Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading cancer-related causes of death in the world. Since the 70s, many countries have adopted different CRC screening programs, which has resulted in a decrease in mortality. However, current screening test options still present downsides. The commercialized stool-based tests present high false-positive rates and low sensitivity, which negatively affects the detection of early stage carcinogenesis. The gold standard colonoscopy has low uptake due to its invasiveness and the perception of discomfort and embarrassment that the procedure may bring. In this review, we collected and described the latest data about alternative CRC screening techniques that can overcome these disadvantages. Web of Science and PubMed were employed as search engines for studies reporting on CRC screening tests and future perspectives. The searches generated 555 articles, of which 93 titles were selected. Finally, a total of 50 studies, describing 14 different CRC alternative tests, were included. Among the investigated techniques, the main feature that could have an impact on CRC screening perception and uptake was the ease of sample collection. Urine, exhaled breath, and blood-based tests promise to achieve good diagnostic performance (sensitivity of 63–100%, 90–95%, and 47–97%, respectively) while minimizing stress and discomfort for the patient.

Influenza-like illness (ILI) patients co-detected with respiratory pathogens exhibit poorer health outcomes than those with single infections. To address the paucity of knowledge concerning the incidence of concurrent respiratory pathogens, their relationships, and the clinical differences between patients detected with single and multiple pathogens, we performed an in-depth characterization of the oropharyngeal samples of primary care patients collected in Genoa (Northwest Italy), during winter seasons 2018/19–2019/20.The apriori algorithm was employed to evaluate the incidence of viral, bacterial, and viral-bacterial pairs during the study period. The grade of correlation between pathogens was investigated using the Phi coefficient. Factors associated with viral, bacterial or viral-bacterial co-detection were assessed using logistic regression.The most frequently identified pathogens included influenza A, rhinovirus, Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae. The highest correlations were found between bacterial-bacterial and viral-bacterial pairs, such as Haemophilus influenzae-Streptococcus pneumoniae, adenovirus-Haemophilus influenzae, adenovirus-Streptococcus pneumoniae, RSV-A-Bordetella pertussis, and influenza B Victoria-Bordetella parapertussis. Viruses were detected together at significantly lower rates. Notably, rhinovirus, influenza, and RSV exhibited significant negative correlations with each other. Co-detection was more prevalent in children aged < 4, and cough was shown to be a reliable indicator of viral co-detection.Given the evolving epidemiological landscape following the COVID-19 pandemic, future research utilizing the methodology described here, while considering the circulation of SARS-CoV-2, could further enrich the understanding of concurrent respiratory pathogens.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading cancer-related causes of death in the world. Since the 70s, many countries have adopted different CRC screening programs which has resulted in a decrease in mortality. However, current screening test options still present downsides. The commercialized stool-based tests present high false-positive rates and low sensitivity, which negatively affects the detection of early stage carcinogenesis. The gold standard colonoscopy has low uptake due to its invasiveness and the perception of discomfort and embarrassment that the procedure may bring.In this review, we collected and described the latest data about alternative CRC screening techniques that can overcome these disadvantages. Web of Science and PubMed were employed as search engines for studies reporting on CRC screening tests and future perspectives. The searches generated 555 articles, of which 93 titles were selected. Finally, a total of 50 studies, describing 14 different CRC alternative tests, were included. Among the investigated techniques the main feature that could have an impact on CRC screening perception and uptake was the ease of sample collection. Urine, exhaled breath and blood-based tests promise to achieve good diagnostic performance (sensitivity of 63-100%, 90-95%, 47-97%, respectively) while minimizing stress and discomfort for the patient.

Despite the recognized benefits of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, uptake is still suboptimal in many countries. In addressing this issue, one important element that has not received sufficient attention is population preference. Our review provides a comprehensive summary of the up-to-date evidence relative to this topic. Four OVID databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE^® ALL, Biological Abstracts, CAB Abstracts, and Global Health. Among the 742 articles generated, 154 full texts were selected for a more thorough evaluation based on predefined inclusion criteria. Finally, 83 studies were included in our review. The general population preferred either colonoscopy as the most accurate test, or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) as the least invasive for CRC screening. The emerging blood test (SEPT9) and capsule colonoscopy (nanopill), with the potential to overcome the pitfalls of the available techniques, were also favored. Gender, age, race, screening experience, education and beliefs, the perceived risk of CRC, insurance, and health status influence one’s test preference. To improve uptake, CRC screening programs should consider offering test alternatives and tailoring the content and delivery of screening information to the public’s preferences. Other logistical measures in terms of the types of bowel preparation, gender of endoscopist, stool collection device, and reward for participants can also be useful.

This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) tools for cancer screening and explored the preferences of vulnerable people and clinicians regarding the specific characteristics of the SDM tools. A mixed-method convergent segregated approach was employed, which involved an independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data. Articles were systematically selected and screened, resulting in the inclusion and critical appraisal of 55 studies. Results from the meta-analysis revealed that SDM tools were more effective for improving knowledge, reducing decisional conflict, and increasing screening intentions among vulnerable populations compared to non-vulnerable populations. Subgroup analyses showed minimal heterogeneity for decisional conflict outcomes measured over a six-month period. Insights from the qualitative findings revealed the complexities of clinicians’ and vulnerable populations’ preferences for an SDM tool in cancer screening. Vulnerable populations highly preferred SDM tools with relevant information, culturally tailored content, and appropriate communication strategies. Clinicians, on the other hand, highly preferred tools that can be easily integrated into their medical systems for efficient use and can effectively guide their practice for cancer screening while considering patients’ values. Considering the complexities of patients’ and clinicians’ preferences in SDM tool characteristics, fostering collaboration between patients and clinicians during the creation of an SDM tool for cancer screening is essential. This collaboration may ensure effective communication about the specific tool characteristics that best support the needs and preferences of both parties.