000144396 001__ 144396
000144396 005__ 20240229123018.0
000144396 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1002/ijc.32566
000144396 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:31291471
000144396 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0020-7136
000144396 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1097-0215
000144396 0247_ $$2altmetric$$aaltmetric:63965464
000144396 037__ $$aDKFZ-2019-01849
000144396 041__ $$aeng
000144396 082__ $$a610
000144396 1001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)0311ebf3415e41860b4e2c56fbae6919$$aGuo, Feng$$b0$$eFirst author$$udkfz
000144396 245__ $$aChanges in colorectal cancer screening use after introduction of alternative screening offer in Germany: Prospective cohort study.
000144396 260__ $$aBognor Regis$$bWiley-Liss$$c2020
000144396 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000144396 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000144396 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1601380657_10578
000144396 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000144396 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000144396 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000144396 500__ $$a146 (9), 2423-24322020#EA:C070#LA:C070#
000144396 520__ $$aIn October 2002, screening colonoscopy was added to the German colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program as an alternative to fecal occult blood test (FOBT). We aimed to evaluate the change in CRC screening use after introduction of the dual screening offer and to assess determinants of screening use. Data were drawn from a population-based cohort study initiated during 2000-2002 in Germany (n = 5,845, age range at recruitment: 50-75 years). We conducted both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses to obtain uptake rates of CRC screening based on four waves of data. Age-group specific proportions of participants having had FOBT within 2 years remained essentially unchanged at 61-67% between 2000 and 2002 (1st wave) and 2005-2007 (3rd wave). The proportions of participants having undergone screening colonoscopy within 10 years increased from 23-29% to 46-57%, leading to a substantial overall increase in being up-to-date with CRC screening from 66-68% to 77-80%. In 2008-2010 (4th wave), FOBT use declined and colonoscopy use continued to increase. Obesity was significantly associated with lower prevalence of being up-to-date with FOBT (odds ratio [OR] at 8-year follow-up 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.80) and screening colonoscopy (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.86). Also, smokers were less likely to have ever used FOBT (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.40-0.75) or colonoscopy (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.90) compared to nonsmokers. After the introduction of dual screening offer, the overall adherence to CRC screening steeply increased, mainly due to an increase in screening colonoscopy uptake. Screening tests kept being underused by obese people and smokers who are at elevated CRC risk.
000144396 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313$$a313 - Cancer risk factors and prevention (POF3-313)$$cPOF3-313$$fPOF III$$x0
000144396 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed,
000144396 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)b3928caa1d0865f09ffc5cf5e7683da6$$aChen, Chen$$b1$$udkfz
000144396 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)c67a12496b8aac150c0eef888d808d46$$aSchöttker, Ben$$b2$$udkfz
000144396 7001_ $$aHolleczek, Bernd$$b3
000144396 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)6c5d058b7552d071a7fa4c5e943fff0f$$aHoffmeister, Michael$$b4$$udkfz
000144396 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)90d5535ff896e70eed81f4a4f6f22ae2$$aBrenner, Hermann$$b5$$eLast author$$udkfz
000144396 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)1474822-8$$a10.1002/ijc.32566$$gp. ijc.32566$$n9$$p2423-2432$$tInternational journal of cancer$$v146$$x1097-0215$$y2020
000144396 909CO $$ooai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:144396$$pVDB
000144396 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)0311ebf3415e41860b4e2c56fbae6919$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b0$$kDKFZ
000144396 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)b3928caa1d0865f09ffc5cf5e7683da6$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b1$$kDKFZ
000144396 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)c67a12496b8aac150c0eef888d808d46$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b2$$kDKFZ
000144396 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)6c5d058b7552d071a7fa4c5e943fff0f$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b4$$kDKFZ
000144396 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)90d5535ff896e70eed81f4a4f6f22ae2$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b5$$kDKFZ
000144396 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF3-310$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF3-300$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF3$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bGesundheit$$lKrebsforschung$$vCancer risk factors and prevention$$x0
000144396 9141_ $$y2020
000144396 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0420$$2StatID$$aNationallizenz
000144396 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS
000144396 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline
000144396 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0310$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bNCBI Molecular Biology Database
000144396 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bINT J CANCER : 2017
000144396 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bClarivate Analytics Master Journal List
000144396 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0110$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index
000144396 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection
000144396 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0111$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded
000144396 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1030$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Life Sciences
000144396 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1050$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBIOSIS Previews
000144396 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9905$$2StatID$$aIF >= 5$$bINT J CANCER : 2017
000144396 9202_ $$0I:(DE-He78)C070-20160331$$kC070$$lC070 Klinische Epidemiologie und Alternf.$$x0
000144396 9200_ $$0I:(DE-He78)C070-20160331$$kC070$$lC070 Klinische Epidemiologie und Alternf.$$x0
000144396 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)C070-20160331$$kC070$$lC070 Klinische Epidemiologie und Alternf.$$x0
000144396 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)C120-20160331$$kC120$$lPräventive Onkologie$$x1
000144396 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)HD01-20160331$$kHD01$$lDKTK HD zentral$$x2
000144396 980__ $$ajournal
000144396 980__ $$aVDB
000144396 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)C070-20160331
000144396 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)C120-20160331
000144396 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)HD01-20160331
000144396 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED