Screening colonoscopy in the US: attitudes and practices of primary care physicians

Provider communication contributes to colorectal cancer screening intention through improving screening outcome expectancies and perceived behavioral control

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening continues to be underutilized in the US despite the availability of multiple effective, guideline-recommended screening options. Provider recommendation has been consistently shown to improve screening completion. Yet, available literature provides little information as to how specific information providers communicate influence patient decision-making about CRC screening. We tested the pathways through which information communicated by providers about the "Why" and "How" of CRC screening using the mt-sDNA test contributes to intention to complete the test. Data came from a behavioral theory-informed survey that we developed to identify psychosocial factors associated with mt-sDNA screening. RTI International administered the survey between 03/2022-06/2022 to a sample of US adults ages 45-75 who received a valid order for mt-sDNA screening with a shipping date between 5/2021-9/2021. Participants completed an electronic or paper survey. We tested the proposed relationships using structural equation modeling and tested indirect effects using Monte Carlo method. A total of 2,973 participants completed the survey (response rate: 21.7%) and 81.6% (n = 2,427) reported have had a conversation with their health care provider about mt-sDNA screening before the test was ordered. We found that "Why" information from providers was positively associated with perceived effectiveness of mt-sDNA screening, while "How" information was positively associated with perceived ease of use. "Why" information contributed to screening intention through perceived effectiveness while "How" information contributed to screening intention through perceived ease of use. These findings emphasize the critical role of provider communication in shaping patient decision-making regarding CRC screening. CRC screening interventions could consider implementing provider-patient communication strategies focusing on improving patient understanding of the rationale for CRC screening and the effectiveness of available screening options as well as addressing barriers and enhancing patients' self-efficacy in completing their preferred screening option.

Increasing the accuracy of colorectal cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health issue, being responsible for nearly 10% of all cancer-related deaths. Since CRC is often an asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic disease until it reaches advanced stages, screening is crucial for the diagnosis of preneoplastic lesions or early CRC.

AREAS COVERED

The aim of this review is to summarize the literature evidence on currently available CRC screening tools, with their pros and cons, focusing on the level of accuracy reached by each test over time. We also provide an overview of novel technologies and scientific advances that are currently being investigated and that in the future may represent real game-changers in the field of CRC screening.

EXPERT OPINION

We suggest that best screening modalities are annual or biennial FIT and colonoscopy every 10 years. We believe that the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI)-tools in the CRC screening field could lead to a significant improvement of the screening efficacy in reducing CRC incidence and mortality in the future. More resources should be put into implementing CRC programmes and support research project to further increase accuracy of CRC screening tests and strategies.

Modifications in Primary Care Clinics to Continue Colorectal Cancer Screening Promotion During the COVID-19 Pandemic

COVID-19 caused significant declines in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Health systems and clinics, faced with a new rapidly spreading infectious disease, adapted to maintain patient safety and address the effects of the pandemic on healthcare delivery. This study aimed to understand how CDC-funded Colorectal Cancer Control Program recipients and their partner health systems and clinics may have modified evidence-based intervention (EBI) implementation to promote CRC screening during the COVID-19 pandemic; to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing modifications; and to extract lessons that can be applied to support CRC screening, chronic disease management, and clinic resilience in the face of future public health crises. Nine recipients were selected to reflect the diversity inherent among all CRCCP recipients. Recipient and clinic partner staff answered unique sets of pre-interview questions to inform tailoring of interview guides that were developed using constructs from the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The study team then interviewed recipient, health system, and clinic partner staff incorporating pre-interview responses to focus each conversation. We employed a rapid qualitative analysis approach then conducted virtual focus groups with recipient representatives to validate emergent themes. Three modifications that emerged from thematic analysis include: (1) offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits for CRC screening with mail or drop off return; (2) increasing the use of patient education and engagement strategies; and (3) increasing the use of or improving automated patient messaging systems. With improved tracking and automated reminder systems, mailed FIT kits paired with tailored patient education and clear instructions for completing the test could help primary care clinics catch up on the backlog of missed screenings during COVID-19. Future research can assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of offering mailed FIT kits on maintaining or improving CRC screening, especially among people who are medically underserved.

