Researchers analyzed data from 59 studies to look at how often people get colorectal cancer screening. The group included cancer survivors and people from the general population who had no cancer history. The main goal was to compare screening rates between these two groups. The overall pooled prevalence of screening was found to be 0.53 across all participants. When comparing cancer survivors to cancer-free controls, the study found survivors were more likely to be screened. The odds ratio was 1.39 with a 95% confidence interval of 1.26 to 1.52. No safety concerns were reported because the study looked at screening uptake rather than treatment side effects. However, some evidence of publication bias was noted. Study design and how screening was recorded varied significantly between the included studies. These differences were significant sources of heterogeneity. Future studies should evaluate predictors of nonadherence to colorectal cancer screening among cancer survivors. This information could help policymakers target populations with lower screening rates.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of colorectal cancer screening prevalence in survivors versus general populationCancer survivors are more likely to get colorectal cancer screening than the general public
AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the prevalence of colorectal cancer screening among cancer survivors compared to the cancer-free general population. Data were synthesized from 59 studies, though the specific setting was not reported. The analysis did not include adverse events or discontinuations as these were not reported in the source data.
The overall pooled prevalence of colorectal cancer screening was 0.53 with a 95% CI of 0.46 to 0.61. When comparing likelihoods, cancer survivors were more likely to undergo screening than cancer-free controls. The odds ratio was 1.39 with a 95% CI of 1.26 to 1.52.
The authors noted significant heterogeneity regarding study design, the method of colorectal cancer screening ascertainment such as self-report versus medical records, and the first primary cancer site. Some evidence of publication bias was observed with an Egger's test p-value of 0.092. Future studies should evaluate predictors of nonadherence to colorectal cancer screening among cancer survivors to inform policymakers in targeting populations with lower screening rates.