7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      To submit your manuscript, please click here

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Based on Predicted Risk: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) can be effectively reduced by screening with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy. Individual risk to develop CRC within 15 years varies from <1% to >15% among people aged 50 to 75 years. Communicating personalized CRC risk and appropriate screening recommendations could improve the risk-benefit balance of screening test allocations and optimize the use of limited colonoscopy resources. However, significant uncertainty exists regarding the feasibility and efficacy of risk-based screening.

          Objective

          We aim to study the effect of communicating individual CRC risk and a risk-based recommendation of the FIT or colonoscopy on participants’ choice of screening test. We will also assess the feasibility of a larger clinical trial designed to evaluate the impact of personalized screening on clinical outcomes.

          Methods

          We will perform a pilot randomized controlled trial among 880 residents aged 50 to 69 years eligible to participate in the organized screening program of the Vaud canton, Switzerland. Participants will be recruited by mail by the Vaud CRC screening program. Primary and secondary outcomes will be self-assessed through questionnaires. The risk score will be calculated using the open-source QCancer calculator that was validated in the United Kingdom. Participants will be stratified into 3 groups—low (<3%), moderate (3% to <6%), and high (≥6%) risk—according to their 15-year CRC risk and randomized within each risk stratum. The intervention group participants will receive a newly designed brochure with their personalized risk and screening recommendations. The control group will receive the usual brochure of the Vaud CRC screening program. Our primary outcome, measured using a self-administered questionnaire, is appropriate screening uptake 6 months after the intervention. Screening will be defined as appropriate if participants at high risk undertake colonoscopy and participants at low risk undertake the FIT. We will also measure the acceptability of the risk score and screening recommendations and the psychological factors influencing screening behavior. We will also assess the feasibility of a full-scale randomized controlled trial.

          Results

          We expect that a total sample of 880 individuals will allow us to detect a difference of 10% (α=5%) between groups. The main outcome will be analyzed using a 2-tailed chi-squared test. We expect that appropriate screening uptake will be higher in the intervention group. No difference in overall screening uptake is expected.

          Conclusions

          We will test the impact of personalized risk information and screening recommendations on participants’ choice of screening test in an organized screening program. This study should advance our understanding of the feasibility of large-scale risk-based CRC screening. Our results may provide insights into the optimization of CRC screening by offering screening options with a better risk-benefit balance and optimizing the use of resources.

          Trial Registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05357508; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05357508

          International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

          DERR1-10.2196/46865

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap) is a novel workflow methodology and software solution designed for rapid development and deployment of electronic data capture tools to support clinical and translational research. We present: (1) a brief description of the REDCap metadata-driven software toolset; (2) detail concerning the capture and use of study-related metadata from scientific research teams; (3) measures of impact for REDCap; (4) details concerning a consortium network of domestic and international institutions collaborating on the project; and (5) strengths and limitations of the REDCap system. REDCap is currently supporting 286 translational research projects in a growing collaborative network including 27 active partner institutions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners

            The Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) data management platform was developed in 2004 to address an institutional need at Vanderbilt University, then shared with a limited number of adopting sites beginning in 2006. Given bi-directional benefit in early sharing experiments, we created a broader consortium sharing and support model for any academic, non-profit, or government partner wishing to adopt the software. Our sharing framework and consortium-based support model have evolved over time along with the size of the consortium (currently more than 3200 REDCap partners across 128 countries). While the "REDCap Consortium" model represents only one example of how to build and disseminate a software platform, lessons learned from our approach may assist other research institutions seeking to build and disseminate innovative technologies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials.

              The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol.The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Res Protoc
                JMIR Res Protoc
                ResProt
                JMIR Research Protocols
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                1929-0748
                2023
                7 September 2023
                : 12
                : e46865
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne Lausanne Switzerland
                [2 ] Center for Epidemiology and Research in Population Health, UMR1295 Inserm Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier Toulouse France
                [3 ] Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam Netherlands
                [4 ] Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern Bern Switzerland
                [5 ] Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Basel Basel Switzerland
                [6 ] Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California Oakland, CA United States
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Ekaterina Plys ekaterina.plys@ 123456unisante.ch
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0449-5296
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9750-2709
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9893-0465
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8173-1993
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6286-8062
                https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9175-9635
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4222-4849
                https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3109-0198
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9438-2753
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6132-5165
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9096-0720
                Article
                v12i1e46865
                10.2196/46865
                10514773
                37676720
                fe326149-d26f-49ce-93ab-e16a7c70bf8a
                ©Ekaterina Plys, Jean-Luc Bulliard, Aziz Chaouch, Marie-Anne Durand, Luuk A van Duuren, Karen Brändle, Reto Auer, Florian Froehlich, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Douglas A Corley, Kevin Selby. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 07.09.2023.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.researchprotocols.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 1 March 2023
                : 30 May 2023
                : 20 June 2023
                : 4 July 2023
                Categories
                Protocol
                Protocol

                colorectal cancer screening,personalized screening,risk communication,shared decision-making,screening behavior,switzerland

                Comments

                Comment on this article