Provider beliefs in effectiveness and recommendations for primary HPV testing in 3 health-care systems

In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force endorsed primary human papillomavirus testing (pHPV) for cervical cancer screening. We aimed to describe providers' beliefs about pHPV testing effectiveness and which screening approach they regularly recommend. We invited providers who performed 10 or more cervical cancer screens in 2019 in 3 healthcare systems that had not adopted pHPV testing: Kaiser Permanente Washington, Mass General Brigham, and Parkland Health; 53.7% (501/933) completed the survey between October and December 2020. Response distributions varied across modalities (P < .001), with cytology alone or cotesting being more often viewed as somewhat or very effective for 30- to 65-year-olds compared with pHPV (cytology alone 94.1%, cotesting 96.1%, pHPV 66.0%). In 21- to 29-year-olds, the pattern was similar (cytology alone 92.2%, 64.7% cotesting, 50.8% pHPV). Most providers were either incorrect or unsure of the guideline-recommended screening interval for pHPV. Educational efforts are needed about the relative effectiveness and recommended use of pHPV to promote guideline-concordant care.

Evaluation of Colonoscopy and Sigmoidoscopy Utilization for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Georgia, USA

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most prevalent cancer, and the second most common cancer-related cause of death in the United States (USA). Timely screening reduces both CRC incidence and mortality. Understanding population behaviors and factors that influence CRC screening is important for directing interventions targeted at reducing CRC rates. The 1997-2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data were analyzed for trends in colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy utilization for CRC screening among adults in Georgia, USA. Overall, in Georgia, there has been an increase in the prevalence of colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy utilization from 48.1% in 1997 to 71.2% in 2018 (AAPC = 2.30, p < 0.001). Compared nationally, this increase was less pronounced (from 41.0% in 1997 to 73.7% in 2018 (AAPC = 2.90, p < 0.001) overall for USA). Logistic regression analysis of the 2018 BRFSS data, adjusting for sociodemographic factors, shows that sex (female vs. male [aOR = 1.20, C.I. = 1.05, 1.38]); marital status (couple vs. single [aOR = 1.20, C.I. = 1.04, 1.39]); healthcare coverage (yes vs. no [aOR = 3.86, C.I. = 3.05, 4.88]); age (60-69 years [aOR = 2.38, C.I. = 2.02, 2.80], 70-79 [aOR = 2.88, C.I. = 2.38, 3.48] vs. 50-59 years); education (high school [aOR = 1.32, C.I. = 1.05, 1.65], some post high school [aOR= 1.63, C.I. = 1.29, 2.06], college graduate [aOR = 2.08, C.I. = 1.64, 2.63] vs. less than high school); and income ($25,000-$49,999 [aOR = 1.24, C.I. = 1.01, 1.51], $50,000+ [aOR = 1.56, C.I. = 1.27, 1.91] vs. <$25,000) were all significantly associated with colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy utilization. In Georgia, a significant increase over time in colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy utilization for CRC screening was observed pertaining to the associated sociodemographic factors. The findings from this study may help guide tailored programs for promoting screening among underserved populations.

Cost Effectiveness of Mailed Outreach Programs for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Analysis of a Pragmatic, Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Clinical guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening suggest use of either stool-based tests or colonoscopy - modalities that differ in recommended screening intervals, adherence, and costs. We know little about the long-term cost differences in population-health outreach strategies to promote these strategies.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare 2 mailed outreach strategies to increase CRC screening from a pragmatic, randomized clinical trial: mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits vs invitations to complete a screening colonoscopy. We built a 10-year Markov chain Monte Carlo microsimulation model to account for differences in screening intervals, adherence, and costs.

RESULTS

Mailed FIT kits had a lower 10-year average per-person cost of screening relative to colonoscopy invitations ($1139 vs $1725) but with 10.89 fewer months of compliance and 60 fewer advanced neoplasia detected (37 advanced adenomas and 23 CRC). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for colonoscopy invitations compared with mailed FIT kits were $55.23, $15.84, and $25.48 per additional covered month, advanced adenoma, and CRC, respectively. Although FIT was the preferred strategy at low willingness-to-pay thresholds, the 2 strategies were equal at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $41.31 per covered month gained.

CONCLUSION

Mailed FIT or colonoscopy invitations are both options to improve CRC screening completion and advanced neoplasia detection, and the choice of outreach strategy may differ by a health system's willingness-to-pay threshold. Mailed FIT kits are less expensive than colonoscopy invitations but result in fewer months of screening compliance and advanced neoplasia detected.

Factors Associated With Clinician Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Average-Risk Patients: Data From a National Survey

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among average-risk patients is underused in the US. Clinician recommendation is strongly associated with CRC screening completion. To inform interventions that improve CRC screening uptake among average-risk patients, we examined clinicians’ routine recommendations of 7 guideline-recommended screening methods and factors associated with these recommendations.

Methods

We conducted an online survey in November and December 2019 among a sample of primary care clinicians (PCCs) and gastroenterologists (GIs) from a panel of US clinicians. Clinicians reported whether they routinely recommend each screening method, screening method intervals, and patient age at which they stop recommending screening. We also measured the influence of various factors on screening recommendations.

Results

Nearly all 814 PCCs (99%) and all 159 GIs (100%) reported that they routinely recommend colonoscopy for average-risk patients, followed by stool-based tests (more than two-thirds of PCCs and GIs). Recommendation of other visualization-based methods was less frequent (PCCs, 26%–35%; GIs, 30%–41%). A sizable proportion of clinicians reported guideline-discordant screening intervals and age to stop screening. Guidelines and clinical evidence were most frequently reported as very influential to clinician recommendations. Factors associated with routine recommendation of each screening method included clinician-perceived effectiveness of the method, clinician familiarity with the method, Medicare coverage, clinical capacity, and patient adherence.

Conclusion

Clinician education is needed to improve knowledge, familiarity, and experience with guideline-recommended screening methods with the goal of effectively engaging patients in informed decision making for CRC screening.

Effect of Patient-Directed Messaging on Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underused in the US. Tailored message interventions have shown benefit for increasing screening uptake of mammography and Papanicolaou testing, but their role in CRC screening is less clear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of a tailored message telephone intervention prior to scheduling of a screening or surveillance colonoscopy and its effect on CRC screening completion rates.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted from July 2017 through August 2018 at the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS), an urban academic medical center. Participants were asymptomatic patients aged 50 to 75 years who were eligible for CRC screening or surveillance, had been referred for colonoscopy, and did not have a scheduled colonoscopy appointment. Data analysis was conducted from January to September 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients underwent block randomization in a 1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 3 study arms. Participants in the usual care group were contacted via a mailed letter and instructed to call to schedule a colonoscopy. In the generic message group, participants were contacted by telephone, completed an assessment, and received a uniform, nontailored message encouraging colonoscopy scheduling. Participants in the tailored message group were contacted by telephone, completed an assessment, and received a tailored message encouraging colonoscopy scheduling based on their identified assessment cohort.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was colonoscopy completion rate within 120 days of enrollment. The secondary outcome was colonoscopy scheduling rate appointment within 120 days of enrollment.

RESULTS

A total of 600 participants (median [IQR] age, 56 [51-63] years; 373 women [62.2%]) were enrolled, including 200 participants randomized to usual care, 200 participants randomized to the generic message, and 200 participants randomized to the tailored message. The total sample included 12 Asian participants (2.0%), 324 Black participants (54.0%), and 227 White participants (37.8%), and 9 participants (1.5%) were of Latino or Hispanic ethnicity. Colonoscopy completion was significantly higher for both the tailored message group (69 participants [34.5%]) and the generic message group (64 participants [32.0%]) compared with the usual care group (37 participants [18.5%]) (P < .001 and P = .002, respectively). Scheduling rates were also significantly higher in both groups, with 106 participants (53.0%) in the tailored message group and 105 participants (52.5%) in the generic message group scheduling appointments, compared with 54 participants (27.0%) in the usual care arm (P < .001 for both).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial among individuals whose CRC screening was not up to date, both a tailored message intervention and a generic message intervention were significantly more effective at increasing colonoscopy scheduling and completion rates compared with usual care. These findings suggest that individualized health communications can increase individual motivation to obtain CRC screening.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03310892.

