Potentially inappropriate screening colonoscopy in Medicare patients: variation by physician and geographic region

Ecogastroenterology: cultivating sustainable clinical excellence in an environmentally conscious landscape

Gastrointestinal practices, especially endoscopy, have a substantial environmental impact, marked by notable greenhouse gas emissions and waste generation. As the world struggles with climate change, there emerges a pressing need to re-evaluate and reform the environmental footprint within gastrointestinal medicine. The challenge lies in finding a harmonious balance between ensuring clinical effectiveness and upholding environmental responsibility. This task involves recognising that the most significant reduction in the carbon footprint of endoscopy is achieved by avoiding unnecessary procedures; addressing the use of single-use endoscopes and accessories; and extending beyond the procedural suites to include clinics, virtual care, and conferences, among other aspects of gastrointestinal practice. The emerging digital realm in health care is crucial, given the potential environmental advantages of virtual gastroenterological care. Through an in-depth analysis, this review presents a path towards sustainable gastrointestinal practices, emphasising integrated strategies that prioritise both patient care and environmental stewardship.

Effect of alverine citrate plus simethicone in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Colonoscopy is the standard procedure for screening, and surveillance of colorectal cancer, including the treatment for colonic lesions. Colonic spasm is an important problem from colonoscopy that affects both surgeons and patients. The spasm also might be the cause of longer cecal intubation time, difficulty of the procedure, and increased pain. Previous reports indicated that antispasmodic agents can decrease such symptoms. Therefore, we conducted this study to investigate the cecal intubation time of antispasmodic agents. A single blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted from 01/11/2020 to 31/08/2021. One hundred four patients were allocated to antispasmodic agent group and control group, in 1:1 ratio. The efficacy of median (range) cecal intubation time showed similar results of 5 (2, 14) and 5 (2, 15) minutes with no statistically significant difference. The mean scores of all domains i.e., pain, spasm, cleanliness, and difficulty were better in the antispasmodic agent group about 2.6 (1.4), 1.8 (0.8), 2.4 (0.9), and 2.0 (0.9), respectively, than control group but there were spasm and cleanliness showed statistically significant difference. Moreover, the satisfaction scores showed better efficacy in decreased spasm, decreased difficulty, and increased cleanliness than control group. Prescribing of antispasmodic drugs before colonoscopy might be the choice of treatment for the patients. The antispasmodic drugs will be beneficial to both of the patient and the doctor.

Perspectives and awareness of endoscopy healthcare professionals on sustainable practices in gastrointestinal endoscopy: results of the LEAFGREEN survey

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is one of healthcare's main contributors to climate change. We aimed to assess healthcare professionals' attitudes and the perceived barriers to implementation of sustainable GI endoscopy.

METHODS

The LEAFGREEN web-based survey was a cross-sectional study conducted by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Green Endoscopy Working Group. The questionnaire comprised 39 questions divided into five sections (respondent demographics; climate change and sustainability beliefs; waste and resource management; single-use endoscopes and accessories; education and research). The survey was available via email to all active members of the ESGE and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) in March 2023.

RESULTS

407 respondents participated in the survey (11% response rate). Most participants (86%) agreed climate change is real and anthropogenic, but one-third did not consider GI endoscopy to be a significant contributor to climate change. Improvement in the appropriateness of endoscopic procedures (41%) and reduction in single-use accessories (34%) were considered the most important strategies to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. Respondents deemed lack of institutional support and knowledge from staff to be the main barriers to sustainable endoscopy. Strategies to reduce unnecessary GI endoscopic procedures and comparative studies of single-use versus reusable accessories were identified as research priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

In this survey, ESGE and ESGENA members acknowledge climate change as a major threat to humanity. Further improvement in sustainability beliefs and professional attitudes, reduction in inappropriate GI endoscopy, and rational use of single-use accessories and endoscopes are critically required.

Environmentally sustainable gastroenterology practice: Review of current state and future goals

OBJECTIVES

The health-care sector contributes 4.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with gastroenterology playing a significant role due to the widespread use of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. In this review, we aim to understand the carbon footprint in gastroenterology practice associated with GI endoscopy, conferences and recruitment, identify barriers to change, and recommend mitigating strategies.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to explore the carbon footprint in gastroenterology practice, focusing on endoscopy, inpatient and outpatient settings, and recruitment practices. Recommendations for mitigating the carbon footprint were derived.

RESULTS

This narrative review analyzed 34 articles on the carbon footprint in gastroenterology practice. Carbon footprint of endoscopy in the United States is approximately 85,768 metric tons of CO2 emission annually, equivalent to 9 million gallons of gasoline consumed, or 94 million pounds of coal burned. Each endoscopy generates 2.1 kg of disposable waste (46 L volume), of which 64% of waste goes to the landfill, 28% represents biohazard waste, and 9% is recycled. The per-case manufacturing carbon footprint for single-use devices and reusable devices is 1.37 kg CO2 and 0.0017 kg CO2, respectively. Inpatient and outpatient services contributed through unnecessary procedures, prolonged hospital stays, and excessive use of single-use items. Fellowship recruitment and gastrointestinal conferences added to the footprint, mainly due to air travel and hotel stays.

CONCLUSION

Gastrointestinal endoscopy and practice contribute to the carbon footprint through the use of disposables such as single-use endoscopes and waste generation. To achieve environmental sustainability, measures such as promoting reusable endoscopy equipment over single-use endoscopes, calculating institutional carbon footprints, establishing benchmarking standards, and embracing virtual platforms such as telemedicine and research meetings should be implemented.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Receipt Does Not Differ by 10-Year Mortality Risk Among Older Adults

BACKGROUND

Health status and life expectancy are important considerations for assessing potential benefits and harms of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs, particularly among older adults.

METHODS

We examined receipt of past-year CRC screening according to predicted 10-year mortality risk among 25,888 community-dwelling adults aged 65-84 years who were not up-to-date with screening in the nationwide National Health Interview Survey. Ten-year mortality risk was estimated using a validated index; from the lowest to highest quintiles of the index, risk was 12%, 24%, 39%, 58%, and 79%, respectively. We also examined the proportion of screening performed among adults with life expectancy <10 years.

RESULTS

The prevalence of past-year CRC screening was 39.5%, 40.6%, 38.7%, 36.4%, and 35.4%, from the lowest to highest quintile of 10-year mortality risk. Odds of CRC screening did not differ between adults in the lowest vs highest quintile (adjusted odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.93-1.20). One-quarter (27.9%) of past-year CRC screening occurred in adults with life expectancy <10 years, and more than half (50.7%) of adults aged 75-84 years had 10-year mortality risk ≥50% at the time of screening. In an exploratory analysis, invasive but not noninvasive screening increased as 10-year mortality risk increased ( P < 0.05) among adults aged 70-79 years.

DISCUSSION

Past-year CRC screening does not differ by predicted 10-year mortality risk. An age-based approach to CRC screening results in underscreening of older, healthier adults and overscreening of younger adults with chronic conditions. Personalized screening with incorporation of individual life expectancy may increase the value of CRC screening programs.

Precision endoscopy in the era of climate change and sustainability

Global warming caused by increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has a direct impact on human health. Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy contributes significantly to GHG emissions due to energy consumption, reprocessing of endoscopes and accessories, production of equipment, safe disposal of biohazardous waste, and travel by patients. Moreover, GHGs are also generated in histopathology through tissue processing and the production of biopsy specimen bottles. The reduction in unnecessary surveillance endoscopies and biopsies is a practical approach to decrease GHG emissions without affecting disease outcomes. This narrative review explores the role of precision medicine in GI endoscopy, such as image-enhanced endoscopy and artificial intelligence, with a focus on decreasing unnecessary endoscopic procedures and biopsies in the surveillance and diagnosis of premalignant lesions in the esophagus, stomach, and colon. This review offers strategies to minimize unnecessary endoscopic procedures and biopsies, decrease GHG emissions, and maintain high-quality patient care, thereby contributing to sustainable healthcare practices.

Asia-Pacific survey on green endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Greenhouse gas emissions are the fundamental cause of global warming, with CO2 being the most contributive. Carbon reduction has been widely advocated to mitigate the climate crisis. The endoscopy unit is the third highest waste-generating department in a hospital. The awareness and acceptance of the practice of green endoscopy among healthcare workers is unclear.

METHOD

An online survey was conducted over a 5-week period from July to August 2023 in the Asia-Pacific region, which targeted endoscopists, nurses, and other healthcare professionals of the endoscopy unit. The primary outcome was the agreement to adopt green endoscopy. The secondary outcomes included views on sustainable practices, factors associated with increased acceptance of green endoscopy, the acceptance of different carbon reduction measures, and the perceived barriers to implementation.

