Health Evidence™, profile picture
Uploaded byHealth Evidence™
PPT, PDF1,955 views

Colorectal screening evidence & colonoscopy screening guidelines

The document discusses colorectal cancer screening guidelines intended for professional development, focusing on recommendations for screening asymptomatic adults aged 50 and older. It outlines evidence supporting screening methods, the effectiveness and risks of various tests, and emphasizes the importance of informed decision-making by practitioners and patients. Additionally, it highlights the role of systematic reviews in guiding these recommendations while providing resources for further information.

Embed presentation

Downloaded 20 times
Welcome! Colorectal screening evidence & Colonoscopy screening guidelines You will be placed on hold until the webinar begins. The webinar will begin shortly, please remain on the line.
Poll Questions: Consent • Participation in the webinar poll questions is voluntary • Names are not recorded and persons will not be identified in any way • Participation in the anonymous polling questions is accepted as an indication of your consent to participate Benefits: • Results inform improvement of the current and future webinars • Enable engagement; stimulate discussion. This session is intended for professional development. Some data may be used for program evaluation and research purposes (e.g., exploring opinion change) • Results may also be used to inform the production of systematic reviews and overviews Risks: None beyond day-to-day living
After Today • The PowerPoint presentation and audio recording will be made available • These resources are available at: – PowerPoint: http:// www.slideshare.net/HealthEvidence – Audio Recording: https://www.youtube.com/user/healthevidence/vide 3
What’s the evidence for the guidelines? Review evidence: Fitzpatrick-Lewis, D., Usman, A., Warren, R., Kenny, M., Rice, M., Bayer, A., Ciliska, D., Sherifali, D., Raina, P. Screening for colorectal cancer. Ottawa: Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care; 2015. Available: www.canadiantaskforce.ca/ ctf phc-guidelines/2015- colorectal-cancer/systematic-review Screening guidelines: Bacchus, C. M., Dunfield, L., Gorber, S. C., Holmes, N. M., Birtwhistle, R., Dickinson, J. A., Lewin, G., Singh, H., Klarenbach, S., Mai, V., Tonelli, M. (2016). Recommendations on screening for colorectal cancer in primary care. Canadian Medical Association Journal, cmaj- 151125.
Poll Question #1 What sector are you from? A. Public Health Practitioner B. Health Practitioner (Other) C. Education D. Research E. Provincial/Territorial/Government/Ministry/Munici pality F. Policy Analyst (NGO, etc.) G. Other 5
• Use Q&A or CHAT to post comments / questions during the webinar – ‘Send’ questions to All Panelists (not privately to ‘Host’) • Connection issues – Recommend using a wired Internet connection (vs. wireless), • WebEx 24/7 help line – 1-866-229-3239 Participant Side Panel in WebEx Housekeeping
Housekeeping (cont’d) • Audio – Listen through your speakers – Go to ‘Communicate > Audio Connection’ • WebEx 24/7 help line – 1-866-229-3239
Poll Question #2 How many people are watching today’s session with you? A.Just me B.2-3 C.4-5 D.6-10 E.>10
The Health Evidence™ Team Maureen Dobbins Scientific Director Heather Husson Manager Susannah Watson Project Coordinator Students: Emily Belita (PhD candidate) Jennifer Yost Assistant Professor Olivia Marquez Research Coordinator Emily Sully Research Assistant Liz Kamler Research Assistant Zhi (Vivian) Chen Research Assistant Research Assistants: Marco Cheung Lina Sherazy Claire Howarth Rawan Farran
What is www.healthevidence.org? Evidence Decision Making inform
Why use www.healthevidence.org? 1. Saves you time 2. Relevant & current evidence 3. Transparent process 4. Supports for EIDM available 5. Easy to use
A Model for Evidence- Informed Decision Making National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (revised 2012). A Model for Evidence-Informed Decision-Making in Public Health (Fact Sheet). [http://www.nccmt.ca/pubs/FactSheet_EIDM_EN_WEB.pdf]
Stages in the process of Evidence- Informed Public Health National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. Evidence-Informed Public Health. [http://www.nccmt.ca/eiph/index-eng.html]
Poll Question #3 Have you heard of PICO(S) before? A.Yes B.No
Searchable Questions Think “PICOS” 1. Population (situation) 2. Intervention (exposure) 3. Comparison (other group) 4. Outcomes 5. Setting
How often do you use Systematic Reviews to inform a program/services? A.Always B.Often C.Sometimes D.Never E.I don’t know what a systematic review is Poll Question #4
Maria Bacchus Associate Professor of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine University of Calgary, and member of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care Donna Fitzpatrick-Lewis MSW, Senior Research Coordinator at the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP)
Putting Prevention into Practice Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care Groupe d’étude canadien sur les soins de santé préventifs Recommendations on Screening for Colorectal Cancer 2016 Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC)
CTFPHC Working Group Members 19 *non-voting member
Overview of Presentation • Background on Colorectal Cancer • Methods of the CTFPHC • Recommendations and Key Findings • Implement our Recommendations • Conclusions • Questions and Answers 20
Background – Canadian perspective • Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer mortality in men and the third most common in women with a current lifetime probability of dying from this disease of 3.5% and 3.1% respectively • The incidence and mortality of CRC are low until middle age, and rise rapidly thereafter • It is estimated that 25,000 Canadians were diagnosed with CRC in 2015 and 9,300 died from the disease • Most CRCs appear to arise from colonic polyps that develop slowly, some of which transform to cancers • CRC screening programs aim to reduce deaths by detecting and removing polyps and/or early stage CRCs 21
Background - Guideline Objectives • The purpose of this guideline is to present recommendations for screening for CRC in asymptomatic adults aged 50 and older who are not at high risk for CRC and to update previous CTFPHC recommendations (2001) • This guideline provides guidance for primary care practitioners on different screening tests, screening intervals and recommended ages to start and stop screening • These guidelines do not apply to those with previous CRC or polyps, inflammatory bowel disease, signs or symptoms of CRC, history of CRC in one or more first degree relatives, or adults with hereditary syndromes predisposing to CRC such as familial adenomatous polyposis or Lynch Syndrome 22
Screening Tests for Colorectal Cancer • Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) – Tests include guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) – The patient provides a stool sample that will be tested for blood that cannot be seen with the naked eye • Endoscopies – Tests include flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopies – A long flexible tube with a light and camera attached is inserted into the anus, rectum, and lower colon of the patient to look for polyps – Before this procedure, patients will need to cleanse their bowels with enemas or laxatives 23
Methods of the CTFPHC • Independent panel of: – Clinicians and methodologists – Expertise in prevention, primary care, literature synthesis, and critical appraisal – Application of evidence to practice and policy • Colorectal Cancer Working Group – 7 Task Force members – Establish research questions and analytical framework 24
Methods of the CTFPHC • McMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Centre (MERSC) – Undertook a systematic review of the literature based on the analytical framework – Prepared a systematic review of the evidence with GRADE tables – Participated in working group and task force meetings – Obtained expert opinions 25
CTFPHC Review Process • Internal review process involving guideline working group, Task Force, scientific officers and ERSC staff • External review process involving key stakeholders – Generalist and disease specific stakeholders – Federal and P/T stakeholders, also occurred • Finally, the CMAJ undertook an independent peer review journal process to review guidelines 26
Analytical Framework 27 Mortality (all-cause and cancer mortality); Incidence of late stage colorectal cancer Screening Harms of screening (complications of the test or follow-up; false positive; false negative; overdiagnosis) 3 12 Asymptomatic adults not at high risk for colorectal cancer
Research Questions • What is the effectiveness of each colorectal cancer screening test to reduce colorectal cancer- specific mortality, all-cause mortality, or incidence of late stage colorectal cancer in asymptomatic adults who are not at high risk for colorectal cancer? – What is the optimal age to start and stop screening and the optimal screening interval of asymptomatic adults not at high risk for colorectal cancer? – What is the evidence that the clinical benefits of screening differ for the various screening tests, or by subgroups that may influence the underlying risk of colorectal cancer? • What is the incidence of harms of screening for colorectal cancer in adults not at high risk for colorectal cancer? What is the evidence that the harms of screening differ for the various screening tests or by subgroups that may influence the underlying risk of colorectal cancer? • Screening tests include colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography, gFOBT, FIT, fecal DNA testing, and other screening tests currently in use identified in the literature search • Populations at high risk of colorectal cancer (Table 1) will be excluded, such as those with prior colorectal cancer or polyps, signs/symptoms suggesting underlying colorectal cancer, familial adenomatous polyposis, or hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer.
P Asymptomatic adults 18 years and older who are not at high risk of colorectal cancer I Screening with colonoscopy, CT colonography, gFOBT, iFOBT, FS, BE, DRE, fecal DNA, serum DNA, other identified tests currently being used for screening in Canada C • No screening • Head to head – two tests compared with each other O Mortality (all-cause and colorectal cancer-specific) Incidence of late stage colorectal cancer (stage III or IV; or Duke’s C or D) Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive value for detection of any stage colorectal cancer for those tests with evidence for screening effectiveness Harms: complications (bleeding [not requiring hospitalization and requiring hospitalization], perforation, death) of the test or follow-up test, false positive, false negative, overdiagnosis S Primary care, including referrals for tests by primary care practitioners
Search Results Search Yielded Included Benefits Test Properties Adverse Events 13,260 citations 9 37 46
Analysis Overview • Risk of Bias assessment was done on all included RCTs for effectiveness of screening • Benefits of CRC screening – number of events, proportion or percentage data from included RCTs were used to generate summary measures of effect in form of risk ratio • Harms of CRC screening and f/u tests – rates/proportions along with 95% confidence intervals across studies were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects models with inverse variance method to generate summary measures of effect • Test Properties - Positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, specificity and likelihood rations were pooled descriptively using median with range approach • Primary subgrouping for benefits, harms and test properties was screening method • Strength of evidence assessed with GRADE
Risk of Bias Assessment of Included RCTs Study Sequence Generation Allocation Concealment Blinding of Outcome Assessors Incomplete Reporting Selective Reporting Other Bias* Scholefield 2012 U U L L L U Schoen 2012 L U U U L H Segnan 2011 L U L H L U Atkin 2010 L U L L L U Hoff 2009 L U L L L L Lindholm 2008 U U L H L U Kronborg 2004 L U L H L U Zheng 2003 L U L U L U Shaukat 2013 U U L U L U
Key Findings - Benefits of Screening Outcome gFOBT iFOBT Flexible Sigmoidoscopy CRC-specific mortality Meta-analysis of 4 moderate quality RCTs of screening with gFOBT on CRC-specific mortality found a RR 0.82 (95%CI, 0.73, 0.92, I2 =67%), with an Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) 2,654/million (1,128-4,010 fewer) One moderate quality RCT found that screening with iFOBT had a non-significant impact on CRC mortality RR 0.88 (95%CI, 0.72, 1.07) Meta-analysis of primary screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy showed a relative reduction of 28% in CRC specific mortality with a pooled RR of 0.72 (95% CI; 0.65, 0.81, I2=0%) and an ARR of 1,176 per million (95% CI; 830 to 1,486 fewer) All-cause mortality Screening with gFOBT did not reduce all-cause mortality RR 1.00 (95% CI, 1.00-1.00, I2=0%). No data RR 0.99 (0.97, 1.01, I2 =35%) Incidence of late stage CRC Screening with gFOBT reduced late stage CRC by 8% RR 0.92 (95%CI, 0.85-0.99, I2 =0%) No data RR 0.75 (95%CI, 0.66- 0.86, I2=23%); ARR 1,733/million (1,011, 2,368 fewer)
Key Findings – Test Properties Outcome gFOBT iFOBT Median sensitivity 47.1% (range 12.9%-75.0%) 81.5% (range 53.3%-100%) Median specificity 96.1% (range 90.1%-98.1%) 95.0% (range 87.2%-96.9%) Median PPV 7.5% (1.5%-15%) 7.35% (range 4.0%-10.8%) Mean NPV 99.55% (range 99.5%-99.6%) 100% (range 99.7%-100%) Number needed to screen (NNS) 597 (range 239-936) 209 (range 41-430)
Key Findings – Adverse Events • Greater potential for harms with flexible sigmoidoscopy (perforation, bleeding (both major and minor) and death) • Few harms associated with gFOBT (non-invasive); false- positive proportions are low and there are few false-negatives • False-negatives of iFOBT can lead to unnecessary additional follow-up tests, such as colonoscopy, which can result in other harms (bleeding, infection and on the rare occasion death) • No RCTS found on harms of barium enema or fecal DNA tests
Contextual Question – Preferences and Values for Screening for Colorectal Cancer • 3 reviews and 20 primary studies were found • Screening tests of focus included FOBT, computed tomography colonoscopy, and flexible sigmoidoscopy • A survey conducted by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer with Canadians aged 45-74 years revealed that the majority of respondents agreed that CRC and early treatment is important; people were aware of screening but not of the specifics of screening; most people indicated colonoscopy as being the primary test and few knew of FOBT. Results implied that lack of education and not embarrassment is a bigger barrier to screening • Another Canadian study with 40 to 60 year olds in a primary care setting revealed that 29% of participants preferred no screening; preferred test attributes included non- invasive procedures, no preparation, no pain, 100% specificity and 90% sensitivity • A US study explored decision priorities for patients in primary care; highest priority was preventing cancer (55%), avoiding test side effects (17%), minimizing false positives (15%), and combined priority of screening frequency, test preparation, and test procedures (14%)
How is Evidence Graded? The “GRADE” System: • Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development & Evaluation What are we grading? 1. Quality of Evidence – Degree of confidence that the available evidence correctly reflects the theoretical true effect of the intervention or service. – high, moderate, low, very low 2. Strength of Recommendation – Quality of evidence; the balance between desirable and undesirable effects; the variability or uncertainty in values and preferences of citizens; and whether or not the intervention represents a wise use of resources. – strong and weak 37
Strength of Recommendations The strength of the recommendations (strong or weak) are based on four factors: •Quality of supporting evidence •Certainty about the balance between desirable and undesirable effects •Certainty / variability in values and preferences of individuals •Certainty about whether the intervention represents a wise use of resources 38
Interpretation of Recommendations Implications Strong Recommendation Weak Recommendations For patients • Most individuals would want the recommended course of action; • only a small proportion would not. • The majority of individuals in this situation would want the suggested course of action but many would not. For clinicians • Most individuals should receive the intervention. • Recognize that different choices will be appropriate for individual patients; • Clinicians must help patients make management decisions consistent with values and preferences. For policy makers • The recommendation can be adapted as policy in most situations. • Policy making will require substantial debate and involvement of various stakeholders. 39
RECOMMENDATIONS & KEY FINDINGS Screening for Colorectal Cancer 40
Summary of Key Findings Screening tool Age Risk Ratio CRC Mortality 95% CI Incidence of late stage CRC 95% CI FOBT ( 4 RCT MA) 45-80 0.82 0.73-0.92 0.92 0.85-0.99 FS (pooled analysis, 4 RCTs) 55-74 0.72 0.65-0.81 0.75 0.66–0.86 41 No RCTs have reported on the mortality benefits of screening colonoscopy, CT colonography, barium enema, DRE or fecal DNA testing No screening test reduced all cause mortality
Colorectal Cancer 2015 Guidelines • Provide recommendations for practitioners on preventive health screening in a primary care setting: • These recommendations apply to adults 50 years and over who are not at high risk for CRC • These recommendations do not apply to adults with: – Previous CRC or polyps – Inflammatory bowel disease – Signs or symptoms of CRC – History of CRC in one or more first degree relatives – Hereditary syndromes predisposing to CRC, such as familial adenomatous polyposis or Lynch Syndrome 42
FOBT or FlexSig Screening Recommendation 1: We recommend screening adults aged 60 to 74 for CRC with FOBT (either gFOBT or FIT) every two years OR flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years. •Strong recommendation; moderate quality evidence Recommendation 2: We recommend screening adults aged 50 to 59 for colorectal cancer (CRC) with FOBT (gFOBT or FIT) every two years OR flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years. •Weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence 43
FOBT or Flex Sig Screening: Ages 50-74 Basis of the recommendation: •In the judgment of the CTFPHC, FOBT and flexible sigmoidoscopy are both reasonable screening tests for patients aged 50-74 years based on RCT evidence. •Splitting this recommendation for screening into two age groups places a relatively higher value on the different balance of benefits to harms by age, and a relatively lower value on the added complexity of two recommendations rather than one. •Although the relative benefits are similar for older (60-74) and younger (50-59) age groups, the absolute benefits are smaller in those 50-59 due to the lower incidence. This warrants a weak recommendation to screen in those aged 50-59 as compared to the strong recommendation for people aged 60-74 years. 44
Not Screening Adults Aged 74+ Recommendation 3: We recommend not screening adults aged 75 years and over for colorectal cancer (CRC). •Weak recommendation; low quality evidence Basis of the recommendation: •Lack of RCT data on benefits of screening in this age group (varied, but upper ages included were 64 years, 74 years, 75 years, and 80 years for gFOBT and 64 years and 74 years for flexible sigmoidoscopy). •Reduced life expectancy in older age groups •Adults over 74 years of age who are healthy (with longer life expectancy) and are less concerned with the lack of reported benefit or the potential harms may choose to be screened. 45
Not Screening Using Colonoscopy Recommendation 4: We recommend not using colonoscopy as a screening test for colorectal cancer (CRC). •Weak recommendation; low quality evidence Basis of the recommendation: •Although colonoscopy may offer clinical benefits that are similar to or greater than those associated with flexible sigmoidoscopy, direct RCT evidence of its efficacy in comparison to the other screening tests (in particular FIT) is currently lacking. •In addition to a lack of evidence, there are also issues related to wait lists, resource constraints and a greater potential for harms. •Patients who are less concerned about the potential harms of colonoscopy and/or who are more interested in a test that allows a longer screening interval may still request screening with colonoscopy. 46
NNS for CRC Mortality by Age- Groups with Varying Underlying Baseline Risk Outcome Screening test Age Group (years) ARR NNS LL-NNS UL-NNS CRC Mortality Biennial gFOBT < 60 (45 to 59) 0.0377% 2655 1757 6244 CRC Mortality Biennial gFOBT ≥ 60 (60 to 80) 0.2032% 492 326 1157 CRC Mortality Flex Sigmoidoscopy < 60 (45 to 59) 0.0540% 1853 1441 2713 CRC Mortality Flex Sigmoidoscopy ≥ 60 (60 to 80) 0.2912% 343 267 503 47
Harms of Screening • No high quality studies evaluating the harms of screening for colorectal cancer • Possible harms related to screening include: – Death – Perforation – Bleeding (with or without hospitalization) – False-positive or false-negative – Over-diagnosis 48
49 • Our recommendations are consistent with the previous 2001 CTFPHC guideline • Provincial screening programs recommend screening with FOBT (the majority recommend FIT) every 1-2 years • No province currently recommends screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy • The USPSTF published recommendations in 2008 (currently being updated),and recommended either FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy Comparison of Screening for Colorectal Cancer Recommendations
Comparison: CTFPHC guideline vs. USPSTF draft guideline GUIDELINE CTFPHC (2015) USPSTF DRAFT (2015) AGE GROUPS & RECOMMENDATIONS 50-59 YEARS SCREEN (WEAK) 50-75 YEARS SCREEN - Grade A 60-74 YEARS SCREEN (STRONG) SCREEN - Grade A > 75 YEARS DO NOT SCREEN (WEAK) 76-80 YEARS SCREEN - Grade C CRC SCREENING MODALITIES & INTERVALS gFOBT or FIT Every 2 years gFOBT or FIT Every year Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Every 10 years Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Every 10 years plus FIT every year Colonoscopy Do not recommend Colonoscopy Every 10 years
Implementation - Resources • We expect that most Canadians will be screened with either FIT or gFOBT due to limited access to and availability of flexible sigmoidoscopy • Although flexible sigmoidoscopy is not frequently performed for screening in many jurisdictions, it may warrant further consideration as it can be completed in the same facilities as colonoscopy and using similar equipment, but without the requirement of a specialist such as a gastroenterologist • Screening programs would need to consider the implications of establishing screening facilities such as training of providers, the bowel preparation required by patients and the resources needed for flexible sigmoidoscopy as compared to FOBT 51
Values and Preferences of CRC Screening • A Canadian survey on screening test preferences indicated that invasiveness, level of preparation required and pain from the test were concerns. • A US study rated patient priorities as preventing cancer (55%), avoiding test side effects (17%), minimizing false positives (15%) and the combination of screening frequency, test preparation and test procedures (14%). • When patients have the option of screening tests, sedation needs, perceived test accuracy, confidence in completing the test, bowel preparation and frequency of tests may influence decision. 52
Knowledge Translation Tools • The CTFPHC creates KT tools to support the implementation of guidelines into clinical practice • A clinician recommendation table and patient FAQ have been developed for the colorectal cancer guideline • These tools are freely available for download in both French and English on the website: www.canadiantaskforce.ca 53
Conclusions • The CTFPHC recommends that starting at age 50 age, primary care providers should discuss the most appropriate choice of test with patients who are interested in screening • Screening for CRC with FOBT or flexible sigmoidoscopy reduces CRC mortality and the direct harms associated with these tests are minimal • The strong recommendation to screen adults aged 60-74 years with gFOBT, FIT or flexible sigmoidoscopy indicates that primary care providers should offer this service to all individuals in this age group 54
Conclusions • The weak recommendation to screen adults aged 50-59 years with gFOBT, FIT or flexible sigmoidoscopy indicates that a more nuanced discussion of the harms and benefits will be required • Starting at age 75, primary care providers should discuss individual screening preferences • The CTFPHC recommends not using colonoscopy as a screening tool at this time based on the lack of high quality RCT data. Four trials are currently underway investigating the mortality benefit of screening with colonoscopy. These will be considered by the CTFPHC as the results become available. 55
Update: CTFPHC Mobile App Now Available • The app contains guideline and recommendation summaries, knowledge translation tools, and links to additional resources. • Key features include the ability to bookmark sections for easy access, display content in either English or French, and change the font size of text. 56
Take Home Messages • CRC is a common cause of cancer mortality • We can reduce mortality from CRC – screening with FOBT and Flexible sigmoidoscopy have been shown to decrease mortality from CRC in those aged 50-74 • Individuals over the age of 50 should discuss screening for CRC with their primary care providers • Patient values and preferences, test availability and life expectancy should be considered in determining the best screening options for individuals 57
Update: CTFPHC on Social Media • The CTFPHC is venturing into social media! • A Twitter policy and strategy is currently being developed • Please check the CTFPHC website for updates: http://canadiantaskforce.ca/ 58
More Information For more information on the details of this guideline please see: • Canadian Task Force for Preventive Health Care website: http://canadiantaskforce.ca/?content=pcp 59
Questions?
Poll Question #5 The information presented today was helpful A.Strongly agree B.Agree C.Neutral D.Disagree E.Strongly disagree
A Model for Evidence- Informed Decision Making National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (revised 2012). A Model for Evidence-Informed Decision-Making in Public Health (Fact Sheet). [http://www.nccmt.ca/pubs/FactSheet_EIDM_EN_WEB.pdf]
Poll Question #6 What are your next steps? A.Access the full text systematic review and screening guidelines B.Access the quality assessment for the review on www.healthevidence.org C.Consider using the evidence / recommendations D.Tell a colleague about the evidence / recommendations
What can I do now? Visit the website; a repository of over 4,600 quality-rated systematic reviews related to the effectiveness of public health interventions. Health Evidence™ is FREE to use. Register to receive monthly tailored registry updates AND monthly newsletter to keep you up to date on upcoming events and public health news. Tell your colleagues about Health Evidence™: helping you use best evidence to inform public health practice, program planning, and policy decisions! Follow us @Health Evidence on Twitter and receive daily public health review- related Tweets, receive information about our monthly webinars, as well as announcements and events relevant to public health. Encourage your organization to use Health Evidence™ to search for and apply quality-rated review level evidence to inform program planning and policy decisions. Contact us to suggest topics or provide feedback. info@healthevidence.org
Thank you! Contact us: info@healthevidence.org For a copy of the presentation please visit: http://www.healthevidence.org/webinars.aspx Login with your Health Evidence username and password, or register if you aren’t a member yet.
FOBT & FLEX Sigmoidoscopy Screening Intervals • CTFPHC selected a 2 year screening interval for FOBT (gFOBT and FIT) as this was the interval most commonly used in gFOBT RCTs – RCT data showed no significant difference found between annual and biennial screening on CRC specific mortality • CTFPHC selected a 10 years screening interval for Flex Sig. based on three factors: – Data show a reduction in CRC mortality and incidence until 11 years of follow-up – RCT data show beneficial effects of screening are maintained over follow-up period – Observational data show mortality benefits last for at least 10-15 years
Research Gaps • Trials investigating mortality benefit of CRC screening are underway: Northern European Initiative on CRC (2026); Screening of Swedish COlons (2034); Barcelona (2021); and CONFIRM (2025). • Trials demonstrating a mortality benefit of colonoscopy, fecal DNA assays, and other tests are needed before they can be recommended for population-based screening. • Research about how to increase access to colonoscopy in Canada would be useful to inform population-based screening with this test. 67
Research Gaps • More data are needed on effectiveness of FIT in all age groups, on all screening tests in populations aged less than 60 years or older than 74 years and on the impact of screening on overdiagnosis and overtreatment-monitoring for these harmful outcomes at a national level is recommended to address this research gap. 68