Current and future colorectal cancer screening strategies

Despite strong evidence of effectiveness, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underused. Currently, there are several options for CRC screening, each with its own performance characteristics and considerations for practice. This Review aims to cover current CRC screening guidelines and highlight future blood-based and imaging-based options for screening. In current practice, the leading non-invasive option is the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) based on its high specificity, good sensitivity, low cost and ease of use in mailed outreach programmes. There are currently five blood-based CRC screening tests in varying stages of evaluation, including one that is currently sold in the USA as a laboratory-developed test. There are ongoing studies on the diagnostic accuracy and longitudinal performance of blood tests and they have the potential to disrupt the CRC screening landscape. Imaging-based options, including the colon capsule, MR colonography and the CT capsule, are also being tested in active studies. As the world attempts to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and adapts to the start of CRC screening among people at average risk starting at age 45 years, non-invasive options will become increasingly important.

Evaluation of Blood Stool Test Utilization for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Georgia, USA

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most prevalent cancer and the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States (USA). Early screening has been demonstrated to improve clinical outcomes for CRC. Assessing patterns in CRC screening utilization is important for guiding policy and implementing programs for CRC prevention and control. This study examines the trends and sociodemographic factors associated with blood stool test utilization (BSTU) for CRC screening in Georgia, USA. The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data were analyzed for Average Annual Percent Change (AAPC) in BSTU between 1997 and 2014 among adults aged 50+ who have had a blood stool test within the past two years, and logistic regression analysis of the 2016 data was performed to identify the associated sociodemographic factors. In Georgia, an overall decrease was observed in BSTU, from 27.8% in 1997 to 16.1% in 2014 (AAPC = -2.6, p = 0.023). The decrease in BSTU was less pronounced in Georgia than nationally (from 26.1% in 1997 to 12.8% in 2014 (AAPC = -4.5, p < 0.001)). BSTU was significantly associated with black race/ethnicity (Black vs. White (aOR = 1.43, p = 0.015)), older age (≥70 vs. 50-59 (aOR = 1.62, p = 0.006)), having insurance coverage (no vs. yes (aOR = 0.37 p = 0.005)), and lower income (≥USD 50,000 vs. Collapse

Key Words

• FOBT
• Georgia
• USA
• blood stool test
• colorectal cancer
• screening

Collapse

MESH Headings Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Benjamin E. Ansa Institute of Public and Preventive Health, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA; (B.D.); (J.A.J.)
Nicollette Lewis Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA;
Zachary Hoffman Department of Psychology, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA; Transitions of Augusta, Augusta, GA 30912, USA
Biplab Datta Institute of Public and Preventive Health, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA; (B.D.); (J.A.J.)
J. Aaron Johnson Institute of Public and Preventive Health, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA; (B.D.); (J.A.J.)

Collapse

Early colorectal cancer detection-Current and evolving challenges in evidence, guidelines, policy, and practices