RESULTS

A total of 259 valid responses were received. Overall, 79.5% of participants agreed to incorporate green endoscopy into their practice. Nevertheless, existing green policies were only reported by 12.7% of respondents. The level of understanding of green endoscopy is the only significant factor associated with its acceptance (odds ratio 3.10, P < 0.007). Potential barriers to implementation include healthcare cost increment, infection risk, inadequate awareness, and lack of policy and industrial support.

CONCLUSION

Green endoscopy is well accepted among healthcare workers but not widely implemented. The level of understanding is highly associated with its acceptance, highlighting the importance of education. A reliable assessment tool is needed to quantify the environmental impact of endoscopy. Further studies are needed to ascertain its benefit and cost effectiveness.

Red-flag signs and symptoms for earlier diagnosis of early-onset colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Prompt detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) among individuals younger than age 50 years (early-onset CRC) is a clinical priority because of its alarming rise.

METHODS

We conducted a matched case-control study of 5075 incident early-onset CRC among US commercial insurance beneficiaries (113 million adults aged 18-64 years) with 2 or more years of continuous enrollment (2006-2015) to identify red-flag signs and symptoms between 3 months to 2 years before the index date among 17 prespecified signs and symptoms. We assessed diagnostic intervals according to the presence of these signs and symptoms before and within 3 months of diagnosis.

RESULTS

Between 3 months and 2 years before the index date, 4 red-flag signs and symptoms (abdominal pain, rectal bleeding, diarrhea, and iron deficiency anemia) were associated with an increased risk of early-onset CRC, with odds ratios (ORs) ranging from 1.34 to 5.13. Having 1, 2, or at least 3 of these signs and symptoms were associated with a 1.94-fold (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.76 to 2.14), 3.59-fold (95% CI = 2.89 to 4.44), and 6.52-fold (95% CI = 3.78 to 11.23) risk (Ptrend < .001), respectively, with stronger associations for younger ages (Pinteraction < .001) and rectal cancer (Pheterogenity = .012). The number of different signs and symptoms was predictive of early-onset CRC beginning 18 months before diagnosis. Approximately 19.3% of patients had their first sign or symptom occur between 3 months and 2 years before diagnosis (median diagnostic interval = 8.7 months), and approximately 49.3% had the first sign or symptom within 3 months of diagnosis (median diagnostic interval = 0.53 month).

CONCLUSIONS

Early recognition of red-flag signs and symptoms (abdominal pain, rectal bleeding, diarrhea, and iron-deficiency anemia) may improve early detection and timely diagnosis of early-onset CRC.

Impacts of COVID-19 on Appropriate Use of Screening Colonoscopy in a Large Integrated Healthcare Delivery System

BACKGROUND

Decreasing low-value colonoscopy is critical to optimizing access for high-need patients, particularly in resource-constrained environments such as those created by the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that rates of screening colonoscopy overuse would decline during COVID compared to pre-COVID due to enhanced procedural scrutiny and prioritization in the setting of constrained access.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize impacts of COVID-19 on screening colonoscopy overuse DESIGN: Retrospective national cohort study using Veterans Health Administration administrative data PARTICIPANTS: Veterans undergoing screening colonoscopy in Q4 2019 (pre-COVID) and Q4 2020 (COVID) at 109 endoscopy facilities MAIN MEASURES: Rates of screening colonoscopy overuse KEY RESULTS: 18,376 screening colonoscopies were performed pre-COVID, 19% (3,641) of which met overuse criteria. While only 9,360 screening colonoscopies were performed in Q4 2020, 25% met overuse criteria. Overall change in median facility-level overuse during COVID compared to pre-COVID was 6% (95%CI 5%-7%), with significant variability across facilities (IQR: 2%-11%). Of colonoscopies meeting overuse criteria, the top reason for overuse in both periods was screening colonoscopy performed <9 years after previous screening procedure (55% pre-COVID, 49% during COVID). The largest shifts in overuse category were in screening procedures performed <9 years after prior screening colonoscopy (-6% decline COVID vs. pre-COVID) and screening procedures performed in patients below average-risk screening age (i.e., age <40 (5% increase COVID compared to pre-COVID), age 40-44 (4% increase COVID vs. pre-COVID)). Within facility performance was stable over time; 83/109 facilities changed their performance by <=1 quartile during COVID compared to pre-COVID.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite pandemic-related resource constraints and enhanced procedural scrutiny and prioritization in the setting of COVID-related backlogs, screening colonoscopy overuse rates remained roughly stable during COVID compared to pre-COVID, with continued variability across facilities. These data highlight the need for systematic and concerted efforts to address overuse, even in the face of strong external motivating factors.

Inappropriate Multi-Target Stool DNA Use for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Risks, Compliance, and Outcomes

Background Inappropriate or "off-label" use of multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) tests refers to their use in patients for whom colonoscopy or no testing at all is warranted. Examples include a positive family history of colorectal cancer, a history of inflammatory bowel disease, or medical issues necessitating diagnostic colonoscopy, among others. Current understanding of off-label mt-sDNA use for colorectal cancer screening, its associated risks, and outcomes is lacking. We examined off-label mt-sDNA prescription and compliance with testing in an outpatient setting in southeast Michigan. Aims The primary aims of the study were determining the extent of off-label mt-sDNA testing and compliance, and results of all testing, as well as demographic factors associated with off-label prescriptions. The secondary aims were to examine explanations for incomplete testing and factors contributing to successful completion. Methods Using a retrospective design, we identified mt-sDNA orders from outpatient internal medicine clinics between January 1, 2018, to July 31, 2019, to evaluate the proportion of off-label mt-sDNA, results of testing, and follow-up colonoscopies up to one year after order placement. Patients were categorized as "off-label" if any inappropriate criteria were met. Statistical analysis was performed for primary and secondary outcomes. Results From 679 mt-sDNA orders within the study period, 81 (12.1%) had at least one off-label criterion for testing. In total, 404/679 (59.5%) patients completed testing. Lack of follow-up comprised the majority of incompletions (216/275; 78.6%). Only 52 (70.3%) out of 74 positive results were followed by diagnostic colonoscopy. Retired employment status (OR = 1.87; 95%CI, 1.17-2.98; P = 0.008) and age of 76 years or older (OR = 2.28; 95%CI, 0.99-5.21; P = 0.044) were significantly associated with increased risk of off-label mt-sDNA prescription. Increasing age range was associated with higher test completion (χ2 (5) = 12.085, p = 0.034). Multinomial logistic regression revealed an increasing age range (OR = 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.54; P = 0.004), predictive of a positive mt-sDNA result for both groups. There was no significant difference between off-label or on-label groups in the mean number of resected polyps or pathology scores on follow-up colonoscopy. Conclusions Off-label mt-sDNA use remains a concern in the outpatient setting. Compliance for test completion and follow-up colonoscopy for positive results require further improvement. Our findings shed new light on the factors associated with off-label testing while reiterating its burden. We also describe common reasons for incomplete tests in an attempt to augment future colorectal cancer (CRC) screening initiatives.

Green endoscopy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Accreditation Group (JAG) and Centre for Sustainable Health (CSH) joint consensus on practical measures for environmental sustainability in endoscopy

GI endoscopy is highly resource-intensive with a significant contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and waste generation. Sustainable endoscopy in the context of climate change is now the focus of mainstream discussions between endoscopy providers, units and professional societies. In addition to broader global challenges, there are some specific measures relevant to endoscopy units and their practices, which could significantly reduce environmental impact. Awareness of these issues and guidance on practical interventions to mitigate the carbon footprint of GI endoscopy are lacking. In this consensus, we discuss practical measures to reduce the impact of endoscopy on the environment applicable to endoscopy units and practitioners. Adoption of these measures will facilitate and promote new practices and the evolution of a more sustainable specialty.

Development and validation of a new ICD-10-based screening colonoscopy overuse measure in a large integrated healthcare system: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Low-value use of screening colonoscopy is wasteful and potentially harmful to patients. Decreasing low-value colonoscopy prevents procedural complications, saves patient time and reduces patient discomfort, and can improve access by reducing procedural demand. The objective of this study was to develop and validate an electronic measure of screening colonoscopy overuse using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition codes and then apply this measure to estimate facility-level overuse to target quality improvement initiatives to reduce overuse in a large integrated healthcare system.

METHODS

Retrospective national observational study of US Veterans undergoing screening colonoscopy at 119 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) endoscopy facilities in 2017. A measure of screening colonoscopy overuse was specified by an expert workgroup, and electronic approximation of the measure numerator and denominator was performed ('electronic measure'). The electronic measure was then validated via manual record review (n=511). Reliability statistics (n=100) were calculated along with diagnostic test characteristics of the electronic measure. The measure was then applied to estimate overall rates of overuse and facility-level variation in overuse among all eligible patients.

