Changes in quality of life in colorectal cancer screening: A multicentre trial in populations in China

ObjectiveEvidence is scarce about whether colorectal cancer screening can affect the quality of life of participants, particularly in terms of novel screening strategies in Eastern populations.MethodsFrom 2018 to 2021, the TARGET-C trial randomly allocated 19,373 participants to one of three screening strategies: (A) one-time colonoscopy; (B) annual faecal immunochemical test with positives referred for colonoscopy; and (C) annual risk-adapted screening with low-risk participants referred for faecal immunochemical test and high-risk participants referred for colonoscopy. Two rounds of follow-up after baseline screening were conducted over the 3-year period. Based on the TARGET-C, a EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire-based quality of life survey was administrated to the participants, and utility scores and related changes were used as the main outcomes.ResultsTaking by-strategy utility scores for participants before being screened at baseline as the comparators (<i>n</i> = 2921), the changes in utility scores after baseline screening were -0.008 (<i>P</i> < 0.050) for strategy A, 0.006 (<i>P</i> < 0.050) for strategy B and 0.000 (<i>P</i> > 0.050) for strategy C, and the overall difference in quality of life changes among the three strategies was significant (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Taking the same comparators as above, the changes in utility scores for participants in the second round of follow-up (<i>n</i> = 9201) were 0.011 (<i>P</i> < 0.050), 0.011 (<i>P</i> < 0.050) and 0.005 (<i>P</i> < 0.050), respectively, and the overall difference was neither clinically meaningful nor statistically significant (<i>P</i> = 0.113).ConclusionsNone of the three colorectal cancer screening strategies had a major effect on the participants' quality of life over the 3 years. Within one round of screening, incorporating risk-adapted screening and/or faecal immunochemical test might offset the quality of life impact from colonoscopy screening.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Medical Screening
Published
2026-03-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413261430309
Primary Topic
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Changes in quality of life in colorectal cancer screening: A multicentre trial in populations in China

Lingbin Du, X. Wang, Hongda Chen, Min Dai et al.
Journal of Medical Screening
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
article

Changes in quality of life in colorectal cancer screening: A multicentre trial in populations in China

Lingbin Du, X. Wang, Hongda Chen, Min Dai, Dong Dong, Hao Wang, Yanjie Li, Xinyi Zhou, S Y Cai, Xianzhen Liao, Yi Gao, Su-Yang Zou, Ju-Fang Shi, Donghua Wei
article en

Abstract

ObjectiveEvidence is scarce about whether colorectal cancer screening can affect the quality of life of participants, particularly in terms of novel screening strategies in Eastern populations.MethodsFrom 2018 to 2021, the TARGET-C trial randomly allocated 19,373 participants to one of three screening strategies: (A) one-time colonoscopy; (B) annual faecal immunochemical test with positives referred for colonoscopy; and (C) annual risk-adapted screening with low-risk participants referred for faecal immunochemical test and high-risk participants referred for colonoscopy. Two rounds of follow-up after baseline screening were conducted over the 3-year period. Based on the TARGET-C, a EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire-based quality of life survey was administrated to the participants, and utility scores and related changes were used as the main outcomes.ResultsTaking by-strategy utility scores for participants before being screened at baseline as the comparators (<i>n</i> = 2921), the changes in utility scores after baseline screening were -0.008 (<i>P</i> < 0.050) for strategy A, 0.006 (<i>P</i> < 0.050) for strategy B and 0.000 (<i>P</i> > 0.050) for strategy C, and the overall difference in quality of life changes among the three strategies was significant (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Taking the same comparators as above, the changes in utility scores for participants in the second round of follow-up (<i>n</i> = 9201) were 0.011 (<i>P</i> < 0.050), 0.011 (<i>P</i> < 0.050) and 0.005 (<i>P</i> < 0.050), respectively, and the overall difference was neither clinically meaningful nor statistically significant (<i>P</i> = 0.113).ConclusionsNone of the three colorectal cancer screening strategies had a major effect on the participants' quality of life over the 3 years. Within one round of screening, incorporating risk-adapted screening and/or faecal immunochemical test might offset the quality of life impact from colonoscopy screening.

Journal of Medical Screening
Jiangsu University (CN), Capital Medical University (CN), Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN), Kunming Medical University (CN), Peking Union Medical College Hospital (CN), Shanghai Medical Information Center (CN), Xuzhou Cancer Hospital (CN), Hunan Cancer Hospital (CN), Anhui Provincial Hospital (CN), Cancer Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CN), Henan Cancer Hospital (CN), Beijing Ditan Hospital (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 24%
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.