, majority of CRC cases were reported among males (56.1%) compared to females (43.9%). The lifetime risk of CRC among males was 1 in 55 (cumulative risk 1.8) while female reported a ratio of 1 in 77 (cumulative risk 1.3). CRC was also observed to be the most common cancer among males (ASR 14.8) and the second most common among females (ASR 11.1) after breast cancer. The lifetime risk among Chinese males was the highest (1 in 43) followed by Malay males (1 in 65), and Indian males (1 in 70). A similar trend was also observed in females whereby the lifetime risk was highest among Chinese (1 in 57) followed by Malay (1 in 89) and Indian (1 in 95). According to a report, CRC incidence increased with age and peaked at the age of 70 and above for both sexes.¹⁶

Staging of CRC at the time of diagnosis for males was 7.4% at stage I, 20.2% at stage II, 32.8% at stage III, and 39.6% at stage IV. Meanwhile, in females, the staging at the time of diagnosis was only 6.6% at stage I, 20.3% at stage II, 32.9% at stage III, and 40.2% at stage IV. Therefore, at the time of diagnosis, there were 72.4% CRC cases among males and 73.1% CRC cases among females that were already at the advanced cancer stage (stage III and IV).^16-18 It was reported that in 2015, malignant neoplasm has become one of the top five major cause of deaths in the Malaysian government hospital. Most of the CRC cases were detected at the late stage in which more than half of CRC patients were detected at stage III and IV.¹⁷ Meanwhile, another study showed that the median age for CRC was 62 years old with a 65.0 per 100 000 incidence rates among the Chinese. In Sabah, Malaysia, indigenous populations develop CRC at an early age and present themselves at the hospital when the disease is at the advanced stages.¹⁹

Natural history and adenoma-adenocarcinoma sequence

CRC occurs in the large intestine and rectum whereby it develops on the lining of the large bowel starting from precancerous lesion. The precancerous lesions that commonly progressed into CRC are adenomas or adenomatous polyps. The progression of the precursor lesion of adenomatous polyps into CRC is also known as adenoma-adenocarcinoma sequence.²⁰ The neoplastic changes initially begin within the epithelium of the bowel lining, which is called intraepithelial neoplasia. This will then progress into cancer with invasion across the basement membrane.²¹ The progression of CRC via adenoma-adenocarcinoma sequence has also been reported to be via alternative routes of serrated neoplasia pathway. Statistic showed that more than 15% of CRC originated from the serrated neoplasia pathway.²² The potential of cancer development from the precancerous lesion can also be explained by the size of adenoma with 1% in small polyps (size less than 1 cm), 10% in adenomas (size more than 1 cm and less than 2 cm), and 50% in adenomas (size larger than 2 cm). A study among Malaysian patients who underwent colonoscopy in the government hospital revealed that 58% of polyps morphology was sessile with 5-9mm size and 19.1% adenoma detection rate.²³

Screening and CRC precancerous lesion

CRC has become the focus of screening due to the established precancerous lesion and the strong association of early detection with staging and survival of the disease. World Health Organization (WHO) has set ten principles for the establishment of screening programmes to detect the disease.²⁴ It was stipulated that:

The condition sought is an important health problem

There should be accepted treatment in those with recognised disease

Facilities for diagnosis and treatment must be available

There should be a recognisable early stage of the disease

There should be a suitable test or examination

The test is accepted by the population

The natural history of the disease must be adequately understood

There should be an agreed policy to treat on whom to treat as a patient regarding treatment

The cost of diagnosis and treatment must be balanced economically with possible expenditure on medical care

10)

