Colonoscopic screening for colorectal cancer improves quality of life measures: a population-based screening study.

BACKGROUND: Screening asymptomatic individuals for neoplasia can have adverse consequences on quality of life. Colon cancer screening is widespread but the quality of life (QOL) consequences are unknown. This study determined the impact of screening colonoscopy on QOL measures in asymptomatic average-risk participants. METHODS: Asymptomatic male and female participants aged 55-74 years were randomly selected from the Australian Electoral Roll or six primary care physicians' databases. Participants completed the Short-Form (SF-36) Quality of Life Assessment at baseline and at a mean of 39 days after colonoscopy. Outcome measures were (i) significant changes in raw scores in any of the eight SF-36 domains assessed following colonoscopic screening and (ii) improvements or declines in previously validated categories, representing clinically significant changes, within any of the eight SF-36 domains. RESULTS: Baseline QOL measures were similar to those of a matched general population sample. Role Limitations due to Emotions, Mental Health and Vitality raw scores significantly improved following colonoscopy (P < 0.05, 2-tailed t-test). Health ratings according to Category were similar (same clinical status) in the majority of participants. However, 30% participants recorded clinically significant improvement in the Mental Health and Vitality domains (P < 0.05, Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks test). This improvement was not offset by declines in other domains or in other participants. Improvement in QOL was not related to colonoscopy results. CONCLUSION: Average-risk persons benefit significantly from colon cancer screening with colonoscopy, improving in Mental Health and Vitality domains of Quality of Life. This improvement is not offset by declines in other domains.

Colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer: the outcomes of two recruitment methods.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the response to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by colonoscopy, through direct invitation or through invitation by general practitioners. DESIGN AND SETTING: Two-way comparison of randomised population sampling versus cluster sampling of a representative general practice population in the Australian Capital Territory, May 2002 to January 2004. INTERVENTION: Invitation to screen, assessment for eligibility, interview, and colonoscopy. SUBJECTS: 881 subjects aged 55-74 years were invited to screen: 520 from the electoral roll (ER) sample and 361 from the general practice (GP) cluster sample. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Response rate, participation rate, and rate of adenomatous polyps in the screened group. RESULTS: Participation was similar in the ER arm (35.1%; 95% CI, 30.2%-40.3%) and the GP arm (40.1%; 95% CI, 29.2%-51.0%) after correcting for ineligibility, which was higher in the ER arm. Superior eligibility in the GP arm was offset by the labour of manual record review. Response rates after two invitations were similar for the two groups (ER arm: 78.8%; 95% CI, 75.1%-82.1%; GP arm: 81.7%; 95% CI, 73.8%-89.6%). Overall, 53.4% ineligibility arose from having a colonoscopy in the past 10 years (ER arm, 98/178; GP arm, 42/84). Of 231 colonoscopies performed, 229 were complete, with 32% of subjects screened having adenomatous polyps. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy-based CRC screening yields similar response and participation rates with either random population sampling or general practice cluster sampling, with population sampling through the electoral roll providing greater ease of recruitment.