• Jon D Emery, Mark A Jenkins, Sibel Saya, Patty Chondros, Jasmeen Oberoi, Shakira Milton, Kitty Novy, Emily Habgood, Napin Karnchanachari, Marie Pirotta, Lyndal Trevena, Adrian Bickerstaffe, Richard De Abreu Lourenço, Anna Crothers, Driss Ait Ouakrim, Louisa Flander, James G Dowty, Fiona M Walter, Malcolm Clark, Sally Doncovio, Dariush Etemadmoghadam, George Fishman, Finlay Macrae, Ingrid Winship, and Jennifer G McIntosh.
• Department of General Practice and Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
• Br J Gen Pract. 2023 Aug 1; 73 (733): e556e565e556-e565.

BackgroundA risk-stratified approach to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening could result in a more acceptable balance of benefits and harms, and be more cost-effective.AimTo determine the effect of a consultation in general practice using a computerised risk assessment and decision support tool (Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction, CRISP) on risk-appropriate CRC screening.Design And SettingRandomised controlled trial in 10 general practices in Melbourne, Australia, from May 2017 to May 2018.MethodParticipants were recruited from a consecutive sample of patients aged 50-74 years attending their GP. Intervention consultations included CRC risk assessment using the CRISP tool and discussion of CRC screening recommendations. Control group consultations focused on lifestyle CRC risk factors. The primary outcome was risk-appropriate CRC screening at 12 months.ResultsA total of 734 participants (65.1% of eligible patients) were randomised (369 intervention, 365 control); the primary outcome was determined for 722 (362 intervention, 360 control). There was a 6.5% absolute increase (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.28 to 13.2) in risk-appropriate screening in the intervention compared with the control group (71.5% versus 65.0%; odds ratio [OR] 1.36, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.86, P = 0.057). In those due CRC screening during follow-up, there was a 20.3% (95% CI = 10.3 to 30.4) increase (intervention 59.8% versus control 38.9%; OR 2.31, 95% CI = 1.51 to 3.53, P<0.001) principally by increasing faecal occult blood testing in those at average risk.ConclusionA risk assessment and decision support tool increases risk-appropriate CRC screening in those due screening. The CRISP intervention could commence in people in their fifth decade to ensure people start CRC screening at the optimal age with the most cost-effective test.© The Authors.

14 keywords...

hide…