The case finding must be a continuing process

CRC screening recommendations

An independent group of experts from the United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) has recommended CRC screening among the average risk individuals from 50 to 75 years old. The recommended screening tools include Guaiac based FOBT Test (gFOBT) or immunochemical FOBT test (iFOBT) conducted annually, flexible sigmoidoscopy for every 5 years, 10 years of yearly colonoscopy, CT colonography for 5 years every year or combine test of 10 years of yearly flexible sigmoidoscopy with annual iFOBT. These screening recommendations are shared by other countries such as the United Kingdom.^25,26 However, some countries are against colonoscopy as a primary CRC screening tool due to the lack of high-quality evidence, lack of human resources (require gastroenterologist to perform the procedure) with long waiting time for the screening, greater potential for harm, and higher risk of complications.²⁷ FOBT is favourable in countries with limited colonoscopy resources.²⁸ Even though single FOBT has low sensitivity to detect CRC,^29,30 many western countries considered FOBT as the best population-based screening. This is due to its simplicity and high acceptance even in countries with the well-developed healthcare system. In a retrospective cohort study among iFOBT screening participants, repeated annual iFOBT was associated with high sensitivity for CRC detection.³¹ In a population-based cohort study in Japan, there was a decrease in mortality rate at about 72% among individuals who are screened using iFOBT compared to unscreened subjects. Although the screening method does not significantly reduce the incidence of CRC, it was reported that the screening has been associated with the reduction of the advanced stage of CRC.³² In Malaysia, the Ministry of Health has recommended selective opportunistic screening among asymptomatic individuals from the age of 50 to 75 years old using guaiac-based or immunochemical-based faecal occult blood test.³³

Uptake of CRC screening

Participation in screening is one of the key indicators for programme acceptance and effectiveness. Due to the availability of screening and treatment option for CRC, many countries have been promoting faecal testing in asymptomatic individuals with an average risk of CRC development. However, most countries have not achieved the desired level of screening uptake. Recommendation by European Commission states that the minimum uptake of CRC screening among the average risk group is 45% with 65% of optimum rate.³⁴ The American Cancer Society sets a higher goal for screening uptake in 2018, which is 80% compared to 75% in 2017.³⁵ Despite the evidence and presence of specific guidelines, the prevalence of populations that have never presented themselves for colorectal screening especially using FOBT varies and is relatively high. An intervention study in health clinics in Israel found that the prevalence of non-screened for FOBT among the control group (no reminder system) was 98.8%.³⁶ In another intervention study in Canada reported that the non-responder to a mail invitation to perform FOBT at the nearest healthcare facility was as high as 90.4%.³⁷ Similar findings were also observed in the United States with a 90.1% prevalence of non-compliance to current FOBT screening.⁵ Canadian health survey showed 76.5% prevalence of respondents who have never had any history of colorectal cancer screening.³⁸ Meanwhile, in Asia, several countries have recorded variation in CRC screening uptake. In Japan, the screening program was in place since 1992 with a participation rate of 41.4% in men and 34.5% in women using the Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT).³⁹ In South Korea, the CRC screening program using FIT that was implemented in 2004 showed a 10.5% increase participation in 2004 to 21.1% in 2008 and to 25% in 2012.⁴⁰ In Thailand, a pilot program that was implemented in 2011 showed 37.1% non-participation for FIT.⁴¹ In Taiwan, the defaulters in the pilot FIT program were found to be high at 78.6%.⁴².

However, study on the acceptance of CRC screening in Malaysia is limited. A recent study performed in Sabah, Malaysia recorded a prevalence of 85.8% population that has never been screened by FOBT.⁴³ Another study among average risk individuals in West Malaysia found that there were only 13 respondents or 0.7% (out of 1905 respondents) that have been screened for CRC.⁴⁴ In a multicentre study in the Asia Pacific region, Malaysia recorded among the highest prevalence with poor participation of CRC screening (97%) compared to another country in the same region such as the Philippines (31%), Japan (62%), and Brunei (86.3%).⁴⁵ The issue with screening may benefit from smart healthcare delivery to improve access via digital health integration. Screening and referral of cases for further intervention can be done earlier.⁴⁶

Potential predictors of CRC screening uptake

Sociodemographic factors

There were several studies that have addressed the association of age with CRC screening uptake. In a study in England, it was found that older respondents have a significantly higher screening uptake compared to the younger age group (60-64: 62.6% vs 65-70:74.3%, p<0.001).⁴⁷ This finding is consistent with a study in the United States that found participants within the age group of 65 to 75 years old has 2.49 higher odds at receiving CRC screening compared to those of 50 to 64 years old.³ This contrasts with a longitudinal cohort study in the US whereby the likelihood of being up to date to screening practices was lower in the older age group (>76 years old) compared to the younger age group (p<0.001). A lower screening uptake among the older age group could be explained by the comorbidity influences in relation to older age.⁴⁸ This contrasts with another report whereby the older age group have higher CRC screening uptake, especially in the United States. This is due to a special programme implemented by the US known as National Health Insurance Programme or Medicare that covers health-related expenses including cancer screening for US citizens age 65 years old and above.³

Several studies have shown gender inequality in CRC screening uptake. A study in the US showed that the utilisation of FOBT was common among women compared to men (OR=1.8, 95% CI: 1.6-2.0).⁵ This is consistent with a pilot study in the United Kingdom on FIT acceptability that showed men have lower acceptance on both guaiac-based FOBT and FIT compared to women.⁴⁹ Another study also reported a similar finding whereby women has significantly higher screening uptake using FIT compared to men (women 50.2% vs men 54.6%, p<0.001) in a population-based CRC screening program in Barcelona.⁵⁰ This is further supported by a meta-analysis study, which stated that male uptake was significantly lower than female uptake for FOBT test (FIT) (OR 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.75–0.95; p<0.05).⁵¹ Although the acceptance of screening is low among male, the introduction of FIT instead of guaiac-based FOBT testing (gFOBT) has significantly increase CRC screening uptake with absolute differences of 8.1% (gFOBT 56.4% vs FIT 64.5%, OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.36-1.45) compared to women with absolute differences of 6.0% (gFOBT 62.1% vs FIT 68.1%, OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.34).⁴⁹

A consistent ethnicity inequality in CRC screening uptake has been reported in previous literature. A population-based survey among respondents living in England reported that non-White participants were less likely to respond to screening invitation compared to White (41.5% vs 70.5%, p<0.001).⁴⁷ A cohort study following a screening outreach program from 2004 until 2013 found that the screening rate among minorities such as Hispanics (33.1 to 78.3%) and Native Americans (29.4 to 74.5%) remains low compared to White in both before and after the programme (35.2 to 81.1%).⁵² Poor participation of minority ethnicity could be explained by low perceived susceptibility to CRC in non-English speaker especially among Asian and Hispanics.⁴Moreover, the low CRC screening uptake has resulted in an increased risk of late presentation of CRC among Black people (aOR 1.80, 95% CI 1.02-3.17, p<0.05) and Asian (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 0.97-2.05, p=0.07).⁵³

Marital status was consistently associated with healthier behaviour and increased adherence to cancer screening. This is proved in a large population study conducted in the United Kingdom that found single people had lower CRC screening uptake compared to those who were married (55.7% vs 71.7%, p<0.001).⁴⁷ The findings are supported by the 2010 Behavioural Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey (BRFSS) analysis among adults in the United States whereby individuals who were divorced, separated, never married or widowed have lower odds to adhere to the CRC screening guidelines compared to married couples. ⁵⁴ Another analysis of the BRFSS survey found that marital status is an independent predictor of cancer screening including CRC (OR 1.63, 95% CI: 1.51-1.77).⁵⁵ The findings are consistent with another study among Korean American in which married individuals are more likely to have sigmoidoscopy compared to unmarried (aOR 4.90, 95% CI: 1.09, 21.9, p<0.001). One of the mechanisms that explained the association of marital status with health behaviour is social control, which refers to regulatory attempts by others and feeling of responsibility or obligation towards others that facilitate the healthy behaviour.⁵⁶

Education level

Education attainment has consistently associated with CRC screening uptake. Individuals with lower education level have lower screening participation compared to individuals with higher education level (65.7% vs 74.5%, p<0.001).⁵⁷ A contrary was reported in another study that stated education level is not associated with adherence to CRC screening after adjusted to other individuals covariates.⁵⁸ This is further supported by another study conducted in Korea that showed education level is not significantly associated with compliance to CRC screening recommendation.⁵⁹ A similar finding was also obtained from a population-based study in Hong Kong.¹² This is, however, contrary to a population-based study in the United States that found education level at grade 12, college 1-3 years, and college 4 years and above are more likely to participate in CRC screening (adjusted OR 1.4, 1.7 and 1.9 respectively with p<0.001) compared to those with lower education level.⁵ A study in two Danish counties among average risk group for CRC screening found that higher education level was more likely to underwent FOBT screening (adjusted OR 1.38 (CI 95% 1.33-1.43, p<0.0001).⁶⁰

