% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Guo:144396,
author = {F. Guo$^*$ and C. Chen$^*$ and B. Schöttker$^*$ and B.
Holleczek and M. Hoffmeister$^*$ and H. Brenner$^*$},
title = {{C}hanges in colorectal cancer screening use after
introduction of alternative screening offer in {G}ermany:
{P}rospective cohort study.},
journal = {International journal of cancer},
volume = {146},
number = {9},
issn = {1097-0215},
address = {Bognor Regis},
publisher = {Wiley-Liss},
reportid = {DKFZ-2019-01849},
pages = {2423-2432},
year = {2020},
note = {146 (9), 2423-24322020#EA:C070#LA:C070#},
abstract = {In 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.},
cin = {C070 / C120 / HD01},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)C070-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)C120-20160331 /
I:(DE-He78)HD01-20160331},
pnm = {313 - Cancer risk factors and prevention (POF3-313)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:31291471},
doi = {10.1002/ijc.32566},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/144396},
}