More Related Content

PPTX
Hepatocellular carcinoma
byDr. MD. Majedul Islam
 
PPTX
Principles of surgical oncology
byChea Chan Hooi
 
PPTX
Colon cancer
byDr. Valluri Mukesh
 
PPTX
Management of Gall Bladder Polyps
byDr Amit Dangi
 
PPTX
Pancreatic Cancer.pptx
byKiran Ramakrishna
 
PPTX
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS)
byMohammed Fathy
 
PPTX
Cancer colon
byNoha El Baghdady
 
PPT
Metastatic liver disease (2)
bymostafa hegazy
 
Hepatocellular carcinoma
byDr. MD. Majedul Islam
 
Principles of surgical oncology
byChea Chan Hooi
 
Colon cancer
byDr. Valluri Mukesh
 
Management of Gall Bladder Polyps
byDr Amit Dangi
 
Pancreatic Cancer.pptx
byKiran Ramakrishna
 
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS)
byMohammed Fathy
 
Cancer colon
byNoha El Baghdady
 
Metastatic liver disease (2)
bymostafa hegazy
 

What's hot

PPTX
Liver Tumors
byISWANTO SUCANDY, M.D, F.A.C.S
 
PPTX
Neuroendocrine Tumors in 2019
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPT
periampullary carcinoma
byGauri Kulkarni
 
PPTX
Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC): Updated Treatment Approaches in advanced case
bySumitKumar452
 
PPTX
Hepatocellular carcinoma
byJibran Mohsin
 
PPT
L29 hepatocellular carcinoma
byMohammad Manzoor
 
PPTX
Carcinoid tumors
byNilesh Kucha
 
PPTX
CHOLANGIOCARCINOMA
byShambhavi Sharma
 
PPTX
Colorectal cancer
byDhaval Mangukiya
 
PPTX
Cholangiocarcinoma
byVinod Badavath
 
PPTX
DCIS Breast Cancer
byRobert J Miller MD
 
PPTX
Management of Advances Hepatocellular Carcinoma
byPratap Tiwari
 
PPTX
Primary sclerosing cholangitis.drquiyum
byMD Quiyumm
 
PPTX
Endocrine tumors of pancreas
byJibran Mohsin
 
PPTX
Early gastric cancer
bydguin111
 
PPTX
Cholangiocarcinoma
byPratap Tiwari
 
PPTX
Colonic neoplastic polyps
bySantosh Narayankar
 
PPTX
The Diabetes - Cancer Connection
bySummit Health
 
PPTX
Budd chiari syndrome. ppt
byDr Amit Dangi
 
PPT
Treatment of advanced metastatic prostate cancer
byCatherine Holborn
 
Liver Tumors
byISWANTO SUCANDY, M.D, F.A.C.S
 
Neuroendocrine Tumors in 2019
byMohamed Abdulla
 
periampullary carcinoma
byGauri Kulkarni
 
Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC): Updated Treatment Approaches in advanced case
bySumitKumar452
 
Hepatocellular carcinoma
byJibran Mohsin
 
L29 hepatocellular carcinoma
byMohammad Manzoor
 
Carcinoid tumors
byNilesh Kucha
 
CHOLANGIOCARCINOMA
byShambhavi Sharma
 
Colorectal cancer
byDhaval Mangukiya
 
Cholangiocarcinoma
byVinod Badavath
 
DCIS Breast Cancer
byRobert J Miller MD
 
Management of Advances Hepatocellular Carcinoma
byPratap Tiwari
 
Primary sclerosing cholangitis.drquiyum
byMD Quiyumm
 
Endocrine tumors of pancreas
byJibran Mohsin
 
Early gastric cancer
bydguin111
 
Cholangiocarcinoma
byPratap Tiwari
 
Colonic neoplastic polyps
bySantosh Narayankar
 
The Diabetes - Cancer Connection
bySummit Health
 
Budd chiari syndrome. ppt
byDr Amit Dangi
 
Treatment of advanced metastatic prostate cancer
byCatherine Holborn
 

Viewers also liked

PPTX
Interventions for preventing elder abuse: What's the evidence?
byHealth Evidence™
 
PDF
Community engagement in public health interventions for disadvantaged groups:...
byHealth Evidence™
 
PPT
Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: What's the evidence?
byHealth Evidence™
 
PPT
Reducing saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease: What's the evidence?
byHealth Evidence™
 
PPT
Health-related effects of government tobacco control policies: What's the evi...
byHealth Evidence™
 
PPT
Interventions with potential to reduce sedentary time in adults: What's the e...
byHealth Evidence™
 
PPT
Food supplementation programmes for improving the health of socio-economicall...
byHealth Evidence™
 
PDF
Case studies on economic appraisal of adaptation options in some countries
byNAP Events
 
PPT
Daily oral iron supplementation during pregnancy: What's the evidence?
byHealth Evidence™
 
PPT
Réduire la consommation de gras saturé pour les maladies cardiovasculaires : ...
byHealth Evidence™
 
PDF
School-based interventions to prevent HIV, STIs & adolescent pregnancy: What'...
byHealth Evidence™
 
PPT
Exercise programs for people with dementia: What's the evidence?
byHealth Evidence™
 
PDF
Les interventions dirigées par des pairs pour éviter la consommation de tabac...
byHealth Evidence™
 
PPT
Les cigarettes électroniques pour la cessation tabagique : quelles sont les d...
byHealth Evidence™
 
PDF
Understanding the Screening Options from the new USPSTF Colorectal Cancer Scr...
byRyan Kerr
 
PDF
Colorectal Cancer Screening - What does the evidence really say?
byJarrod Lee
 
PDF
Colorectal cancer screening
byangel4567
 
PDF
ASCO Review 2016 Colorectal Cancer
byOSUCCC - James
 
PPTX
Colon cancer
byDr. Anees Alyafei
 
PPTX
Acute pancreatitis
byAtit Ghoda
 
Interventions for preventing elder abuse: What's the evidence?
byHealth Evidence™
 
Community engagement in public health interventions for disadvantaged groups:...
byHealth Evidence™
 
Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: What's the evidence?
byHealth Evidence™
 
Reducing saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease: What's the evidence?
byHealth Evidence™
 
Health-related effects of government tobacco control policies: What's the evi...
byHealth Evidence™
 
Interventions with potential to reduce sedentary time in adults: What's the e...
byHealth Evidence™
 
Food supplementation programmes for improving the health of socio-economicall...
byHealth Evidence™
 
Case studies on economic appraisal of adaptation options in some countries
byNAP Events
 
Daily oral iron supplementation during pregnancy: What's the evidence?
byHealth Evidence™
 
Réduire la consommation de gras saturé pour les maladies cardiovasculaires : ...
byHealth Evidence™
 
School-based interventions to prevent HIV, STIs & adolescent pregnancy: What'...
byHealth Evidence™
 
Exercise programs for people with dementia: What's the evidence?
byHealth Evidence™
 
Les interventions dirigées par des pairs pour éviter la consommation de tabac...
byHealth Evidence™
 
Les cigarettes électroniques pour la cessation tabagique : quelles sont les d...
byHealth Evidence™
 
Understanding the Screening Options from the new USPSTF Colorectal Cancer Scr...
byRyan Kerr
 
Colorectal Cancer Screening - What does the evidence really say?
byJarrod Lee
 
Colorectal cancer screening
byangel4567
 
ASCO Review 2016 Colorectal Cancer
byOSUCCC - James
 
Colon cancer
byDr. Anees Alyafei
 
Acute pancreatitis
byAtit Ghoda
 

Similar to Colorectal screening evidence & colonoscopy screening guidelines

PPT
Colorectal Carcinoma PowerPoint presentation
byihsankhan144307
 
PDF
Colorectal Cancer Screening Trends in the U.S.
byFight Colorectal Cancer
 
PPTX
Screening for colorectal cancer AAU.pptx
bytadehabte
 
DOCX
I need a response for the 2 peers belowMany disorders, es
bykarinorchard1
 
PPTX
A powerpoint on colorectal cancer with brief background
bylilmiceman
 
PPTX
Colorectal Cancer: Putting Prevention into Practice
bylearfieldinteraction
 
PPT
MCC 2011 - Slide 18
byEuropean School of Oncology
 
PDF
Global Medical Cures™ | COLORECTAL CANCER TESTS SAVE LIVES
byGlobal Medical Cures™
 
PPTX
CRC SCREENING.pptx
byTnhPhmThin
 
DOCX
Dissertation%20final
byHelena Fox
 
PPTX
CRC Screening Recommendations Download.pptx
byCarlosRodrguezSantil
 
PPT
Endoscopy in Gastrointestinal Oncology - Slide 15 - D. Fisher - Colorectal ca...
byEuropean School of Oncology
 
PPTX
Screening and prevention strategies of colorectal cancer
byNoraAziz11
 
PPTX
Cancer screening ppt.
byGaurav Kumar
 
PPTX
An Evidence-Based Approach to Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening in Average-Ri...
byZach Jarou
 
PDF
colorectalcancesample and diagnosis and treatment
byAshwaniMaurya32
 
PPTX
Crc talk for residents 2019
byVirginia Mason Internal Medicine Residency
 
PPTX
colorectal carcinoma seminar.pptx
byasiangastroentrology
 
PDF
ROI of Colorectal Cancer Screening - Colorado Cancer Coalition - Colorado Bus...
byRyan Kerr
 
PDF
COLON CANCER- An Evidence based management
bySagarLande3
 
Colorectal Carcinoma PowerPoint presentation
byihsankhan144307
 
Colorectal Cancer Screening Trends in the U.S.
byFight Colorectal Cancer
 
Screening for colorectal cancer AAU.pptx
bytadehabte
 
I need a response for the 2 peers belowMany disorders, es
bykarinorchard1
 
A powerpoint on colorectal cancer with brief background
bylilmiceman
 
Colorectal Cancer: Putting Prevention into Practice
bylearfieldinteraction
 
MCC 2011 - Slide 18
byEuropean School of Oncology
 
Global Medical Cures™ | COLORECTAL CANCER TESTS SAVE LIVES
byGlobal Medical Cures™
 
CRC SCREENING.pptx
byTnhPhmThin
 
Dissertation%20final
byHelena Fox
 
CRC Screening Recommendations Download.pptx
byCarlosRodrguezSantil
 
Endoscopy in Gastrointestinal Oncology - Slide 15 - D. Fisher - Colorectal ca...
byEuropean School of Oncology
 
Screening and prevention strategies of colorectal cancer
byNoraAziz11
 
Cancer screening ppt.
byGaurav Kumar
 
An Evidence-Based Approach to Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening in Average-Ri...
byZach Jarou
 
colorectalcancesample and diagnosis and treatment
byAshwaniMaurya32
 
Crc talk for residents 2019
byVirginia Mason Internal Medicine Residency
 
colorectal carcinoma seminar.pptx
byasiangastroentrology
 
ROI of Colorectal Cancer Screening - Colorado Cancer Coalition - Colorado Bus...
byRyan Kerr
 
COLON CANCER- An Evidence based management
bySagarLande3
 

More from Health Evidence™

PPTX
Spotlight Webinar: Applying a health equity lens to program planning
byHealth Evidence™
 
PPTX
Webinaire : Integrer l'equite en sante dans la planification de programmes
byHealth Evidence™
 
PPTX
Weight loss interventions for adults who are obese on mortality and morbidity...
byHealth Evidence™
 
PDF
Antiretroviral therapy for pregnant women living with HIV or hepatitis B: Wha...
byHealth Evidence™
 
PDF
Effect of tobacco control policies on perinatal and child health: What's the ...
byHealth Evidence™
 
PDF
Effectiveness of vitamin A supplementation for preventing morbidity and morta...
byHealth Evidence™
 