Household income

There are several studies addressing the association between household income and CRC screening participation. A nationwide cross-sectional survey in Korea found that lower household income is significantly related to non-compliance to CRC screening (p<0.001).⁵⁹ The findings are consistent with a study in the United States that reported high household income is one of the significant predictors of current CRC screening (OR 1.9, p<0.001).⁵ A large population study in Denmark also reported that individuals at first income quartile (annual household income of less than US Dollars 28,860.50) has higher odds of non-participation in screening recommendation using FOBT compared to individuals with fourth income quartile (OR 2.8, CI 95% 2.71-2.90).⁶¹ The data are further supported by a study in 2 Danish counties whereby participation in FOBT screening is higher in high-income level (OR 1.94, CI 95% 1.87-2.01).⁶⁰

Employment status

Several studies have established the relationship between employment status with the acceptance of CRC screening recommendation. Participants who were not in the labour force had more than two times higher odds to receive CRC screening (aOR 2.32, CI 95% 1.37-3.94).³ This is similar to a study that showed people who are retired or out of work are more likely to have current CRC screening compared to people who are employed (adjusted OR 1.2, p<0.001).⁵ Not in the labour force is defined as people who are currently unemployed and not seeking employment. Compared to people who are not in the labour force, employed individuals may be hindered from seeking health care including screening for cancer due to lack of sick leaves, the burden of taking days off work, and fear of negative consequences due to job insecurity.⁶²

Interval visits to doctor for routine check-up

Several studies have been conducted examining the relationship between routine doctor visits with the uptake of CRC screening. In a study in the United States, patients who visited a doctor for routine check-up were more likely to receive up to date CRC screening in both colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy (aOR = 2.6, p<0.001) and FOBT test (aOR = 6.2, p<0.001) compared to those who have not reported any routine check-up to a doctor for more than a year.⁵ The findings are supported by a study among Korean American people at the age of 65 years old and older. This population have a more routine check-up of FOBT compared to those who did not have routine check-up (aOR 2.61, 95% CI 1.16, 5.9).⁶³ Individuals who did not have a routine check-up with a doctor are unlikely to undergo cancer screening as they are lacking in the opportunity to be screened, advised by doctors, and the opportunity to screening tools distributed in the clinic.

Comorbidities

Study regarding comorbidities and CRC uptake has been cited in several studies. A population-based study in Barcelona founds that individuals with three and more dominant chronic diseases were associated with low participation in the FOBT test (IRR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65, 0.89, p<0.001).⁵⁰ In another study among eligible screening adults found that individuals with type II diabetes were less likely to undergo screening using the FOBT test (aOR 0.703, 95% CI 0.557-0.887, p<0.001).⁶⁴ These show the role of multiple comorbidities as a barrier of CRC screening due to competing interest of healthcare provider to treat critical issue than recommending CRC screening.

Distance from clinic to house

The distance from the house to the nearest health facilities and its association with health has been cited in a few studies.^6,65,66 A study to identify the predictors of screening for cognitive impairment founds that the distance from the respondent's residential area is one of the significant predictors of screening participation. The distance of 2-2.99 km (aOR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.67-0.88) and 3km and more (aOR 0.54, 0.33-0.89) were less likely to participate in screening after adjusting the psychological and demographic factors. ⁶ A systematic review stated that out of 108 studies, 77% of studies have identified the distance decay association. This shows a negative correlation between travel distances to the nearest health facility with health outcome. Patients living far from healthcare facilities have been associated with negative health outcome such as low survival rate and longer hospital stay.⁶⁶

