The challenge of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in low and middle-income countries (LMIC): Acceptance, knowledge, and preferences in Brazil.

153 Background: Presenting an increasing incidence and high mortality rates, CRC is a challenge that many LMIC face and struggle to establish an effective screening strategy. Brazil is one of the few Latin American countries and LMIC that have a population-based CRC screening program, targeting ages 50-74 and performing a fecal occult blood test (FT) every 2 years and colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy as a confirmatory test. Methods: We conducted a survey in patients visiting the primary care unit in the months of January and March 2024 in three distinct settings (Rural, Suburban, and Urban) aiming to estimate acceptance, knowledge, and preferences regarding FT and colonoscopy. Patients aged 50-74 were invited to join this study, excluding those with a history of CRC, and we used the integrated digital charting platform to set demographic variables. At the end of the survey, participants were invited to undergo CRC screening. Those who refuse to screen would select the main reason. Results: A total of 1,031 individuals responded the survey, which 52% were females and the median age was 62 years. A total of 763 (74%) accepted to undergo CRC screening with an overall preference for FT (72%) compared to colonoscopy (53,5%). FT acceptance remained somewhat constant in both gender subgroups (70-75%), and a lower colonoscopy acceptance in the male subgroup (46%). In the subdivided geographic setting groups, the rural population (12%) had the lowest knowledge score and the lowest overall acceptance rate (65%), ranking “No symptoms” as the main reason for not screening. The suburban and urban subgroups showed an equivalent overall acceptance rate (74-75%), ranking “Busy schedule” and “Healthy lifestyle” as the main reasons for not screening. Conclusions: Data suggests that an effective CRC screening depends on multiple factors. While literature sustains the weight of cost and long waiting times, this study contributes adding a new, more granular perspective. Efforts in patient education, and clarification of misconceptions and anxieties could prove to be an important step in the right direction. A closer contact between patient and healthcare provider could make the difference between screening or not. A leave of absence or mailed FT might be of great benefit for those with a busy schedule, while interaction with CRC survivors seems to drastically increase colonoscopy acceptance, an important intervention that should be encouraged and widespread. Although this study has its limitations due to sample size and geographic characteristics, it lays down a new layer in understanding the individuals and planning actions to prevent the advance of CRC in LMIC.