PDF
Motivational interviewing for the prevention of alcohol misuse in young adult...
byHealth Evidence™
 
PPT
Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies: What's th...
byHealth Evidence™
 
PDF
Behaviour change techniques targeting diet and physical activity in type 2 di...
byHealth Evidence™
 
PDF
Les interventions en ligne offrant des rétroactions personnalisées pour la pe...
byHealth Evidence™
 
PDF
Reducing sitting time at work: What's the evidence?
byHealth Evidence™
 
PDF
My Social Media Toolkit
byHealth Evidence™
 
PDF
Build a Social Media Toolkit! Strategies for organisations to engage and opti...
byHealth Evidence™
 
PDF
L'étiquetage des menus pour réduire les commandes de produits à forte densité...
byHealth Evidence™
 
PDF
Menu labelling for reducing energy ordered and consumed: What’s the evidence?
byHealth Evidence™
 
PPT
Les interventions ayant le potentiel de réduire les périodes de sédentarité c...
byHealth Evidence™
 
PPT
Les effets sur la santé des politiques gouvernementales de lutte antitabac : ...
byHealth Evidence™
 
PPT
Comparing screening tools for intimate partner violence detection: What's the...
byHealth Evidence™
 
Spotlight Webinar: Applying a health equity lens to program planning
byHealth Evidence™
 
Webinaire : Integrer l'equite en sante dans la planification de programmes
byHealth Evidence™
 
Weight loss interventions for adults who are obese on mortality and morbidity...
byHealth Evidence™
 
Antiretroviral therapy for pregnant women living with HIV or hepatitis B: Wha...
byHealth Evidence™
 
Effect of tobacco control policies on perinatal and child health: What's the ...
byHealth Evidence™
 
Effectiveness of vitamin A supplementation for preventing morbidity and morta...
byHealth Evidence™
 
Motivational interviewing for the prevention of alcohol misuse in young adult...
byHealth Evidence™
 
Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies: What's th...
byHealth Evidence™
 
Behaviour change techniques targeting diet and physical activity in type 2 di...
byHealth Evidence™
 
Les interventions en ligne offrant des rétroactions personnalisées pour la pe...
byHealth Evidence™
 
Reducing sitting time at work: What's the evidence?
byHealth Evidence™
 
My Social Media Toolkit
byHealth Evidence™
 
Build a Social Media Toolkit! Strategies for organisations to engage and opti...
byHealth Evidence™
 
L'étiquetage des menus pour réduire les commandes de produits à forte densité...
byHealth Evidence™
 
Menu labelling for reducing energy ordered and consumed: What’s the evidence?
byHealth Evidence™
 
Les interventions ayant le potentiel de réduire les périodes de sédentarité c...
byHealth Evidence™
 
Les effets sur la santé des politiques gouvernementales de lutte antitabac : ...
byHealth Evidence™
 
Comparing screening tools for intimate partner violence detection: What's the...
byHealth Evidence™
 

Recently uploaded

PPTX
Metabolism ( BIOCHEMISTRY & CLINICAL PATHOLOGY )
byBushraDeshpande
 
PPTX
MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION Part-1.Shilpa hotakar.pptx
bySHILPA HOTAKAR
 
PPTX
Appreciations - Jan 26 01.pptxkjkjkkjkjkjkj
bypreetheshparmar
 
PDF
Lamarckism: Theory of Evolution, Principles, Examples, Objections and Neo-Lam...
byIPGDCWA,NAMPALLY
 
PDF
ĐỀ MINH HỌA KỲ THI TỐT NGHIỆP TRUNG HỌC PHỔ THÔNG NĂM 2026 MÔN TIẾNG ANH 2026...
byNguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
PPTX
PREVENTIVE PEDIATRICS.pptx
byBANDITA PATRA
 
PPTX
LEGAL AND RIGHTS ASPECTS OF FAMILY PLANNING.pptx
bysonia
 
PPTX
2026SlideShare.pptx welcome talk 2026 for peace harmony
byBryanGan8
 
PPTX
Fruit Fermentation_ Ethanol & Sugar Estimation- Dr. Shikha Gaikwad
byinsighteduwithme
 
PDF
NCA New Family Orientation 2026 Dosemagen.pdf
bytimdosemagen1
 
PDF
Introduction to Principle Components Analysis algorithms
byBapusahebDange
 
PDF
ĐỀ MINH HỌA KỲ THI TỐT NGHIỆP TRUNG HỌC PHỔ THÔNG NĂM 2026 MÔN TIẾNG ANH 2026...
byNguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
PDF
Fast Followers Project, Embedding Net Zero into Wakefield Metropolitan Distri...
byAssociation for Project Management
 
PDF
Infrared Spectroscopy (IR spectroscopy).ppt
byLife sciences
 
PPTX
christal dinesha (1).ppt seminar topic..
bychristaldinesha
 
PDF
Problem Solving Agents in Artificial Intelligence with Examples and Water Jug...
byARTHIDEVARANIP
 
PPTX
HABIT. Cognitive process. I Semester Shilpa Hotakar pptx
bySHILPA HOTAKAR
 
PDF
Oscillations /Revision notes prepared by K sandeep swamy (Msc,BEd)/For online...
bySandeep Swamy
 
PPTX
Powerpoint for testing in embed test with Sway
byjeanpierrefort3
 
PPTX
Exploring Higher education and its pathways
byEVAMAEBONGHANOY5
 
Metabolism ( BIOCHEMISTRY & CLINICAL PATHOLOGY )
byBushraDeshpande
 
MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION Part-1.Shilpa hotakar.pptx
bySHILPA HOTAKAR
 
Appreciations - Jan 26 01.pptxkjkjkkjkjkjkj
bypreetheshparmar
 
Lamarckism: Theory of Evolution, Principles, Examples, Objections and Neo-Lam...
byIPGDCWA,NAMPALLY
 
ĐỀ MINH HỌA KỲ THI TỐT NGHIỆP TRUNG HỌC PHỔ THÔNG NĂM 2026 MÔN TIẾNG ANH 2026...
byNguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
PREVENTIVE PEDIATRICS.pptx
byBANDITA PATRA
 
LEGAL AND RIGHTS ASPECTS OF FAMILY PLANNING.pptx
bysonia
 
2026SlideShare.pptx welcome talk 2026 for peace harmony
byBryanGan8
 
Fruit Fermentation_ Ethanol & Sugar Estimation- Dr. Shikha Gaikwad
byinsighteduwithme
 
NCA New Family Orientation 2026 Dosemagen.pdf
bytimdosemagen1
 
Introduction to Principle Components Analysis algorithms
byBapusahebDange
 
ĐỀ MINH HỌA KỲ THI TỐT NGHIỆP TRUNG HỌC PHỔ THÔNG NĂM 2026 MÔN TIẾNG ANH 2026...
byNguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
Fast Followers Project, Embedding Net Zero into Wakefield Metropolitan Distri...
byAssociation for Project Management
 
Infrared Spectroscopy (IR spectroscopy).ppt
byLife sciences
 
christal dinesha (1).ppt seminar topic..
bychristaldinesha
 
Problem Solving Agents in Artificial Intelligence with Examples and Water Jug...
byARTHIDEVARANIP
 
HABIT. Cognitive process. I Semester Shilpa Hotakar pptx
bySHILPA HOTAKAR
 
Oscillations /Revision notes prepared by K sandeep swamy (Msc,BEd)/For online...
bySandeep Swamy
 