Barriers of CRC screening participation

Several barriers have been identified that prevents people from getting screened for CRC including patient's factor, physician factor, and system factors. In a multicentre international study in Asia Pacific Region, a country with a low participation rate of CRC screening had low knowledge of CRC symptoms, risk factors, test, and lack of physician recommendation.⁴⁵ This is consistent in an FOBT specific test study conducted in Singapore. Most of the respondents (48.9%) identified not having CRC symptoms followed by inconvenience (31.1%), no family history of colon cancer (28.9%), lack of time (28.9%), and lack of reminders or recommendation (28.9%) are the reasons for not using FOBT [⁶⁷]. Another study in the United States reported that 74% of the respondents identified fear and bowel preparation are the most important barriers to colorectal screening. Patient's co-morbidity, previous refusal by patients, acute care clinic visits, lack of time, and lack of reminders has been identified as the most common physician reported barrier towards CRC screening.⁶⁸ Another study concluded that the most common barrier for CRC screening was lack of physician recommendation and lack of knowledge for the need of the test.⁶⁹

Knowledge of CRC and screening

Knowledge is known to be important to influence the healthseeking behaviour and individual's preference to be screened for health condition including CRC. A study in West Malaysia found that less than 1% of respondents had undergo screening and most of their respondents have low knowledge score towards CRC and screening (only 4.1% of respondents have good knowledge score).⁷⁰ A multicentre study among Asia Pacific countries found that countries with low participation rate for CRC screening had the least knowledge on symptoms, risk factors, test, and the lowest recommendation by a physician.⁴⁵ The findings are consistent with another study that concluded respondents who are within the screening guideline is associated with better knowledge regarding CRC (p=0.001).⁷¹

Attitude towards CRC screening

Attitude is defined as a psychological tendency to view a subject with a degree of favour or disfavour. It is a process of individual subjective evaluation influenced by rational assessment, emotional responses, and belief.⁷² Several studies have shown that attitudes may play an important role in cancer screening practices. A study in Geneva, Switzerland to explore the factors contributing to practice and attitude towards cancer screening found that the strong predictors of cancer practice are attitudes towards screening and towards prevention in general.⁷³ Another study that explores the reasons Netherlands have high CRC screening participation (prevalence of screening among the Netherlands are relatively high at 75%) were due to trust in the government, perception of the seriousness of cancer, preventive health screening, and the importance of one's health as the important factors of the public's view on CRC screening.¹¹ A study conducted in West Malaysia founds that majority of the participants have a poor attitude towards CRC screening and less than 1% of participants reported had undergone CRC screening.⁷⁰

Conclusions

CRC incidence and mortality varied widely between countries. Generally, countries with high incidence and mortality of CRC experiencing inadequate uptake of CRC screening. There are various predictors that contribute to the inadequate screening uptake namely demographic inequality (age, gender, ethnicity, marital status), socioeconomic factor (education attainment, employment status, household income), frequency of visit to the healthcare provider, distance from health services, comorbidity, individual's knowledge and attitude toward CRC and its screening. Identification of these predictors and barriers for CRC screening is vital to develop an effective strategy to improve the screening uptake and ultimately for better health outcome of the population.

Footnotes

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding: This research was partly funded by Universiti Malaysia Sabah's SDG Research@Borneo Research Grant (Grant ID: SDG05-2020).

Ethical approval: This review does not require ethical clearance.

Availability of data and material: The materials used during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgements

The authors express their utmost gratitude to all research team members, management, and supportive staff of the Universiti Malaysia Sabah for their encouragement and support. We would also like to thank Universiti Malaysia Sabah for partly funding this project.

References

International Agency for Research on Cancer World health Organization. Latest global cancer data: Cancer burden rises to 18.1 million new cases and 9.6 million cancer deaths in 2018. Available from: https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/latestglobal-cancer-data-cancer-burden-rises-to-18-1-million-newcases-and-9-6-million-cancer-deaths-in-2018/

Simon

. Colorectal cancer development and advances in screening. Clin Interv Aging vol. 2016;11:967.

Lin

McKinley

Sripipatana

Makaroff

Colorectal cancer screening at US community health centers: Examination of sociodemographic disparities and association with patient-provider communication. Cancer 2017;123:4185–92.

Brenner

Jans

. Race/ethnicity and primary language: Health beliefs about colorectal cancer screening in a diverse, low-income population. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2015;26:824–38.

Ioannou

Chapko

Dominitz

. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening participation in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:2082–91.

