Blacks Less Likely to Get Colonoscopy

(Ivanhoe Newswire) -- Even if they have a strong family history of colon cancer, blacks may not get an important screening for the disease.

Family history increases the risk of colon cancer, especially if several first-degree relatives have it or if one immediate family member is diagnosed with the disease before age 60. A new report from Vanderbilt University analyzed screening behavior in 41,830 adults ages 40 to 79 -- 32,265 blacks and 9,565 whites.

Results show 1.7-percent of blacks had either multiple first-degree relatives with colon cancer or a first-degree relative diagnosed before age 50, compared with 2.7-percent of whites. Of those, 27.3-percent of blacks and 43.1- percent of whites said they had a colonoscopy within the past five years, as is recommended. The study also shows blacks were less likely than whites -- 19.7 percent versus 46.9 percent -- to report if they had colorectal polyps, precursors to colorectal cancer.

Researchers say the most common reason both blacks and whites with family histories of colon cancer gave for not having a colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy was the lack of a recommendation from their health care provider. This was more common in black participants.

“In conclusion, in this disadvantaged population, colonoscopy procedures in individuals with family histories of colon cancer are underused,” write the authors. “Physicians and other health care providers need to elicit family history information for all patients and ensure that African Americans with affected relatives appropriately receive colon cancer screening.”

Most guidelines recommend if you have a family history of colorectal cancer you should begin getting screened for the disease when you are 40 years old rather than when you are 50 -- the recommendation for the general population. A colonoscopy is then recommended every five years.

Sign up for a free weekly e-mail on Medical Breakthroughs called First to Know by clicking here.

SOURCE: Archives of Internal Medicine, 2008;168:625-631