Powerpoint for testing in embed test with Sway
byjeanpierrefort3
 
Exploring Higher education and its pathways
byEVAMAEBONGHANOY5
 

Colorectal screening evidence & colonoscopy screening guidelines

  • 1.
    Welcome! Colorectal screening evidence &Colonoscopy screening guidelines You will be placed on hold until the webinar begins. The webinar will begin shortly, please remain on the line.
  • 2.
    Poll Questions: Consent •Participation in the webinar poll questions is voluntary • Names are not recorded and persons will not be identified in any way • Participation in the anonymous polling questions is accepted as an indication of your consent to participate Benefits: • Results inform improvement of the current and future webinars • Enable engagement; stimulate discussion. This session is intended for professional development. Some data may be used for program evaluation and research purposes (e.g., exploring opinion change) • Results may also be used to inform the production of systematic reviews and overviews Risks: None beyond day-to-day living
  • 3.
    After Today • ThePowerPoint presentation and audio recording will be made available • These resources are available at: – PowerPoint: http:// www.slideshare.net/HealthEvidence – Audio Recording: https://www.youtube.com/user/healthevidence/vide 3
  • 4.
    What’s the evidencefor the guidelines? Review evidence: Fitzpatrick-Lewis, D., Usman, A., Warren, R., Kenny, M., Rice, M., Bayer, A., Ciliska, D., Sherifali, D., Raina, P. Screening for colorectal cancer. Ottawa: Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care; 2015. Available: www.canadiantaskforce.ca/ ctf phc-guidelines/2015- colorectal-cancer/systematic-review Screening guidelines: Bacchus, C. M., Dunfield, L., Gorber, S. C., Holmes, N. M., Birtwhistle, R., Dickinson, J. A., Lewin, G., Singh, H., Klarenbach, S., Mai, V., Tonelli, M. (2016). Recommendations on screening for colorectal cancer in primary care. Canadian Medical Association Journal, cmaj- 151125.
  • 5.
    Poll Question #1 Whatsector are you from? A. Public Health Practitioner B. Health Practitioner (Other) C. Education D. Research E. Provincial/Territorial/Government/Ministry/Munici pality F. Policy Analyst (NGO, etc.) G. Other 5
  • 6.
    • Use Q&Aor CHAT to post comments / questions during the webinar – ‘Send’ questions to All Panelists (not privately to ‘Host’) • Connection issues – Recommend using a wired Internet connection (vs. wireless), • WebEx 24/7 help line – 1-866-229-3239 Participant Side Panel in WebEx Housekeeping
  • 7.
    Housekeeping (cont’d) • Audio –Listen through your speakers – Go to ‘Communicate > Audio Connection’ • WebEx 24/7 help line – 1-866-229-3239
  • 8.
    Poll Question #2 Howmany people are watching today’s session with you? A.Just me B.2-3 C.4-5 D.6-10 E.>10
  • 9.
    The Health Evidence™Team Maureen Dobbins Scientific Director Heather Husson Manager Susannah Watson Project Coordinator Students: Emily Belita (PhD candidate) Jennifer Yost Assistant Professor Olivia Marquez Research Coordinator Emily Sully Research Assistant Liz Kamler Research Assistant Zhi (Vivian) Chen Research Assistant Research Assistants: Marco Cheung Lina Sherazy Claire Howarth Rawan Farran
  • 10.
  • 11.
    Why use www.healthevidence.org? 1.Saves you time 2. Relevant & current evidence 3. Transparent process 4. Supports for EIDM available 5. Easy to use
  • 12.
    A Model forEvidence- Informed Decision Making National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (revised 2012). A Model for Evidence-Informed Decision-Making in Public Health (Fact Sheet). [http://www.nccmt.ca/pubs/FactSheet_EIDM_EN_WEB.pdf]
  • 13.
    Stages in theprocess of Evidence- Informed Public Health National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. Evidence-Informed Public Health. [http://www.nccmt.ca/eiph/index-eng.html]
  • 14.
    Poll Question #3 Haveyou heard of PICO(S) before? A.Yes B.No
  • 15.
    Searchable Questions Think“PICOS” 1. Population (situation) 2. Intervention (exposure) 3. Comparison (other group) 4. Outcomes 5. Setting
  • 16.
    How often doyou use Systematic Reviews to inform a program/services? A.Always B.Often C.Sometimes D.Never E.I don’t know what a systematic review is Poll Question #4
  • 17.
    Maria Bacchus Associate Professorof Medicine, Faculty of Medicine University of Calgary, and member of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care Donna Fitzpatrick-Lewis MSW, Senior Research Coordinator at the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP)
  • 18.
    Putting Prevention into Practice CanadianTask Force on Preventive Health Care Groupe d’étude canadien sur les soins de santé préventifs Recommendations on Screening for Colorectal Cancer 2016 Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC)
  • 19.
    CTFPHC Working GroupMembers 19 *non-voting member
  • 20.
    Overview of Presentation •Background on Colorectal Cancer • Methods of the CTFPHC • Recommendations and Key Findings • Implement our Recommendations • Conclusions • Questions and Answers 20
  • 21.
    Background – Canadianperspective • Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer mortality in men and the third most common in women with a current lifetime probability of dying from this disease of 3.5% and 3.1% respectively • The incidence and mortality of CRC are low until middle age, and rise rapidly thereafter • It is estimated that 25,000 Canadians were diagnosed with CRC in 2015 and 9,300 died from the disease • Most CRCs appear to arise from colonic polyps that develop slowly, some of which transform to cancers • CRC screening programs aim to reduce deaths by detecting and removing polyps and/or early stage CRCs 21
  • 22.
    Background - GuidelineObjectives • The purpose of this guideline is to present recommendations for screening for CRC in asymptomatic adults aged 50 and older who are not at high risk for CRC and to update previous CTFPHC recommendations (2001) • This guideline provides guidance for primary care practitioners on different screening tests, screening intervals and recommended ages to start and stop screening • These guidelines do not apply to those with previous CRC or polyps, inflammatory bowel disease, signs or symptoms of CRC, history of CRC in one or more first degree relatives, or adults with hereditary syndromes predisposing to CRC such as familial adenomatous polyposis or Lynch Syndrome 22
  • 23.
    Screening Tests forColorectal Cancer • Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) – Tests include guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) – The patient provides a stool sample that will be tested for blood that cannot be seen with the naked eye • Endoscopies – Tests include flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopies – A long flexible tube with a light and camera attached is inserted into the anus, rectum, and lower colon of the patient to look for polyps – Before this procedure, patients will need to cleanse their bowels with enemas or laxatives 23
  • 24.
    Methods of theCTFPHC • Independent panel of: – Clinicians and methodologists – Expertise in prevention, primary care, literature synthesis, and critical appraisal – Application of evidence to practice and policy • Colorectal Cancer Working Group – 7 Task Force members – Establish research questions and analytical framework 24
  • 25.
    Methods of theCTFPHC • McMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Centre (MERSC) – Undertook a systematic review of the literature based on the analytical framework – Prepared a systematic review of the evidence with GRADE tables – Participated in working group and task force meetings – Obtained expert opinions 25
  • 26.
    CTFPHC Review Process •Internal review process involving guideline working group, Task Force, scientific officers and ERSC staff • External review process involving key stakeholders – Generalist and disease specific stakeholders – Federal and P/T stakeholders, also occurred • Finally, the CMAJ undertook an independent peer review journal process to review guidelines 26
  • 27.
    Analytical Framework 27 Mortality (all-causeand cancer mortality); Incidence of late stage colorectal cancer Screening Harms of screening (complications of the test or follow-up; false positive; false negative; overdiagnosis) 3 12 Asymptomatic adults not at high risk for colorectal cancer
  • 28.
    Research Questions • Whatis the effectiveness of each colorectal cancer screening test to reduce colorectal cancer- specific mortality, all-cause mortality, or incidence of late stage colorectal cancer in asymptomatic adults who are not at high risk for colorectal cancer? – What is the optimal age to start and stop screening and the optimal screening interval of asymptomatic adults not at high risk for colorectal cancer? – What is the evidence that the clinical benefits of screening differ for the various screening tests, or by subgroups that may influence the underlying risk of colorectal cancer? • What is the incidence of harms of screening for colorectal cancer in adults not at high risk for colorectal cancer? What is the evidence that the harms of screening differ for the various screening tests or by subgroups that may influence the underlying risk of colorectal cancer? • Screening tests include colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography, gFOBT, FIT, fecal DNA testing, and other screening tests currently in use identified in the literature search • Populations at high risk of colorectal cancer (Table 1) will be excluded, such as those with prior colorectal cancer or polyps, signs/symptoms suggesting underlying colorectal cancer, familial adenomatous polyposis, or hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer.
  • 29.
    P Asymptomatic adults18 years and older who are not at high risk of colorectal cancer I Screening with colonoscopy, CT colonography, gFOBT, iFOBT, FS, BE, DRE, fecal DNA, serum DNA, other identified tests currently being used for screening in Canada C • No screening • Head to head – two tests compared with each other O Mortality (all-cause and colorectal cancer-specific) Incidence of late stage colorectal cancer (stage III or IV; or Duke’s C or D) Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive value for detection of any stage colorectal cancer for those tests with evidence for screening effectiveness Harms: complications (bleeding [not requiring hospitalization and requiring hospitalization], perforation, death) of the test or follow-up test, false positive, false negative, overdiagnosis S Primary care, including referrals for tests by primary care practitioners
  • 30.
    Search Results Search YieldedIncluded Benefits Test Properties Adverse Events 13,260 citations 9 37 46
  • 31.
    Analysis Overview • Riskof Bias assessment was done on all included RCTs for effectiveness of screening • Benefits of CRC screening – number of events, proportion or percentage data from included RCTs were used to generate summary measures of effect in form of risk ratio • Harms of CRC screening and f/u tests – rates/proportions along with 95% confidence intervals across studies were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects models with inverse variance method to generate summary measures of effect • Test Properties - Positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, specificity and likelihood rations were pooled descriptively using median with range approach • Primary subgrouping for benefits, harms and test properties was screening method • Strength of evidence assessed with GRADE
  • 32.
    Risk of BiasAssessment of Included RCTs Study Sequence Generation Allocation Concealment Blinding of Outcome Assessors Incomplete Reporting Selective Reporting Other Bias* Scholefield 2012 U U L L L U Schoen 2012 L U U U L H Segnan 2011 L U L H L U Atkin 2010 L U L L L U Hoff 2009 L U L L L L Lindholm 2008 U U L H L U Kronborg 2004 L U L H L U Zheng 2003 L U L U L U Shaukat 2013 U U L U L U
  • 33.
    Key Findings -Benefits of Screening Outcome gFOBT iFOBT Flexible Sigmoidoscopy CRC-specific mortality Meta-analysis of 4 moderate quality RCTs of screening with gFOBT on CRC-specific mortality found a RR 0.82 (95%CI, 0.73, 0.92, I2 =67%), with an Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) 2,654/million (1,128-4,010 fewer) One moderate quality RCT found that screening with iFOBT had a non-significant impact on CRC mortality RR 0.88 (95%CI, 0.72, 1.07) Meta-analysis of primary screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy showed a relative reduction of 28% in CRC specific mortality with a pooled RR of 0.72 (95% CI; 0.65, 0.81, I2=0%) and an ARR of 1,176 per million (95% CI; 830 to 1,486 fewer) All-cause mortality Screening with gFOBT did not reduce all-cause mortality RR 1.00 (95% CI, 1.00-1.00, I2=0%). No data RR 0.99 (0.97, 1.01, I2 =35%) Incidence of late stage CRC Screening with gFOBT reduced late stage CRC by 8% RR 0.92 (95%CI, 0.85-0.99, I2 =0%) No data RR 0.75 (95%CI, 0.66- 0.86, I2=23%); ARR 1,733/million (1,011, 2,368 fewer)
  • 34.
    Key Findings –Test Properties Outcome gFOBT iFOBT Median sensitivity 47.1% (range 12.9%-75.0%) 81.5% (range 53.3%-100%) Median specificity 96.1% (range 90.1%-98.1%) 95.0% (range 87.2%-96.9%) Median PPV 7.5% (1.5%-15%) 7.35% (range 4.0%-10.8%) Mean NPV 99.55% (range 99.5%-99.6%) 100% (range 99.7%-100%) Number needed to screen (NNS) 597 (range 239-936) 209 (range 41-430)
  • 35.
    Key Findings –Adverse Events • Greater potential for harms with flexible sigmoidoscopy (perforation, bleeding (both major and minor) and death) • Few harms associated with gFOBT (non-invasive); false- positive proportions are low and there are few false-negatives • False-negatives of iFOBT can lead to unnecessary additional follow-up tests, such as colonoscopy, which can result in other harms (bleeding, infection and on the rare occasion death) • No RCTS found on harms of barium enema or fecal DNA tests
  • 36.
    Contextual Question –Preferences and Values for Screening for Colorectal Cancer • 3 reviews and 20 primary studies were found • Screening tests of focus included FOBT, computed tomography colonoscopy, and flexible sigmoidoscopy • A survey conducted by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer with Canadians aged 45-74 years revealed that the majority of respondents agreed that CRC and early treatment is important; people were aware of screening but not of the specifics of screening; most people indicated colonoscopy as being the primary test and few knew of FOBT. Results implied that lack of education and not embarrassment is a bigger barrier to screening • Another Canadian study with 40 to 60 year olds in a primary care setting revealed that 29% of participants preferred no screening; preferred test attributes included non- invasive procedures, no preparation, no pain, 100% specificity and 90% sensitivity • A US study explored decision priorities for patients in primary care; highest priority was preventing cancer (55%), avoiding test side effects (17%), minimizing false positives (15%), and combined priority of screening frequency, test preparation, and test procedures (14%)