RESULTS

The electronic measure had high specificity (99%) and moderate sensitivity (46%). Adjusted positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 33% and 95%, respectively. Inter-rater reliability testing revealed near perfect agreement between raters (k=0.81). 269 572 colonoscopies were performed in VHA in 2017 (88 143 classified as screening procedures). Applying the measure to these 88 143 screening colonoscopies, 24.5% were identified as potential overuse. Median facility-level overuse was 22.5%, with substantial variability across facilities (IQR 19.1%-27.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

An International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition based electronic measure of screening colonoscopy overuse has high specificity and improved sensitivity compared with a previous International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition based measure. Despite increased focus on reducing low-value care and improving access, a quarter of VHA screening colonoscopies in 2017 were identified as potential low-value procedures, with substantial facility-level variability.

Characteristics Associated with Low-Value Cancer Screening Among Office-Based Physician Visits by Older Adults in the USA

BACKGROUND

After a certain age, cancer screening may expose older adults to unnecessary harms with limited benefits and represent inefficient use of health care resources.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the frequency of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening among adults older than US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) age thresholds at which screening is no longer considered routine and to identify physician and patient factors associated with low-value cancer screening.

DESIGN

Observational study using pooled cross-sectional data (2011-2016) from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a nationally representative probability sample of US office-based physician visits.

PARTICIPANTS

Analyses for cervical and breast cancer screening were limited to visits by women over age 65 (N=37,818) and ages 75 and over (N=19,451), respectively. Analyses for colorectal cancer screening were limited to visits by patients over age 75 (N=31,543).

MAIN MEASURES

Cancer screening procedures were coded as low value using USPSTF age thresholds.

KEY RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2016, an estimated 509, 507, and 273 thousand potentially low-value Pap smears, mammograms, and colonoscopies/sigmoidoscopies, respectively, were ordered annually. Low-valuecervical cancer screening was less likely to occur for visits with older (vs. younger) patients. Compared to visits by non-HispanicWhite women, low-valuecervical and breast cancer screening was less likely to occur for visits by women whose race/ethnicitywas something other than non-HispanicWhite, non-HispanicBlack, or Hispanic. Obstetrician/gynecologistswere more likely to order low-valuePap smears and mammograms compared to family/generalpractice physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Thousands of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screenings at ages beyond routine guideline thresholds occur each year in the USA. Further research is needed to understand whether this pattern represents clinical inertia and resistance to de-adoption of previous screening practices, or whether physicians and/or patients perceive a higher value in these tests than that endorsed by experts writing evidence-based guidelines.

Risk for Post-Colonoscopy Irritable Bowel Syndrome in Patients With and Without Antibiotic Exposure: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Laboratory studies have demonstrated that antibiotic use in conjunction with bowel purgatives causes alterations to the gut microbiota. Because gut microbiota changes may be a trigger for the development of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), we sought to assess whether individuals who undergo bowel cleansing for colonoscopy and have concurrent antibiotic exposure develop IBS at higher rates than individuals who undergo colonoscopy without antibiotic exposure.

METHODS

We used data from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database in the United States to study a cohort of 50- to 55-year-olds who underwent screening colonoscopy. Individuals exposed to antibiotics within 14 days of colonoscopy were propensity-score matched to individuals who were not exposed to antibiotics around colonoscopy. The primary outcome was a new IBS diagnosis, and the composite outcome was a new claim for IBS, IBS medications, or IBS symptoms. The association of antibiotic exposure and the outcomes was calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

There were 408,714 individuals who met criteria for the screening colonoscopy cohort. Of these, 24,617 (6.0%) were exposed to antibiotics around the time of colonoscopy, and they were propensity-score matched to 24,617 individuals not exposed to antibiotics. There was no statistically significant association between antibiotic use and IBS (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.39), but there was a weak association between antibiotic use and the composite outcome (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.24; number needed to harm, 94).

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals concurrently exposed to antibiotics and bowel purgative had slightly higher rates of surrogate IBS outcomes compared with matched controls who did not receive antibiotics concurrently with bowel purgative.

Do Socio-Demographics Play a Role in the Prevalence of Red Flags and Pursuant Colonoscopies in Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome?

Background

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a “brain-gut disorder” that lacks laboratory, radiologic, or physical exam findings. Colonoscopies are not routinely performed unless “red flag” symptoms, such as bleeding or abnormal weight loss, are present. Socio-demographics have been implicated as sources of potential disparities in appropriate care.

Aims

We hypothesize that the incidence of red flag symptoms and pursuant colonoscopies differ by socio-demographic status in patients with IBS.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with IBS were extracted from the National Inpatient Sample 2001-2013 using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes. Gastrointestinal bleed, blood in stool, weight loss, and anemia were pooled into red flag symptoms. Colonoscopies during the admission were identified using ICD-9 procedural codes. Chi-square analysis and binomial logistic regression were used to evaluate potential disparities with α<0.01.

Results

Patients with Medicaid or Medicare or those without insurance had higher odds of presenting with red flag symptoms compared to those with private insurance. Medicaid patients and uninsured patients had higher odds of undergoing colonoscopies. All patients that were not Caucasian had higher odds of presenting with red flags and subsequently undergoing colonoscopies. Older patients had higher odds of presenting with concerning red flag symptoms but lower odds of undergoing colonoscopies.

Conclusions

The incidence of red flag symptoms and performance of colonoscopies differed by socio-demographics in patients with IBS. Patients with non-private or those without insurance were more likely to have red flags and undergo a colonoscopy. Age and race also increased rates of red flag symptoms while having a mixed effect on pursuant colonoscopies. This may represent discrepancies in healthcare utilization in a vulnerable population.

An Estimate of the US Rate of Overuse of Screening Colonoscopy: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

This study aims to assess the rate at which screening colonoscopy is performed on patients younger or older than the age range specified in national guidelines, or at shorter intervals than recommended. Such non-indicated use of the procedure is considered low-value care, or overuse. This study is the first systematic review of the rate of non-indicated completed screening colonoscopy in the USA.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase were queried for relevant studies on overuse of screening colonoscopy published from January 1, 2002, until January 23, 2019. English-language studies that were conducted for screening colonoscopy after 2001 for average-risk patients were included. Studies must have followed national guidelines for detecting rates of overuse. We followed methods outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the reporting recommendations of the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology group (MOOSE).

RESULTS

A total of 772 papers were reviewed for inclusion; 42 were reviewed in full text. Of those reviewed, six studies met eligibility criteria, including a total of 459,503 colonoscopies of which 242,756 were screening colonoscopies. The rate of overuse ranged credibly from 17 to 25.7%.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrates that screening colonoscopy is regularly performed in the USA more often, and in populations older or younger, than recommended by national guidelines. Such overuse wastes resources and places patients at unnecessary risk of harm. Efforts to reduce non-indicated screening colonoscopy are needed.

Off-Label Use of Multitarget Stool DNA Testing in Primary Care

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated the off-label use of multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) testing in the primary care setting.

METHODS

We reviewed all mt-sDNA orders between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, to determine the frequency of off-label mt-sDNA orders.

RESULTS

Nine hundred two patients with mt-sDNA orders were evaluated, of which 160/902 patients (17.7%) met at least 1 criterion for off-label mt-sDNA order. Increasing age was associated with off-label order (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.32 [95% CI, 1.86-2.89] for every 10-year increase in age, P < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, increased age (OR 1.04 [1.02-1.06], P = 0.001) and need for diagnostic colonoscopy (OR 2.9 [1.01-8.34], P = 0.048) were associated with a positive mt-sDNA result.

DISCUSSION

Off-label mt-sDNA testing is common, and further efforts are needed to educate patients and providers on appropriate use of mt-sDNA for colorectal cancer screening.

Patient Preferences in Surveillance: Findings From a Discrete Choice Experiment in the "My Follow-Up" Study

OBJECTIVES

Approximately 800 000 people die globally from colorectal cancer (CRC) every year. Prevention programs promote early detection, but for people with precancerous lesions, tailoring surveillance to include lifestyle-change programs could enhance prevention potential and improve outcomes.

METHODS

Those with intermediate or high-risk polyps removed during CRC screening colonoscopy within the Northern Ireland CRC Screening Programme were invited to complete 8 discrete choice questions about tailored surveillance, analyzed using random-parameters logit and a latent class modeling approach.

RESULTS

A total of 231 participants (77% male) self-reported comorbid hypertension (53%), high cholesterol (48%), and mean body mass index of 28.7 (overweight). Although 39% of participants were unaware of their CRC risk status, 30.9% indicated they were already making changes to reduce their risk. Although all respondents were significantly risk- and cost-averse, the latent class analysis identified 3 segments (classes): 1. Class 1 (26.8%) significantly favored phone or email support for a lifestyle change, a 17-month testing interval, and noninvasive testing. 2. Class 2 (48.4%) preferred the status quo. 3. Class 3 (24.7%) significantly favored further risk reduction and invasive testing.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first documented preference study focusing on postpolypectomy surveillance offering lifestyle interventions. Although current care is strongly preferred, risk and cost aversion are important for participants. Latent class analysis shows that some respondents are willing to change diet and lifestyle behaviors, reflecting a teachable moment, with opportunities to personalize and optimize surveillance. Significant discordance between perceived and known risk of recurrence and limited recall of risk information provided within current practice suggest necessary improvements to surveillance programs.