Harada

Lee

Shimada

. Distance to screening site and older adults’ participation in cognitive impairment screening. Geriatr Gerontol Int 201;18:146–53.

Bernardo

Gross

Young

. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening in two underserved U.S. populations: A parallel analysis. Front Oncol 2018;8:230.

Rosli

MAF

Az-Zaharaa

WKW

Suresh

. Knowledge and attitude on colorectal cancer screening among sub-urban community in Sepang, Sealangor. Int J Public Health Clin Sci 2017;4:85–101.

Christou

Thompson

. Colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes and behavioural intention among Indigenous Western Australians. BMC Public Health 2012;12:528.

10.

Goh

Tan

. Level of colorectal cancer awareness: A cross sectional exploratory study among multi-ethnic rural population in Malaysia. BMC Cancer 2013;13:376.

11.

Douma

Uiters

Timmermans

DRM

. Why are the public so positive about colorectal cancer screening? BMC Public Health 2018;18:1212.

12.

Sung

JJY

Choi

SYP

Chan

FKL

. Obstacles to colorectal cancer screening in Chinese: A study based on the Health Belief Model. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:974–81.

13.

Bray

Ferlay

Soerjomataram

. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394–424.

14.

Arnold

Sierra

Laversanne

. Global patterns and trends in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Gut 2017;66:683–91.

15.

Center

Jemal

Smith

Ward

Worldwide variations in colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2010;53:1099.

16.

Ministry of Health of Malaysia. Malaysia National Cancer Registry Report 2012-2016. National Cancer Registry, NCI. Publication No. 5. Available from: https://www.moh.gov.my/moh/resources/Penerbitan/Laporan/Umum/2012-2016%20(MNCRR)/MNCR_2012-2016_FINAL_(PUBLISHED_2019).pdf

17.

Ab Azizah

Nor

Saleha IT

Noor

Hashimah A

. Malaysian National Cancer Registry Report 2007-2011. Ministry of Health of Malaysia. Available from: https://www.crc.gov.my/wp-content/uploads/documents/report/MNCRRrepor2007-2011.pdf

18.

Shah

Neoh

H-M

Abdul

Rahim SSS

. Spatial analysis of colorectal cancer cases in Kuala Lumpur. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014;15:1149–54.

19.

Valan

Najid

Chandran

. Distinctive clinico-pathological characteristics of colorectal cancer in Sabahan indigenous populations. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev 2021;22:749–55.

20.

Winawer

. Natural history of colorectal cancer. Am J Med 1999;106:S3–6.

21.

Risio

. The natural history of adenomas. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2010;24:271–80.

22.

Ijspeert

JEG

Vermeulen

Meijer

Dekker

Serrated neoplasia-role in colorectal carcinogenesis and clinical implications. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;12:401–9.

23.

Jun

Tan

Jinyu

Detection rate of colonic polyp among patients who had undergone colonoscopy at gastroenterology unit of Serdang Hospital, Malaysia. Med J Malaysia 2019;74;20–4.

24.

Dembert

Brownstein

Keith

. Principles and practices of screening for disease. Mil Med 1988;153:16–20.

25.

US Preventive Services Task Force

Bibbins-Domingo

Grossman

. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 2016;315:2564–75.

26.

Rhodes

. Colorectal cancer screening in the UK: Joint position statement by the British Society of Gastroenterology, the Royal College of Physicians, and the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. Gut 2000;46:746–8.

27.

Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Colorectal cancer screening. Recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. CMAJ 2001;165:206–8.

28.

Sung

JJY

Lau

JYW

Youg

. Asia Pacific consensus recommendations for colorectal cancer screening. Gut 2008;57:1166–76.

29.

Demers

Stawick

Demers

Relative sensitivity of the fecal occult blood test and flexible sigmoidoscopy in detecting polyps. Prev Med 1985;14:55–62.

30.

Lieberman

Weiss

One-time screening for colorectal cancer with combined fecal. N Engl J Med 2001;345:555–60.

31.

Jensen

Corley

Quinn

. Fecal immunochemical test program performance over 4 rounds of annual screening: A retrospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2016;64:456–63.

32.

Lee

Inoue

Otani

. Colorectal cancer screening using fecal occult blood test and subsequent risk of colorectal cancer: A prospective cohort study in Japan. Cancer Detect Prev 2007;31:3–11.

33.

Ministry of Health of Malaysia. [Panduan untuk program saringan kanser kolorektal (Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening programs)].[in Malaysian]. Ministry of Health of Malaysia; 2015. Availalable from: https://www.moh.gov.my/moh/resources/Penerbitan/Rujukan/NCD/Kanser/FA_BOOKLET_FINAL.pdf

34.

Vieth

Quirke

Lambert

. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First edition – Annotations of colorectal lesions. Endoscopy 2012;44:SE131–9.

35.

American Cancer Society. Colorectal Cancer Facts & Figures 2017-2019. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/colorectalcancer-facts-and-figures/colorectal-cancer-facts-and-figures-2017-2019.pdf

36.

Vinker

Nakar

Rosenberg

Kitai

The role of family physicians in increasing annual fecal occult blood test screening coverage: A prospective intervention study. Isr Med Assoc J 2002;4:424–5.

37.

Tinmouth

. Increasing participation in colorectal cancer screening: Results from a cluster randomized trial of directly mailed gFOBT kits to previous nonresponders. Int J Cancer 2015;136:e697–703.

38.

Zarychanski

Chen

Bernstein

Hébert

. Frequency of colorectal cancer screening and the impact of family physicians on screening behaviour. CMAJ 2007;177:593–7.

39.

National Cancer Center Center for Cancer Control and Information Services. Cancer Screening Program. Tokyo: National Cancer Center. Available from: https://www.ncc.go.jp/en/index.html

40.

Choi

Lee

Jun

. Adherence to follow-up after a positive fecal occult blood test in an organized colorectal cancer screening program in Korea, 2004-2008. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;27:1070–7.

41.

Khuhaprema

Sangrajrang

Lalitwongsa

. Organised colorectal cancer screening in Lampang Province, Thailand: Preliminary results from a pilot implementation programme. BMJ Open 2014;4:e003671.

42.

Chiu

H-M

Chen

Sl-S

Yen

AM-F

. Effectiveness of fecal immunochemical testing in reducing colorectal cancer mortality from the One Million Taiwanese Screening Program. Cancer 2015;121:3221–9.

43.

Sazali

Rahim

SSA

Avoi

., Factors of never screened with faecal occult blood test in public primary care facilities. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev 2021;22:163–9.

44.

Yusoff

Daud

Noor

Rahim

. Participation and barriers to colorectal cancer screening in Malaysia. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev 2012;13:3983–7.

45.

Koo

Leong

RWL

Chung

., Knowledge of, attitudes toward, and barriers to participation of colorectal cancer screening tests in the Asia-Pacific region: A multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:126–35.

46.

Jeffree

Ahmedy

Avoi

. Integrating digital health for healthcare transformation: Conceptual model of smart healthcare for northern Borneo. Int J Adv Trends Comput Sci Eng 2020;9:17912020.

47.

Waller

Vrinten

. Social cognitive mediators of sociodemographic differences in colorectal cancer screening uptake. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:165074.

48.

Klabunde

Zheng

Quinn

. Influence of age and comorbidity on colorectal cancer screening in the elderly. Am J Prev Med 2016;51:67–75.

49.

Moss

Mathews

Day

. Increased uptake and improved outcomes of bowel cancer screening with a faecal immunochemical test: Results from a pilot study within the national screening programme in England. Gut 2017;66:1631–44.

50.

Guiriguet

Pera

Castells

. Impact of comorbid conditions on participation in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme: A cross-sectional study. BMC Cancer 2017;17:524.

51.

Clarke

Sharp

Osborne

Kearney

. Comparison of uptake of colorectal cancer screening based on fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in males and females: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2015;24:39–47.

52.

Mehta

Jensen

Quinn

. Race/ethnicity and adoption of a population health management approach to colorectal cancer screening in a community-based healthcare system. J Gen Intern Med 2016;31:1323–30.

53.

Kornfield

Vittinghoff

. Late presentation of colorectal cancer in a vulnerable population. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:466–70.

54.