  • 37.
    How is EvidenceGraded? The “GRADE” System: • Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development & Evaluation What are we grading? 1. Quality of Evidence – Degree of confidence that the available evidence correctly reflects the theoretical true effect of the intervention or service. – high, moderate, low, very low 2. Strength of Recommendation – Quality of evidence; the balance between desirable and undesirable effects; the variability or uncertainty in values and preferences of citizens; and whether or not the intervention represents a wise use of resources. – strong and weak 37
  • 38.
    Strength of Recommendations Thestrength of the recommendations (strong or weak) are based on four factors: •Quality of supporting evidence •Certainty about the balance between desirable and undesirable effects •Certainty / variability in values and preferences of individuals •Certainty about whether the intervention represents a wise use of resources 38
  • 39.
    Interpretation of Recommendations ImplicationsStrong Recommendation Weak Recommendations For patients • Most individuals would want the recommended course of action; • only a small proportion would not. • The majority of individuals in this situation would want the suggested course of action but many would not. For clinicians • Most individuals should receive the intervention. • Recognize that different choices will be appropriate for individual patients; • Clinicians must help patients make management decisions consistent with values and preferences. For policy makers • The recommendation can be adapted as policy in most situations. • Policy making will require substantial debate and involvement of various stakeholders. 39
  • 40.
  • 41.
    Summary of KeyFindings Screening tool Age Risk Ratio CRC Mortality 95% CI Incidence of late stage CRC 95% CI FOBT ( 4 RCT MA) 45-80 0.82 0.73-0.92 0.92 0.85-0.99 FS (pooled analysis, 4 RCTs) 55-74 0.72 0.65-0.81 0.75 0.66–0.86 41 No RCTs have reported on the mortality benefits of screening colonoscopy, CT colonography, barium enema, DRE or fecal DNA testing No screening test reduced all cause mortality
  • 42.
    Colorectal Cancer 2015Guidelines • Provide recommendations for practitioners on preventive health screening in a primary care setting: • These recommendations apply to adults 50 years and over who are not at high risk for CRC • These recommendations do not apply to adults with: – Previous CRC or polyps – Inflammatory bowel disease – Signs or symptoms of CRC – History of CRC in one or more first degree relatives – Hereditary syndromes predisposing to CRC, such as familial adenomatous polyposis or Lynch Syndrome 42
  • 43.
    FOBT or FlexSigScreening Recommendation 1: We recommend screening adults aged 60 to 74 for CRC with FOBT (either gFOBT or FIT) every two years OR flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years. •Strong recommendation; moderate quality evidence Recommendation 2: We recommend screening adults aged 50 to 59 for colorectal cancer (CRC) with FOBT (gFOBT or FIT) every two years OR flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years. •Weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence 43
  • 44.
    FOBT or FlexSig Screening: Ages 50-74 Basis of the recommendation: •In the judgment of the CTFPHC, FOBT and flexible sigmoidoscopy are both reasonable screening tests for patients aged 50-74 years based on RCT evidence. •Splitting this recommendation for screening into two age groups places a relatively higher value on the different balance of benefits to harms by age, and a relatively lower value on the added complexity of two recommendations rather than one. •Although the relative benefits are similar for older (60-74) and younger (50-59) age groups, the absolute benefits are smaller in those 50-59 due to the lower incidence. This warrants a weak recommendation to screen in those aged 50-59 as compared to the strong recommendation for people aged 60-74 years. 44
  • 45.
    Not Screening AdultsAged 74+ Recommendation 3: We recommend not screening adults aged 75 years and over for colorectal cancer (CRC). •Weak recommendation; low quality evidence Basis of the recommendation: •Lack of RCT data on benefits of screening in this age group (varied, but upper ages included were 64 years, 74 years, 75 years, and 80 years for gFOBT and 64 years and 74 years for flexible sigmoidoscopy). •Reduced life expectancy in older age groups •Adults over 74 years of age who are healthy (with longer life expectancy) and are less concerned with the lack of reported benefit or the potential harms may choose to be screened. 45
  • 46.
    Not Screening UsingColonoscopy Recommendation 4: We recommend not using colonoscopy as a screening test for colorectal cancer (CRC). •Weak recommendation; low quality evidence Basis of the recommendation: •Although colonoscopy may offer clinical benefits that are similar to or greater than those associated with flexible sigmoidoscopy, direct RCT evidence of its efficacy in comparison to the other screening tests (in particular FIT) is currently lacking. •In addition to a lack of evidence, there are also issues related to wait lists, resource constraints and a greater potential for harms. •Patients who are less concerned about the potential harms of colonoscopy and/or who are more interested in a test that allows a longer screening interval may still request screening with colonoscopy. 46
  • 47.
    NNS for CRCMortality by Age- Groups with Varying Underlying Baseline Risk Outcome Screening test Age Group (years) ARR NNS LL-NNS UL-NNS CRC Mortality Biennial gFOBT < 60 (45 to 59) 0.0377% 2655 1757 6244 CRC Mortality Biennial gFOBT ≥ 60 (60 to 80) 0.2032% 492 326 1157 CRC Mortality Flex Sigmoidoscopy < 60 (45 to 59) 0.0540% 1853 1441 2713 CRC Mortality Flex Sigmoidoscopy ≥ 60 (60 to 80) 0.2912% 343 267 503 47
  • 48.
    Harms of Screening •No high quality studies evaluating the harms of screening for colorectal cancer • Possible harms related to screening include: – Death – Perforation – Bleeding (with or without hospitalization) – False-positive or false-negative – Over-diagnosis 48
  • 49.
    49 • Our recommendationsare consistent with the previous 2001 CTFPHC guideline • Provincial screening programs recommend screening with FOBT (the majority recommend FIT) every 1-2 years • No province currently recommends screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy • The USPSTF published recommendations in 2008 (currently being updated),and recommended either FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy Comparison of Screening for Colorectal Cancer Recommendations
  • 50.
    Comparison: CTFPHC guidelinevs. USPSTF draft guideline GUIDELINE CTFPHC (2015) USPSTF DRAFT (2015) AGE GROUPS & RECOMMENDATIONS 50-59 YEARS SCREEN (WEAK) 50-75 YEARS SCREEN - Grade A 60-74 YEARS SCREEN (STRONG) SCREEN - Grade A > 75 YEARS DO NOT SCREEN (WEAK) 76-80 YEARS SCREEN - Grade C CRC SCREENING MODALITIES & INTERVALS gFOBT or FIT Every 2 years gFOBT or FIT Every year Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Every 10 years Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Every 10 years plus FIT every year Colonoscopy Do not recommend Colonoscopy Every 10 years
  • 51.
    Implementation - Resources •We expect that most Canadians will be screened with either FIT or gFOBT due to limited access to and availability of flexible sigmoidoscopy • Although flexible sigmoidoscopy is not frequently performed for screening in many jurisdictions, it may warrant further consideration as it can be completed in the same facilities as colonoscopy and using similar equipment, but without the requirement of a specialist such as a gastroenterologist • Screening programs would need to consider the implications of establishing screening facilities such as training of providers, the bowel preparation required by patients and the resources needed for flexible sigmoidoscopy as compared to FOBT 51
  • 52.
    Values and Preferencesof CRC Screening • A Canadian survey on screening test preferences indicated that invasiveness, level of preparation required and pain from the test were concerns. • A US study rated patient priorities as preventing cancer (55%), avoiding test side effects (17%), minimizing false positives (15%) and the combination of screening frequency, test preparation and test procedures (14%). • When patients have the option of screening tests, sedation needs, perceived test accuracy, confidence in completing the test, bowel preparation and frequency of tests may influence decision. 52
  • 53.
    Knowledge Translation Tools •The CTFPHC creates KT tools to support the implementation of guidelines into clinical practice • A clinician recommendation table and patient FAQ have been developed for the colorectal cancer guideline • These tools are freely available for download in both French and English on the website: www.canadiantaskforce.ca 53
  • 54.
    Conclusions • The CTFPHCrecommends that starting at age 50 age, primary care providers should discuss the most appropriate choice of test with patients who are interested in screening • Screening for CRC with FOBT or flexible sigmoidoscopy reduces CRC mortality and the direct harms associated with these tests are minimal • The strong recommendation to screen adults aged 60-74 years with gFOBT, FIT or flexible sigmoidoscopy indicates that primary care providers should offer this service to all individuals in this age group 54
  • 55.
    Conclusions • The weakrecommendation to screen adults aged 50-59 years with gFOBT, FIT or flexible sigmoidoscopy indicates that a more nuanced discussion of the harms and benefits will be required • Starting at age 75, primary care providers should discuss individual screening preferences • The CTFPHC recommends not using colonoscopy as a screening tool at this time based on the lack of high quality RCT data. Four trials are currently underway investigating the mortality benefit of screening with colonoscopy. These will be considered by the CTFPHC as the results become available. 55
  • 56.
    Update: CTFPHC MobileApp Now Available • The app contains guideline and recommendation summaries, knowledge translation tools, and links to additional resources. • Key features include the ability to bookmark sections for easy access, display content in either English or French, and change the font size of text. 56
  • 57.
    Take Home Messages •CRC is a common cause of cancer mortality • We can reduce mortality from CRC – screening with FOBT and Flexible sigmoidoscopy have been shown to decrease mortality from CRC in those aged 50-74 • Individuals over the age of 50 should discuss screening for CRC with their primary care providers • Patient values and preferences, test availability and life expectancy should be considered in determining the best screening options for individuals 57
  • 58.
    Update: CTFPHC onSocial Media • The CTFPHC is venturing into social media! • A Twitter policy and strategy is currently being developed • Please check the CTFPHC website for updates: http://canadiantaskforce.ca/ 58
  • 59.
    More Information For moreinformation on the details of this guideline please see: • Canadian Task Force for Preventive Health Care website: http://canadiantaskforce.ca/?content=pcp 59
  • 60.
  • 61.
    Poll Question #5 Theinformation presented today was helpful A.Strongly agree B.Agree C.Neutral D.Disagree E.Strongly disagree
  • 62.
    A Model forEvidence- Informed Decision Making National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (revised 2012). A Model for Evidence-Informed Decision-Making in Public Health (Fact Sheet). [http://www.nccmt.ca/pubs/FactSheet_EIDM_EN_WEB.pdf]
  • 63.
    Poll Question #6 Whatare your next steps? A.Access the full text systematic review and screening guidelines B.Access the quality assessment for the review on www.healthevidence.org C.Consider using the evidence / recommendations D.Tell a colleague about the evidence / recommendations
  • 64.
    What can Ido now? Visit the website; a repository of over 4,600 quality-rated systematic reviews related to the effectiveness of public health interventions. Health Evidence™ is FREE to use. Register to receive monthly tailored registry updates AND monthly newsletter to keep you up to date on upcoming events and public health news. Tell your colleagues about Health Evidence™: helping you use best evidence to inform public health practice, program planning, and policy decisions! Follow us @Health Evidence on Twitter and receive daily public health review- related Tweets, receive information about our monthly webinars, as well as announcements and events relevant to public health. Encourage your organization to use Health Evidence™ to search for and apply quality-rated review level evidence to inform program planning and policy decisions. Contact us to suggest topics or provide feedback. info@healthevidence.org
  • 65.
    Thank you! Contact us: info@healthevidence.org Fora copy of the presentation please visit: http://www.healthevidence.org/webinars.aspx Login with your Health Evidence username and password, or register if you aren’t a member yet.
  • 66.
    FOBT & FLEXSigmoidoscopy Screening Intervals • CTFPHC selected a 2 year screening interval for FOBT (gFOBT and FIT) as this was the interval most commonly used in gFOBT RCTs – RCT data showed no significant difference found between annual and biennial screening on CRC specific mortality • CTFPHC selected a 10 years screening interval for Flex Sig. based on three factors: – Data show a reduction in CRC mortality and incidence until 11 years of follow-up – RCT data show beneficial effects of screening are maintained over follow-up period – Observational data show mortality benefits last for at least 10-15 years
  • 67.
    Research Gaps • Trialsinvestigating mortality benefit of CRC screening are underway: Northern European Initiative on CRC (2026); Screening of Swedish COlons (2034); Barcelona (2021); and CONFIRM (2025). • Trials demonstrating a mortality benefit of colonoscopy, fecal DNA assays, and other tests are needed before they can be recommended for population-based screening. • Research about how to increase access to colonoscopy in Canada would be useful to inform population-based screening with this test. 67
  • 68.
    Research Gaps • Moredata are needed on effectiveness of FIT in all age groups, on all screening tests in populations aged less than 60 years or older than 74 years and on the impact of screening on overdiagnosis and overtreatment-monitoring for these harmful outcomes at a national level is recommended to address this research gap. 68