Optimizing the Quality of Colorectal Cancer Screening Worldwide

Screening, followed by colonoscopic polypectomy (or surgery for malignant lesions), prevents incident colorectal cancer and mortality. However, there are variations in effective application of nearly every aspect of the screening process. Screening is a multistep process, and failure in any single step could result in unnecessary morbidity and mortality. Awareness of variations in operator- and system-dependent performance has led to detailed, comprehensive recommendations in the United States and Europe on how colonoscopy screening should be performed and measured. Likewise, guidance has been provided on quality assurance for nonprimary colonoscopy-based screening programs, including strategies to maximize adherence. Quality improvement is now a validated science, and there is clear evidence that higher quality prevents incident cancer and cancer death. Quality must be addressed at the levels of the system, provider, and individuals, to maximize the benefits of screening for any population. We review the important aspects of measuring and improving the quality of colorectal cancer screening.

Adverse events associated with colonoscopy; an examination of online concerns

Background

Colonoscopy as a screening and diagnostic tool is generally safe and well-tolerated, and significant complications are rare. The rate of more mild adverse effects is difficult to estimate, particularly when such effects do not result in hospital admission. We aimed to identify the rate and timing of adverse effects as reported by users querying symptoms on an internet search engine.

Methods

We identified queries made to Bing originating from users in the United States containing the word “colonoscopy” during a 12-month period and identified those queries in which the timing of colonoscopy could be estimated. We then identified queries from those same users for medical symptoms during the time span from 5 days before through 30 days after the colonoscopy date.

Results

Of 641,223 users mentioning colonoscopy, 7013 (1.1%) had a query that enabled identification of their colonoscopy date. The majority of queries about colonoscopy preceded the procedure, and concerned diet. 28% of colonoscopy-related queries were made afterwards, and included queries about diarrhea and cramps, with 2.6% of users querying respiratory symptoms after the procedure, including cough (1.2%) and pneumonia (0.6%). Respiratory symptoms rose significantly at days 7–10 after the colonoscopy.

Conclusions

Internet search queries for respiratory symptoms rose approximately one week after queries relating to colonoscopy, raising the possibility that such symptoms are an under-reported late adverse effect of the procedure. Given the widespread use of colonoscopy as a screening modality and the rise of anesthesia-assisted colonoscopy in the United States in recent years, this signal is of potential public health concern.

Poor Knowledge of Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance Guidelines in a National Cohort of Digestive Disease Specialists

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is cost-effective and prevents death from CRC if used appropriately. Physicians do not recommend CRC screening according to guidelines. Physician-related factors associated with CRC screening knowledge are unknown.

AIMS

We tested the accuracy of CRC screening knowledge in a nationwide cohort of practicing and trainee physicians and assessed respondent's interest in a mobile app to improve appropriate CRC screening use.

METHODS

An electronic survey was emailed to practicing gastroenterology professionals and medical and surgical trainees. We assessed accuracy of responses compared to CRC screening and surveillance guidelines. We assessed factors associated with higher accuracy of knowledge, frequency of workplace smartphone use, and interest in a smartphone app to aid CRC screening and surveillance recommendations.

RESULTS

In total, 1432 responses were received. Hundred percent accuracy was noted in 22% of respondents for screening and 37% for surveillance. Factors associated with higher accuracy of screening guidelines included more recent training completion; academic practice; performing 21-100 colonoscopies per month (vs. < 21 or > 100). Higher accuracy of surveillance guidelines was associated with more recent training completion; academic practice; being a third-year fellow. In total, 53% use smartphones at least "often" in patient care. In total, 87% would use a CRC screening and surveillance smartphone app.

CONCLUSIONS

Accuracy in applying CRC screening guidelines by gastroenterologists is poor. Smartphone use for patient care is prevalent. Our data show a high interest in a CRC screening/surveillance mobile app. Mobile tools appear an opportunity for rapid access and an increased adherence to CRC screening guidelines.

Addressing unwarranted clinical variation: A rapid review of current evidence

INTRODUCTION

Unwarranted clinical variation (UCV) can be described as variation that can only be explained by differences in health system performance. There is a lack of clarity regarding how to define and identify UCV and, once identified, to determine whether it is sufficiently problematic to warrant action. As such, the implementation of systemic approaches to reducing UCV is challenging. A review of approaches to understand, identify, and address UCV was undertaken to determine how conceptual and theoretical frameworks currently attempt to define UCV, the approaches used to identify UCV, and the evidence of their effectiveness.

DESIGN

Rapid evidence assessment (REA) methodology was used.

DATA SOURCES

A range of text words, synonyms, and subject headings were developed for the major concepts of unwarranted clinical variation, standards (and deviation from these standards), and health care environment. Two electronic databases (Medline and Pubmed) were searched from January 2006 to April 2017, in addition to hand searching of relevant journals, reference lists, and grey literature.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Results were merged using reference-management software (Endnote) and duplicates removed. Inclusion criteria were independently applied to potentially relevant articles by 3 reviewers. Findings were presented in a narrative synthesis to highlight key concepts addressed in the published literature.

RESULTS

A total of 48 relevant publications were included in the review; 21 articles were identified as eligible from the database search, 4 from hand searching published work and 23 from the grey literature. The search process highlighted the voluminous literature reporting clinical variation internationally; yet, there is a dearth of evidence regarding systematic approaches to identifying or addressing UCV.

CONCLUSION

Wennberg's classification framework is commonly cited in relation to classifying variation, but no single approach is agreed upon to systematically explore and address UCV. The instances of UCV that warrant investigation and action are largely determined at a systems level currently, and stakeholder engagement in this process is limited. Lack of consensus on an evidence-based definition for UCV remains a substantial barrier to progress in this field.

Clustering of esophageal cancer among white men in the United States

Studies of the geographic distribution of esophageal cancer in the United States have been limited. We aimed to examine geographic clustering of esophageal cancer in the United States and assess whether that clustering is explained by the distribution of known risk factors for esophageal cancer. We conducted cluster analyses derived from county mortality rates of esophageal cancer, using publicly available datasets. State incidence rates of esophageal adenocarcinoma were from the National Program of Cancer Registries, and county esophageal-cancer mortality rates were from the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program. County prevalences of cigarette use, alcohol use, obesity, education, and income were published estimates derived from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the American Community Survey. The primary outcomes were clusters of high and low esophageal-cancer mortality rates among non-Hispanic white men, both unadjusted and adjusted for risk factors. Age-standardized county rates of esophageal-cancer mortality among non-Hispanic white men ranged from 4.8 to 21.2 per 100,000/year. There was a cluster of high mortality in the Great Lakes states and New England and a cluster of low mortality in the Southeastern United States. State incidence rates of esophageal adenocarcinoma were consistent with this pattern. Adjusting for risk factors did little to change the pattern of observed rates or the clusters derived from them. Among non-Hispanic white men, there are clusters of high and low mortality rates with esophageal cancer within the United States, likely representing esophageal adenocarcinoma; but those clusters were not explained by several known risk factors. Focusing future efforts in the high-cluster areas might improve the efficiency of cancer screening and control.

Adherence to CRC Screening and Surveillance Guidelines when Using Split-Dose Bowel Preparation

Goal

To prospectively assess physician recommendations for repeat colonoscopy in an average-risk screening cohort.

Background

Endoscopists' adherence to colorectal cancer screening and surveillance guidelines for repeat colonoscopy have not been well characterized. Furthermore, little is known about patient and colonoscopy factors that are associated with endoscopists' nonadherence to guideline recommendation.

Study

This is a prospective cohort of average-risk patients undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening between August 2011 and January 2013. The primary outcome was assessment of physician recommendations for repeat colonoscopy.

Results

462 participants were prospectively enrolled. 13.6% (62) had guideline-inconsistent recommendations. 89% of the guideline-inconsistent recommendations were for an earlier interval. Endoscopists' reports cited suboptimal bowel preparation as the most common reason for earlier repeat colonoscopy. On multivariable analysis, patient split-dose preparation noncompliance was significantly associated with guideline-inconsistent recommendation (OR = 2.7) even after adjusting for other patient or bowel preparation-related characteristics. Additionally, increased odds of guideline-inconsistent recommendation were associated with older age (>70 years old), higher BMI, having 3 or more polyps, having had at least two previous colonoscopies, suboptimal bowel preparation, and having taken at least 12 hours till clear bowel movement.

