Abstract
Background
Colorectal cancer screening programmes (CRCSPs) are implemented worldwide despite recent evidence indicating more physical harm occurring during CRCSPs than previously thought. Therefore, we aimed to review the evidence on physical harms associated with endoscopic diagnostic procedures during CRCSPs and, when possible, to quantify the risk of the most serious types of physical harm during CRCSPs, i.e. deaths and cardiopulmonary events (CPEs).
Methods
Systematic review with descriptive statistics and random-effects meta-analyses of studies investigating physical harms following CRCSPs. We conducted a systematic search in the literature and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence.
Results
We included 134 studies for review, reporting findings from 151 unique populations when accounting for multiple screening interventions per study. Physical harm can be categorized into 17 types of harm. The evidence was very heterogeneous with inadequate measurement and reporting of harms. The risk of bias was serious or critical in 95% of assessments of deaths and CPEs, and the certainty of the evidence was very low in all analyses. The risk of death was assessed for 57 populations with large variation across studies. Meta-analyses indicated that 3 to 23 deaths occur during CRCSPs per 100,000 people screened. Cardiopulmonary events were assessed for 55 populations. Despite our efforts to subcategorize CPEs into 17 distinct subtypes, 41% of CPE assessments were too poorly measured or reported to allow quantification. We found a tendency towards lower estimates of deaths and CPEs in studies with a critical risk of bias.
Discussion
Deaths and CPEs during CRCSPs are rare, yet they do occur during CRCSPs. We believe that our findings are conservative due to the heterogeneity and low quality of the evidence. A standardized system for the measurement and reporting of the harms of screening is warranted.
Trial registration
PROSPERO Registration number CRD42017058844.
Funder
Danish society for general practitioners, Sara Krabbes legat
Danish Cancer Society Research Center
William Demant Fonden
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Reference86 articles.
1. The IARC Perspective on Colorectal Cancer Screening;B Lauby-Secretan;N Engl J Med,2018
2. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force;JS Lin;JAMA,2021
3. Current and future colorectal cancer screening strategies;A Shaukat;Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology,2022