Editor's Notes

  • #9 Poll question #4
  • #10 **Need to update with new logo** here’s a look at the team many involved in the work to keep HE current and maintained
  • #11 Health Evidence launched in 2005 comprehensive registry of reviews evaluating the effectiveness of public health and health promotion interventions provide over 90,000 visitors per year access to over 4,600 quality-rated systematic reviews links to full text, plain language summaries, and podcasts (where available) One of main goals of Health Evidence, in addition to making evidence re: effectiveness of PH interventions more accessible, is to make it easier for professionals to use evidence in decision making WHO WE ARE
  • #13 Model for Evidence-Informed decision making in PH consists of 5 components visible in this diagram Traditionally public health practitioners and decision makers do consider evidence about community health issues and local context, existing resources, and community and political climate in making decisions about programs and policies however, it has become apparent that a considering evidence about research may be more challenging As such the Health Evidence webinar series is designed to identify research evidence relevant to public health decisions
  • #14 The EIPH wheel illustrates the steps involved in evidence-informed practice The wheel is a guide for practitioners and decision makers to determine how to address a particular issue by systematically incorporating research evidence in the decision making process There are 7 steps in the EIPH process that starts with: Clearly defining the problem; Searching the research literature; Appraising the evidence you find; Synthesizing or summarizing the research on your issue; Adapting and interpreting the findings to your local context; Implementing the evidence or appropriate intervention; and Evaluating your implementation efforts. We will hear today about how (presenter) has worked through the first 4 steps, in order to help with the decision makers with the remainder of the 7 steps
  • #15 Poll question #4
  • #19 Maria begins presentation
  • #20 .
  • #26 Donna begins presentation
  • #38 Maria begins
  • #42 This slide summarizes the evidence found for screening tools that decreased CRC mortality (3th column) and incidence of last stage CRC (5th column) Evidence from high quality RCTs showed that both FOBT and FS decreased both these outcomes which are shown on the last 2 rows. For CRC mortality, MA of 4 RCTs using FOBT as a screening test, showed a risk ratio of 0.82 with the confidence interval listed beside it. For FS, the RR was 0.72 Note that we found no RCTs that showed mortality benefit on screenign CS, CT colongraphy, BE, DRE or fecal DNA testing
  • #44 Strong – most patients want to and clinicians should recommend Weak – majority pts want; clinicians need to help pts make mgmt decisions based on values/preferences
  • #48 NOTE: The estimates of absolute risk reduction (ARR) in CRC mortality for screening as compared to control and number-needed to screen (NNS) to prevent one death from colorectal cancer are based on age specific baseline risk of dying from Colorectal cancer (obtained from SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975 – 201227), the relative risk reduction (RRR – obtained from pooled estimate for CRC mortality for biennial gFOBT (RR = 0.8215; 95%CI 0.7303 to 0.9241) and flex sigmoidoscopy screening (RR = 0.7442; 95%CI 0.6710 to 0.8253) and the life expectancy over which the patient is expected to be screened.
  • #49 Note: these harms vary depending on the screening test and cut-off points used
  • #51 The USPSTF published recommendations in 2008 (currently being updated), and recommended either FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy Major difference is the US recommendation of CS – we only included RCTs and found no evidence from RCTs. The US included modelling studies and observational data and concluded that CS was an option for screening. ervals
  • #62 Poll question #4
  • #63 Static version
  • #64 This should be a check-box answer (i.e. select all that apply)
  • #67 Extra slides for questions
  • #68 Extra slides for questions
  • #69 Extra slides for questions