El-Haddad

Dong

Kallai

KJl

. Association of marital status and colorectal cancer screening participation in the USA. Colorectal Dis 2015;17:O108–14.

55.

Hanske

Meyer

Sammon

. The influence of marital status on the use of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med 2016;89:140–5.

56.

Van Jaarsveld

CHM

Miles

Edwards

Wardle

Marriage and cancer prevention: Does marital status and inviting both spouses together influence colorectal cancer screening participation?

J Med Screen 2006;13:172–6.

57.

Berkowitz

Percac-Lima

Ashburner

. Building equity improvement into quality improvement: reducing socioeconomic disparities in colorectal cancer screening as part of population health management. J Gen Intern Med 2015;30:942–9.

58.

Calo

Vernon

Lairson

Linder

. Associations between contextual factors and colorectal cancer screening in a racially and ethnically diverse population in Texas. Cancer Epidemiol 2015;39:798–804.

59.

Suh

Choi

Lee

H-Y

. Socioeconomic disparities in colorectal cancer screening in Korea a nationwide cross-sectional study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e1368.

60.

Frederiksen

Jørgensen

Brasso

. Socioeconomic position and participation in colorectal cancer screening. Br J Cancer 2010;103:1496–501.

61.

Deding

Henig

Salling

. Sociodemographic predictors of participation in colorectal cancer screening. Int J Colorectal Dis 2017;32:1117–24.

62.

Burgard

Brand

House

. Perceived job insecurity and worker health in the United States. Soc Sci Med 2009;69:777–85.

63.

Juon

Han

Shin

. Predictors of older Korean Americans’ participation in colorectal cancer screening. J Cancer Educ 2003;18;37–42.

64.

von Wagner

Cadar

Hackett

. Type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer screening: Findings from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing,” J Med Screen 2020;27:25–30.

65.

Rocque

Williams

Miller

. Impact of travel time on healthcare costs and resource utilization by phase of care for older cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:1935–45.

66.

Kelly

Hulme

Farragher

Clarke

Are differences in travel time or distance to healthcare for adults in global north countries associated with an impact on health outcomes? A systematic review. BMJ Open 2016;6:e013059.

67.

Yong

Ong

Koh

GCH

. Colorectal cancer screening: Barriers to the faecal occult blood test (FOBT) and colonoscopy in Singapore. Proc Singapore Healthcare 2016;25:207–14.

68.

Guerra

Schwartz

Armstrong

. Barriers of and facilitators to physician recommendation of colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22:1681–8.

69.

Tessaro

Mangone

ParkarI

Pawar V

. Knowledge, barriers, and predictors of colorectal cancer screening in an Appalachian church population. Prev Chronic Dis 2006;3: A123.

70.

Harmy

Norwati

Noor

Amry

. Knowledge and attitude of colorectal cancer screening among moderate risk patients in West Malaysia. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev 2011;12:1957–60.

71.

Post

Katz

Tatum

. Determinants of colorectal cancer screening in primary care. J Cancer Educ 2008;23:241–7.

72.

Scottish Government Social Research Group. Guide 4: Understanding and measuring attitudes. Scottish Government; 2007. Available from: https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2009/12/social-research-methods-guides/documents/measuringand-understanding-attitudes/measuring-and-understandingattitudes/govscot%3Adocument/Measuring%2Band%2BUnderstanding%2BAttitudes.pdf

73.

Cullati

Charvet-Bérard

Perneger

. Cancer screening in a middle-aged general population: Factors associated with practices and attitudes. BMC Public Health 2009;9:118.

Colorectal Cancer and Potential Predictors of Never Screened for Faecal Occult Blood Test: A Narrative Review

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Global situation of colorectal cancer

CRC situation in South East Asia and Malaysia

Natural history and adenoma-adenocarcinoma sequence

Screening and CRC precancerous lesion

CRC screening recommendations

Uptake of CRC screening

Potential predictors of CRC screening uptake

Sociodemographic factors

Education level

Household income

Employment status

Interval visits to doctor for routine check-up

Comorbidities

Distance from clinic to house

Barriers of CRC screening participation

Knowledge of CRC and screening

Attitude towards CRC screening

Conclusions

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

References