Conclusions

Gastroenterologists are adherent to CRC screening and surveillance guidelines. Suboptimal bowel preparation is the most frequently cited factor in endoscopy reports leading to deviation from guidelines. Continued emphasis on optimization of bowel preparation, particularly patient compliance to split-dose regimen, is needed.

Factors Associated With the Overuse of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

This systematic review examined factors associated with overuse of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The authors searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 1998 to March 2017. Studies were included if they were written in English, contained original data, involved a US population, and examined factors potentially associated with overuse of CRC screening. Paired reviewers independently screened abstracts, assessed quality, and extracted data. In 8 studies, the associations between patient factors, including age, sex, race, and number of comorbidities, were tested and were inconsistently associated with CRC screening overuse. Overuse of screening was greater in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic regions and in urban areas and was lower in academically affiliated centers. Although the literature supports important overuse of CRC screening, it remains unclear what drives these practices. Future research should thoroughly explore these factors and test the impact of interventions to reduce overuse of screening.

Geographic variation in the provider of screening colonoscopy in Canada: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Screening colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal carcinoma is provided by several specialties. Few studies have assessed geographic variation in the delivery of this care. Our objective was to investigate how geographic and socioeconomic factors affect who provides screening colonoscopy in Canada.

METHODS

This was a population-based cohort of all screening colonoscopy procedures performed at publicly funded Canadian health care facilities (excluding those in Quebec) between April 2008 and March 2015. The main outcome of interest was the proportion of colonoscopy procedures performed by surgeons versus gastroenterologists at the neighbourhood level. Predictors of interest included socioeconomic and geographic variables. We used spatial analysis to evaluate significant clustering of practitioner services and multinomial logistic regression to model predictors.

RESULTS

We identified 658 113 screening colonoscopy procedures performed by 1886 providers (1169 surgeons and 717 gastroenterologists) over the study period, of which 353 165 (53.7%) were performed by surgeons. A total of 24.2% of neighbourhoods were located within clusters predominantly served by gastroenterologists, and 19.5% were within surgeon clusters; the remainder were in mixed clusters. Rural neighbourhoods had a significantly increased relative risk of being within a surgeon cluster (relative risk [RR] 5.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.48-8.01) compared to mixed clusters and nearly 100 times higher relative risk of being in a surgeon cluster compared to gastroenterologist clusters (RR 98.95, 95% CI 15.3-427.2). Neighbourhoods with the highest socioeconomic status were 1.74 (95% CI 1.14-2.56) times likelier to be in gastroenterologist clusters than in mixed clusters.

INTERPRETATION

Surgeons provide a large proportion of colonoscopy procedures in Canada and are essential for access to care, particularly in rural regions. Most Canadians are served relatively equally by surgeons and gastroenterologists. This emphasizes the importance of both specialties to the delivery of colonoscopy care across the country.

Information needs of generalists and specialists using online best-practice algorithms to answer clinical questions

Objective

To better understand clinician information needs and learning opportunities by exploring the use of best-practice algorithms across different training levels and specialties.

Methods

We developed interactive online algorithms (care process models [CPMs]) that integrate current guidelines, recent evidence, and local expertise to represent cross-disciplinary best practices for managing clinical problems. We reviewed CPM usage logs from January 2014 to June 2015 and compared usage across specialty and provider type.

Results

During the study period, 4009 clinicians (2014 physicians in practice, 1117 resident physicians, and 878 nurse practitioners/physician assistants [NP/PAs]) viewed 140 CPMs a total of 81 764 times. Usage varied from 1 to 809 views per person, and from 9 to 4615 views per CPM. Residents and NP/PAs viewed CPMs more often than practicing physicians. Among 2742 users with known specialties, generalists ( N  = 1397) used CPMs more often (mean 31.8, median 7 views) than specialists ( N  = 1345; mean 6.8, median 2; P  < .0001). The topics used by specialists largely aligned with topics within their specialties. The top 20% of available CPMs (28/140) collectively accounted for 61% of uses. In all, 2106 clinicians (52%) returned to the same CPM more than once (average 7.8 views per topic; median 4, maximum 195). Generalists revisited topics more often than specialists (mean 8.8 vs 5.1 views per topic; P  < .0001).

Conclusions

CPM usage varied widely across topics, specialties, and individual clinicians. Frequently viewed and recurrently viewed topics might warrant special attention. Specialists usually view topics within their specialty and may have unique information needs.

Socioeconomic Differences in Use of Low-Value Cancer Screenings and Distributional Effects in Medicare

OBJECTIVE

Consuming low-value health care not only highlights inefficient resource use but also brings an important concern regarding the economics of disparities. We identify the relation of socioeconomic characteristics to the use of low-value cancer screenings in Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) settings, and quantify the amount subsidized from nonusers and taxpayers to users of these screenings.

DATA SOURCES

2007-2013 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, Medicare FFS claims, and the Area Health Resource Files.

STUDY DESIGN

Our sample included enrollees in FFS Part B for the entire calendar year. We excluded beneficiaries with a claims-documented or self-reported history of targeted cancers, or those enrolled in Medicaid or Medicare Advantage plans. We identified use of low-value Pap smears, mammograms, and prostate-specific antigen tests based on established algorithms, and estimated a logistic model with year dummies separately for each test.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Secondary data analyses.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We found a statistically significant positive association between privileged socioeconomic characteristics and use of low-value screenings. Having higher income and supplemental private insurance strongly predicted more net subsidies from Medicare.

CONCLUSIONS

FFS enrollees who are better off in terms of sociodemographic characteristics receive greater subsidies from taxpayers for using low-value cancer screenings.

Risk factors of nonadherence to colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy and its impact on clinical outcomes: a KASID multicenter study

BACKGROUND

An optimal surveillance program is important to prevent advanced colorectal neoplasm. In this context, we have evaluated the cumulative risk of high-risk adenoma (HRA) or colorectal cancer (CRC) according to surveillance interval time after polypectomy. In addition, we assessed risk factors for late surveillance to determine whether late surveillance can impact the risk of subsequent advanced colorectal neoplasm.

METHODS

This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study involving 3562 subjects who had undergone removal of at least one adenoma at the index colonoscopy and who subsequently underwent a surveillance colonoscopy. The subjects were classified into an early, appropriate or late group depending on the timing of the surveillance colonoscopy, performed using modified U.S.

RESULTS

With 3% of the study population with LRA and HRA at the index colonoscopy going on to develop HRA or CRC, the estimated surveillance intervals calculated would be 6.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.42-7.10] years and 3.1 (95% CI 2.61-4.45) years, respectively. The predictors of late surveillance were female gender [odd ratio (OR) 1.21; 95% CI 1.04-1.40], having undergone the procedure in small-to-medium-sized cities (OR 1.92; 95% CI 1.36-2.72) and HRA at index colonoscopy (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.19-1.59). The risk factors for subsequent HRA or CRC were late surveillance (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.03-1.74), male gender (OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.54-2.95), having undergone the procedure in small-to-medium-sized cities (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.11-2.40) and HRA at index colonoscopy (OR 2.60; 95% CI 2.04-3.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Women, having undergone the procedure in small-to-medium-sized cities and the presence of an HRA at the index colonoscopy were found to be independent risk factors for late surveillance colonoscopy. Late surveillance is significantly predictive of subsequent HRA or CRC.

Colon Cancer Screening among Patients Receiving Dialysis in the United States: Are We Choosing Wisely?

The American Society of Nephrology recommends against routine cancer screening among asymptomatic patients receiving maintenance dialysis on the basis of limited survival benefit. To determine the frequency of colorectal cancer screening among patients on dialysis and the extent to which screening tests were targeted toward patients at lower risk of death and higher likelihood of receiving a kidney transplant, we performed a cohort study of 469,574 Medicare beneficiaries ages ≥50 years old who received dialysis between January 1, 2007 and September 30, 2012. We examined colorectal cancer screening tests according to quartiles of risk of mortality and kidney transplant on the basis of multivariable Cox modeling. Over a median follow-up of 1.5 years, 11.6% of patients received a colon cancer screening test (57.9 tests per 1000 person-years). Incidence rates of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and fecal occult blood test were 27.9, 0.6, and 29.5 per 1000 person-years, respectively. Patients in the lowest quartile of mortality risk were more likely to be screened than those in the highest quartile (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.49 to 1.57; 65.1 versus 46.4 tests per 1000 person-years, respectively), amounting to a 33% higher rate of testing. Additionally, compared with patients least likely to receive a transplant, patients most likely to receive a transplant were more likely to be screened (hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.64 to 1.73). Colon cancer screening is being targeted toward patients on dialysis at lowest risk of mortality and highest likelihood of transplantation, but absolute rates are high, suggesting overscreening.

Geographic Variation in Diagnostic Ability and Quality of Care Metrics: A Case Study of Ankylosing Spondylitis and Low Back Pain

Studies examining geographic variation in care for low back pain often focus on process and outcome measures conditional on patient diagnosis but generally do not take into account a physician's ability to diagnose the root cause of low back pain. In our case study, we used increased detection of ankylosing spondylitis-a relatively rare inflammatory back disease-as a proxy for diagnostic ability and measured the relationship between ankylosing spondylitis detection, potentially inappropriate low back pain care, and cost. Using 5 years of health insurance claims data, we found significant variation in ankylosing spondylitis detection across metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), with 8.1% of the variation in detection explained by a region's racial composition. Furthermore, low back pain patients in MSAs with higher ankylosing spondylitis detection had 7.9% lower use of corticosteroids, 9.0% lower use of opioids, and 8.2% lower pharmacy cost, compared with patients living in low-detection MSAs.

Cost Effectiveness of Screening Colonoscopy Depends on Adequate Bowel Preparation Rates - A Modeling Study

Background

Inadequate bowel preparation during screening colonoscopy necessitates repeating colonoscopy. Studies suggest inadequate bowel preparation rates of 20–60%. This increases the cost of colonoscopy for our society.

Aim

The aim of this study is to determine the impact of inadequate bowel preparation rate on the cost effectiveness of colonoscopy compared to other screening strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods

A microsimulation model of CRC screening strategies for the general population at average risk for CRC. The strategies include fecal immunochemistry test (FIT) every year, colonoscopy every ten years, sigmoidoscopy every five years, or stool DNA test every 3 years. The screening could be performed at private practice offices, outpatient hospitals, and ambulatory surgical centers.

Results

At the current assumed inadequate bowel preparation rate of 25%, the cost of colonoscopy as a screening strategy is above society’s willingness to pay (<$50,000/QALY). Threshold analysis demonstrated that an inadequate bowel preparation rate of 13% or less is necessary before colonoscopy is considered more cost effective than FIT. At inadequate bowel preparation rates of 25%, colonoscopy is still more cost effective compared to sigmoidoscopy and stool DNA test. Sensitivity analysis of all inputs adjusted by ±10% showed incremental cost effectiveness ratio values were influenced most by the specificity, adherence, and sensitivity of FIT and colonoscopy.

Conclusions

Screening colonoscopy is not a cost effective strategy when compared with fecal immunochemical test, as long as the inadequate bowel preparation rate is greater than 13%.

Colorectal cancer screening: Estimated future colonoscopy need and current volume and capacity

BACKGROUND

In 2014, a national campaign was launched to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the United States to 80% by 2018; it is unknown whether there is sufficient colonoscopy capacity to reach this goal. This study estimated the number of colonoscopies needed to screen 80% of the eligible population with fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy and determined whether there was sufficient colonoscopy capacity to meet the need.

METHODS

The Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model was used to simulate CRC screening test use in the United States (2014-2040); the implementation of a national screening program in 2014 with FIT or colonoscopy with 80% participation was assumed. The 2012 Survey of Endoscopic Capacity (SECAP) estimated the number of colonoscopies that were performed and the number that could be performed.

RESULTS

If a national screening program started in 2014, by 2024, approximately 47 million FIT procedures and 5.1 million colonoscopies would be needed annually to screen the eligible population with a program using FIT as the primary screening test; approximately 11 to 13 million colonoscopies would be needed annually to screen the eligible population with a colonoscopy-only screening program. According to the SECAP survey, an estimated 15 million colonoscopies were performed in 2012, and an additional 10.5 million colonoscopies could be performed.

CONCLUSIONS

The estimated colonoscopy capacity is sufficient to screen 80% of the eligible US population with FIT, colonoscopy, or a mix of tests. Future analyses should take into account the geographic distribution of colonoscopy capacity. Cancer 2016;122:2479-86. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Assessing Colorectal Cancer Screening Adherence of Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries Age 76 to 95 Years

INTRODUCTION

There are concerns about potential overuse of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening services among average-risk individuals older than age 75 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using a 5% random noncancer sample of Medicare beneficiaries who resided in the SEER areas, we examined rates of CRC screening adherence, defined by the Medicare coverage policy, among average-risk fee-for-service beneficiaries age 76 to 95 years from 2002 to 2010. The two outcomes are the status of overall CRC screening adherence, and the status of adherence to colonoscopy (v other modalities) conditional on patient adherence.

RESULTS

Overall CRC screening adherence rates of Medicare beneficiaries age 76 to 95 years increased from 13.0% to 21.4% from 2002 to 2010. In 2002, 2.2% of beneficiaries were adherent to colonoscopy, and 10.7%, by other modalities; the corresponding rates were 19.5% and 1.9%, respectively, in 2010. Specifically, rates of adherence to colonoscopy were 1.1% for those age 86 to 90 years and almost nil for those age 91 to 95 years in 2002, but the rates became 13.5% and 8.2%, respectively, in 2010. Compared with white beneficiaries, black beneficiaries age 76 to 95 years had a 7-percentage-point lower adherence rate. However, overall adherence rates among blacks increased by 168.6% from 2002 to 2010, whereas rates among whites increased by 63.0%. Logistic regressions showed that blacks age 86 to 95 years were less likely than whites to be adherent (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.59) but were more likely to be adherent to colonoscopy (odds ratio, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.47 to 3.91).

CONCLUSION

High proportions of average-risk Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries screened by colonoscopy may represent opportunities for improving appropriateness and allocative efficiency of CRC screening by Medicare.

Developing and Testing an Electronic Measure of Screening Colonoscopy Overuse in a Large Integrated Healthcare System

BACKGROUND

Most existing performance measures focus on underuse of care, but there is growing interest in identifying and reducing overuse.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop a valid and reliable electronic performance measure of overuse of screening colonoscopy in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System (VA), and to quantify overuse in VA.

DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional study with multiple cross-sections.

SUBJECTS

U.S. Veterans who underwent screening colonoscopy between 2011 and 2013.

MAIN MEASURES

Overuse of screening colonoscopy, using a validated electronic measure developed by an expert workgroup.

KEY RESULTS

Compared to results obtained from manual record review, the electronic measure was highly specific (97 %) for overuse, but not sensitive (20 %). After exclusion of diagnostic and high-risk screening or surveillance procedures, the validated electronic measure identified 88,754 average-risk screening colonoscopies performed in VA during 2013. Of these, 20,530 (23 %) met the definition for probable (17 %) or possible (6 %) overuse. Substantial variation in colonoscopy overuse was noted between Veterans Integrated Care Networks (VISNs) and between facilities, with a nearly twofold difference between the maximum and minimum rates of overuse at the VISN level and a nearly eightfold difference at the facility level. Overuse at the VISN and facility level was relatively stable over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Overuse of screening colonoscopy can be measured reliably and with high specificity using electronic data, and is common in a large integrated healthcare system. Overuse measures, such as those we have specified through a consensus workgroup process, could be combined with underuse measures to improve the appropriateness of colorectal cancer screening.

Personalizing colonoscopy screening for elderly individuals based on screening history, cancer risk, and comorbidity status could increase cost effectiveness

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions for elderly individuals are often made primarily on the basis of age, whereas other factors that influence the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of screening are often not considered. We investigated the relative importance of factors that could be used to identify elderly individuals most likely to benefit from CRC screening and determined the maximum ages at which screening remains cost effective based on these factors.

METHODS

We used a microsimulation model (Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon) calibrated to the incidence of CRC in the United States and the prevalence of adenomas reported in autopsy studies to determine the appropriate age at which to stop colonoscopy screening in 19,200 cohorts (of 10 million individuals), defined by sex, race, screening history, background risk for CRC, and comorbidity status. We applied a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Less intensive screening history, higher background risk for CRC, and fewer comorbidities were associated with cost-effective screening at older ages. Sex and race had only a small effect on the appropriate age to stop screening. For some individuals likely to be screened in current practice (for example, 74-year-old white women with moderate comorbidities, half the average background risk for CRC, and negative findings from a screening colonoscopy 10 years previously), screening resulted in a loss of QALYs, rather than a gain. For some individuals unlikely to be screened in current practice (for example, 81-year-old black men with no comorbidities, an average background risk for CRC, and no previous screening), screening was highly cost effective. Although screening some previously screened, low-risk individuals was not cost effective even when they were 66 years old, screening some healthy, high-risk individuals remained cost effective until they reached the age of 88 years old.

CONCLUSIONS

The current approach to CRC screening in elderly individuals, in which decisions are often based primarily on age, is inefficient, resulting in underuse of screening for some and overuse of screening for others. CRC screening could be more effective and cost effective if individual factors for each patient are considered.

Colon cancer screening in U.S. adults aged 65 and older according to life expectancy and age

OBJECTIVES

To examine receipt of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening according to age and life expectancy (LE) in adults aged 65 and older.

DESIGN

Population-based survey.

SETTING

United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Community dwelling adults aged 65 and older who participated in the 2008 or 2010 National Health Interview Survey (N = 7,747).

MEASUREMENTS

Receipt of CRC screening (e.g., colonoscopy within 10 years) was examined according to age and LE (≥10 and <10 years), adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and survey year. Frequency of CRC screening was also examined according to age and LE at time of screening (e.g., age at colonoscopy rather than at interview). Participants screened when they were aged 75 and older or had less than a 10-year LE were considered to have received screening inconsistent with guidelines.

RESULTS

Overall, 38.5% of participants had less than a 10-year LE; 40.2% were aged 75 and older, and 56.3% had received recent CRC screening (90.1% by colonoscopy). CRC screening was higher in 2010 (58.9%) than 2008 (53.7%, P <.001) and was associated with longer LE and younger age, although 51.1% of adults aged 75 and older reported receiving CRC screening, as did 50.9% of adults with less than a 10-year LE. Based on age and LE at time of screening (rather than at interview), 28.4% of CRC screening of adults aged 65 and older was targeted to those aged 75 and older and those with less than a 10-year LE. Of adults aged 65 to 75 with a 10-year LE or more (adults recommended for screening by guidelines), 39.2% had not recently been screened.

CONCLUSION

Older adults with little chance of benefit because of limited LE commonly undergo CRC screening, whereas many adults aged 65 to 75 with a 10-year LE or greater are not screened.

Variation in Adenoma Detection Rate and the Lifetime Benefits and Cost of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Microsimulation Model

IMPORTANCE

Colonoscopy is the most commonly used colorectal cancer screening test in the United States. Its quality, as measured by adenoma detection rates (ADRs), varies widely among physicians, with unknown consequences for the cost and benefits of screening programs.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the lifetime benefits, complications, and costs of an initial colonoscopy screening program at different levels of adenoma detection.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Microsimulation modeling with data from a community-based health care system on ADR variation and cancer risk among 57,588 patients examined by 136 physicians from 1998 through 2010.

EXPOSURES

Using modeling, no screening was compared with screening initiation with colonoscopy according to ADR quintiles (averages 15.3%, quintile 1; 21.3%, quintile 2; 25.6%, quintile 3; 30.9%, quintile 4; and 38.7%, quintile 5) at ages 50, 60, and 70 years with appropriate surveillance of patients with adenoma.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Estimated lifetime colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, number of colonoscopies, complications, and costs per 1000 patients, all discounted at 3% per year and including 95% confidence intervals from multiway probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

In simulation modeling, among unscreened patients the lifetime risk of colorectal cancer incidence was 34.2 per 1000 (95% CI, 25.9-43.6) and risk of mortality was 13.4 per 1000 (95% CI, 10.0-17.6). Among screened patients, simulated lifetime incidence decreased with lower to higher ADRs (26.6; 95% CI, 20.0-34.3 for quintile 1 vs 12.5; 95% CI, 9.3-16.5 for quintile 5) as did mortality (5.7; 95% CI, 4.2-7.7 for quintile 1 vs 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7-3.1 for quintile 5). Compared with quintile 1, simulated lifetime incidence was on average 11.4% (95% CI, 10.3%-11.9%) lower for every 5 percentage-point increase of ADRs and for mortality, 12.8% (95% CI, 11.1%-13.7%) lower. Complications increased from 6.0 (95% CI, 4.0-8.5) of 2777 colonoscopies (95% CI, 2626-2943) in quintile 1 to 8.9 (95% CI, 6.1-12.0) complications of 3376 (95% CI, 3081-3681) colonoscopies in quintile 5. Estimated net screening costs were lower from quintile 1 (US $2.1 million, 95% CI, $1.8-$2.4 million) to quintile 5 (US $1.8 million, 95% CI, $1.3-$2.3 million) due to averted cancer treatment costs. Results were stable across sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this microsimulation modeling study, higher adenoma detection rates in screening colonoscopy were associated with lower lifetime risks of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer mortality without being associated with higher overall costs. Future research is needed to assess whether increasing adenoma detection would be associated with improved patient outcomes.

Rates and correlates of potentially inappropriate colorectal cancer screening in the Veterans Health Administration

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening procedures can inflate healthcare costs and increase medical risk. Little is known about the prevalence or causes of inappropriate CRC screening.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to estimate the prevalence of potentially inappropriate CRC screening, and its association with patient and facility characteristics in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) .

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted a cross-sectional study of all VHA patients aged 50 years and older who completed a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or a screening colonoscopy between 1 October 2009 and 31 December 2011 (n = 1,083,965).

MAIN MEASURES

Measures included: proportion of patients whose test was classified as potentially inappropriate; associations between potentially inappropriate screening and patient demographic and health characteristics, facility complexity, CRC screening rates, dependence on FOBT, and CRC clinical reminder attributes.

KEY RESULTS

Of 901,292 FOBT cases, 26.1 % were potentially inappropriate (13.9 % not due, 7.8 % limited life expectancy, 11.0 % receiving FOBT when colonoscopy was indicated). Of 134,335 screening colonoscopies, 14.2 % were potentially inappropriate (10.4 % not due, 4.4 % limited life expectancy). Each additional 10 years of patient age was associated with an increased likelihood of undergoing potentially inappropriate screening (ORs = 1.60 to 1.83 depending on screening mode). Compared to facilities scoring in the bottom third on a measure of reliance on FOBT (versus screening colonoscopy), facilities scoring in the top third were less likely to conduct potentially inappropriate FOBTs (OR = 0.,78) but more likely to conduct potentially inappropriate colonoscopies (OR = 2.20). Potentially inappropriate colonoscopies were less likely to be conducted at facilities where primary care providers were assigned partial responsibility (OR = 0.74) or full responsibility (OR = 0.73) for completing the CRC clinical reminder.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of VHA CRC screening tests are potentially inappropriate. Establishing processes that enforce appropriate screening intervals, triage patients with limited life expectancies, and discourage the use of FOBTs when a colonoscopy is indicated may reduce inappropriate testing.

Screening for cancer: advice for high-value care from the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

Cancer screening is one approach to reducing cancer-related morbidity and mortality rates. Screening strategies vary in intensity. Higher-intensity strategies are not necessarily higher value. High-value strategies provide a degree of benefits that clearly justifies the harms and costs incurred; low-value screening provides limited or no benefits to justify the harms and costs. When cancer screening leads to benefits, an optimal intensity of screening maximizes value. Some aspects of screening practices, especially overuse and underuse, are low value.

METHODS

Screening strategies for asymptomatic, average-risk adults for 5 common types of cancer were evaluated by reviewing clinical guidelines and evidence syntheses from the American College of Physicians (ACP), U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Cancer Society, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Gastroenterological Association, and American Urological Association. "High value" was defined as the lowest screening intensity threshold at which organizations agree about screening recommendations for each type of cancer and "low value" as agreement about not recommending overly intensive screening strategies. This information is supplemented with additional findings from randomized, controlled trials; modeling studies; and studies of costs or resource use, including information found in the National Cancer Institute's Physician Data Query and UpToDate. The ACP provides high-value care screening advice for 5 common types of cancer; the specifics are outlined in this article. The ACP strongly encourages clinicians to adopt a cancer screening strategy that focuses on reaching all eligible persons with these high-value screening options while reducing overly intensive, low-value screening.

Race/Ethnicity and overuse of care: a systematic review

POLICY POINTS: Racial/ethnic differences in the overuse of care (specifically, unneeded care that does not improve patients' outcomes) have received little scholarly attention. Our systematic review of the literature (59 studies) found that the overuse of care is not invariably associated with race/ethnicity, but when it was, a substantial proportion of studies found greater overuse of care among white patients. The absence of established subject terms in PubMed for the overuse of care or inappropriate care impedes the ability of researchers or policymakers to synthesize prior scientific or policy efforts.

CONTEXT

The literature on disparities in health care has examined the contrast between white patients receiving needed care, compared with racial/ethnic minority patients not receiving needed care. Racial/ethnic differences in the overuse of care, that is, unneeded care that does not improve patients' outcomes, have received less attention. We systematically reviewed the literature regarding race/ethnicity and the overuse of care.

METHODS

We searched the Medline database for US studies that included at least 2 racial/ethnic groups and that examined the association between race/ethnicity and the overuse of procedures, diagnostic (care) or therapeutic care. In a recent review, we identified studies of overuse by race/ethnicity, and we also examined reference lists of retrieved articles. We then abstracted and evaluated this information, including the population studied, data source, sample size and assembly, type of care, guideline or appropriateness standard, controls for clinical confounding and financing of care, and findings.

FINDINGS

We identified 59 unique studies, of which 11 had a low risk of methodological bias. Studies with multiple outcomes were counted more than once; collectively they assessed 74 different outcomes. Thirty-two studies, 6 with low risks of bias (LRoB), provided evidence that whites received more inappropriate or nonrecommended care than racial/ethnic minorities did. Nine studies (2 LRoB) found evidence of more overuse of care by minorities than by whites. Thirty-three studies (6 LRoB) found no relationship between race/ethnicity and overuse.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the overuse of care is not invariably associated with race/ethnicity, when it was, a substantial proportion of studies found greater overuse of care among white patients. Clinicians and researchers should try to understand how and why race/ethnicity might be associated with overuse and to intervene to reduce it.

Predictors of Poor Adherence of US Gastroenterologists with Colonoscopy Screening and Surveillance Guidelines

BACKGROUND

The US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer published guidelines for colonoscopy screening and surveillance in 2008 and affirmed them in 2012. Characteristics associated with guideline adherence among US gastroenterologists have not been assessed.

AIM

Assess awareness and adherence of US gastroenterologists with national guidelines for colonoscopy screening and surveillance and predictors of adherence to guidelines.

METHODS

A Web-based survey was administered to gastroenterologists in various practice settings across the USA.

RESULTS

A total of 306 gastroenterologists completed the survey; 86 % reported awareness of the guidelines. Low-volume colonoscopists (<20/month) were less likely to be aware of the guidelines (OR 0.26, p = 0.03) compared to high-volume colonoscopists (>100/month). Those completing training before 1990 were less likely to report following guidelines (OR 0.37, p = 0.01). Adherence with guidelines was then assessed via clinical scenarios. Compared to physicians finishing training in 1991-2010, less adherence was seen in those finishing before 1990 (OR 0.75, p < 0.001) or currently in training (OR 0.72, p = 0.004). Compared to the Western USA, less adherence was seen in the Midwest (OR 0.69, p = 0.001), Northeast (OR 0.63, p < 0.001), and South (OR 0.59, p < 0.001). Lower adherence was seen among non-academic physicians (OR 0.72, p = 0.001) and low-volume colonoscopists (OR 0.52, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is poor adherence with colonoscopy screening and surveillance guidelines among US gastroenterologists. Poor adherence was associated with being in training or finishing training before 1990, practicing in the South, non-academic settings, and low colonoscopy volume. These findings can target interventions for quality improvement in colorectal cancer screening and surveillance.

Repeat colonoscopy after a colonoscopy with a negative result in Ontario: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Data suggest the overuse of repeat colonoscopies, especially in patients at low risk for colorectal cancer. Our objective was to evaluate the time to repeat colonoscopies in low-risk patients aged 50-79 years old and the associated patient- and endoscopist-related factors.

METHODS

All patients aged 50-79 years of age who underwent a complete outpatient colonoscopy with a negative result between 2000 and 2007 were identified from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan database. A colonoscopy performed within 5.5 years of follow-up after the index colonoscopy was considered an early repeat colonoscopy. Patient, endoscopist and endoscopy setting characteristics were recorded and their association with an early repeat colonoscopy was determined using an extended Cox proportional hazards regression model.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 546 467 patients: 55.4% of the patients were female with a mean age of 61.1 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 61.1-61.2). The cumulative percentage of early repeat colonoscopy after 5.5 years was 33.7%. The rate decreased significantly between 2000 and 2007 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.35, 95% CI 0.34-0.36). General surgeons were associated with a higher risk of early repeat colonoscopy than gastroenterologists (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.25-1.28). Endoscopists practising in a nonhospital setting were more likely to perform an early repeat colonoscopy (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.22-1.30) than endoscopists at a hospital.

INTERPRETATION

This study showed that there was overuse of early repeat colonoscopy in more than 30% of patients who were at low risk for colorectal cancer. The risk decreased significantly between 2000 and 2007 but was still greater than 20% in 2007. Our findings can be used to develop targeted educational interventions among subgroups of endoscopists with a higher rate of early repeat colonoscopy.

Public health impact of achieving 80% colorectal cancer screening rates in the United States by 2018

BACKGROUND

The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable, a national coalition of public, private, and voluntary organizations, has recently announced an initiative to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the United States to 80% by 2018. The authors evaluated the potential public health benefits of achieving this goal.

METHODS

The authors simulated the 1980 through 2030 United States population of individuals aged 50 to 100 years using microsimulation modeling. Test-specific historical screening rates were based on National Health Interview Survey data for 1987 through 2013. The effects of increasing screening rates from approximately 58% in 2013 to 80% in 2018 were compared to a scenario in which the screening rate remained approximately constant. The outcomes were cancer incidence and mortality rates and numbers of CRC cases and deaths during short-term follow-up (2013-2020) and extended follow-up (2013-2030).

RESULTS

Increasing CRC screening rates to 80% by 2018 would reduce CRC incidence rates by 17% and mortality rates by 19% during short-term follow-up and by 22% and 33%, respectively, during extended follow-up. These reductions would amount to a total of 277,000 averted new cancers and 203,000 averted CRC deaths from 2013 through 2030.

CONCLUSIONS

Achieving the goal of increasing the uptake of CRC screening in the United States to 80% by 2018 may have a considerable public health impact by averting approximately 280,000 new cancer cases and 200,000 cancer deaths within <20 years. Cancer 2015;121:2281–2285. © 2015 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Overuse of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance

BACKGROUND

Ongoing efforts to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have raised concerns that these exams may be overused, thereby subjecting patients to unnecessary risks and wasting healthcare resources.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to measure overuse of screening and surveillance colonoscopies among average-risk adults, and to identify correlates of overuse.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Our approach was a retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data for patients 50-65 years old with no personal history of CRC or colorectal adenomas with an incident CRC screening colonoscopy from 2001 to 2010 within a multispecialty physician group practice.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We measured time to next screening or surveillance colonoscopy and predictors of overuse (exam performed more than one year earlier than guideline recommended intervals) of colonoscopies.

KEY RESULTS

We identified 1,429 adults who had an incident colonoscopy between 2001 and 2010, and they underwent an additional 871 screening or surveillance colonoscopies during a median follow-up of 6 years. Most follow-up screening colonoscopies (88%) and many surveillance colonoscopies (49%) repeated during the study represented overuse. Time to next colonoscopy after incident screening varied by exam findings (no polyp: median 6.9 years, interquartile range [IQR]: 5.1-10.0; hyperplastic polyp: 5.7 years, IQR: 4.9-9.7; low-risk adenoma: 5.1 years, IQR: 3.3-6.3; high-risk adenoma: 2.9 years, IQR: 2.0-3.4, p < 0.001). In logistic regression models of colonoscopy overuse, an endoscopist recommendation for early follow-up was strongly associated with overuse of screening colonoscopy (OR 6.27, 95% CI: 3.15-12.50) and surveillance colonoscopy (OR 13.47, 95% CI 6.61-27.46). In a multilevel logistic regression model, variation in the overuse of screening colonoscopy was significantly associated with the endoscopist performing the previous exam.

CONCLUSIONS

Overuse of screening and surveillance exams are common and should be monitored by healthcare systems. Variations in endoscopist recommendations represent targets for interventions to reduce overuse.

Decisions about medication use and cancer screening across age groups in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To describe decision process and quality for common cancer screening and medication decisions by age group.

METHODS

We included 2941 respondents to a national Internet survey who made at least one decision about colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer screening, blood pressure or cholesterol medications. Respondents were queried about decision processes.

RESULTS

Across the five decisions considered, decision process scores were similar (and generally low) across age groups for medication and cancer screening, indicating that all groups had poor involvement in medical decision making. Overall knowledge scores were low across age groups, with elderly (75+) having slightly higher knowledge about medications vs. younger respondents. Elderly respondents reported similar goals and concerns when making decisions, though placed greater importance of having peace of mind from a normal result for cancer screening vs. younger respondents.

CONCLUSION

Across age groups, respondents reported poor decision processes about common medications and cancer screening, despite little evidence of benefit for some interventions (cancer screening, cholesterol lowering medicines in low risk elderly) and possibility of harm in the elderly.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Particular care should be taken to help patients understand both benefit and risk of screening tests and routine medications.

Addressing overuse and overdiagnosis in colorectal cancer screening for average-risk individuals

SUMMARY 

Inappropriate screening harms healthy individuals and squanders precious resources. The purpose of this review is to address harms of colorectal cancer screening derived from overuse and overdiagnosis in average-risk individuals. Overuse is associated with shorter than recommended repeat screening and surveillance intervals, and screening in individuals who would not derive benefit because of advanced age or significant comorbidity. Overuse can unnecessarily increase patient harm from overdiagnosis or colonoscopy complications as well as gastroenterologist workload and healthcare costs. There is no evidence to suggest that overdiagnosis is an issue for colorectal cancer screening. However, targeting on cancer prevention (detection of adenomatous polyps) rather than early detection will lead to overdiagnosis as only a small minority of polyps develop into cancer.