The understanding at the beginning of the last century that colorectal cancer began as a localized disease that progressed and became systemic, and that most colorectal cancer arose from adenomatous polyps gave rise to aggressive attempts at curative treatment and eventually attempts to detect advanced lesions before they progressed to invasive disease. In the last four decades, steadily greater uptake of screening has led to reductions in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. However, the fullest potential of screening is not being met due to the lack of organized screening, where a systems approach could lead to higher rates of screening of average and high risk groups, higher quality screening, and prompt followup of adults with positive screening tests. ABSTRACT: Since the beginning of the 20th century, there has been a general understanding that colorectal cancer is a clonal disease that progresses from a localized stage with a favorable prognosis through progressively more advanced stages which have progressively worse prognosis. That understanding led first to determined efforts to detect and treat early stage symptomatic disease, and then to detect pre-symptomatic colorectal cancer and precursor lesions, where there was hope that the natural history of the disease could be arrested and the incidence and premature mortality of colorectal cancer averted. Toward the end of the last century, guidelines for colorectal cancer screening, growth in the number of technical options for screening, and a steady increase in the proportion of the adult population who attended screening contributed to the beginning of a significant decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Despite this progress, colorectal cancer remains the third leading cause of death among men and women in the United States. Screening for early detection of precursor lesions and localized cancer offers the single most productive opportunity to further reduce the burden of disease, and yet nearly four in five deaths from colorectal cancer are associated with having never been screened, not recently screened, or not followed up for an abnormal screening test. This simple observation is a call to action in all communities to apply existing knowledge to fulfill the potential to prevent avertable incidence and mortality.

Primary care clinicians' perceptions of colorectal cancer screening tests for older adults

•

How clinicians use stool tests for older adults (65+) is not well understood.

•

Preferred in patients who are sicker and for whom guidelines do not recommend.

•

Clinicians must better individualize the use of colorectal tests in older adults.

Colonoscopy is an effective screening test for colorectal cancer but is associated with significant risks and burdens, especially in older adults. Stool tests, which are more convenient, more accessible, and less invasive, can be important tools to improve screening. How clinicians make decisions about colonoscopy versus stool tests in older patients is not well-understood.

We conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care clinicians throughout Maryland in 2018–2019 to examine how clinicians considered the use of stool tests for colorectal cancer screening in their older patients. Thirty clinicians from 21 clinics participated. The mean clinician age was 48.2 years. The majority were physicians (24/30) and women (16/30). Four major themes were identified using qualitative content analysis: (1) Stool test equivalency - although many clinicians still considered colonoscopy as the test of choice, some clinicians considered stool tests equivalent options for screening. (2) Reasons for recommending stool tests – clinicians reported preferentially using stool tests in sicker/older patients or patients who declined colonoscopy. (3) Stool test overuse – some clinicians reported recommending stool tests for patients for whom guidelines do not recommend any screening. (4) Barriers to use – perceived barriers to using stool tests included lack of familiarity, un-returned stool test kits, concern for accuracy, and concern about cost.

In summary, clinicians reported preferentially using stool tests in sicker and older patients and mentioned examples of potential overuse. Additional studies are needed on how to better individualize the use of different colorectal screening tests in older patients.

Black and White Differences in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Screening Outcomes: A Narrative Review

Racial disparities in colorectal cancer incidence are widely documented. There are two potential mechanisms for these disparities: differences in access to screening, including screening follow-up, and differences in underlying risk of colorectal cancer. We reviewed the literature for evidence of these two mechanisms. We show that higher colorectal cancer incidence in blacks relative to whites emerged only after the dissemination of screening and describe evidence of racial disparities in screening rates. In contrast to the strong evidence for differences in colorectal cancer screening utilization, there is limited evidence for racial differences in adenoma prevalence. In general, black and white patients who are screened have similar adenoma prevalence, though there is some evidence that advanced adenomas and adenomas in the proximal colon are somewhat more likely in black than white patients. We conclude that higher rates of colorectal cancer incidence among black patients are primarily driven by lower rates of colorectal cancer screening. Our findings highlight the need to increase black patients' access to quality screening to reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

A Survey of Provider Attitudes, Beliefs, and Perceived Barriers Regarding a Centralized Direct-Mail Colorectal Cancer Screening Approach at Community Health Centers

Background: Colorectal cancer screening (CRC) rates are low, particularly among individuals with low socioeconomic status. Organized CRC screening programs have demonstrated success in increasing screening rates. Little is known about provider attitudes, beliefs, and practices related to CRC screening or how they are influenced by an organized CRC screening program. Methods: In 2014 and 2016, providers from 26 safety net clinics in Oregon and Northern California were invited to complete baseline and follow-up online surveys for the Strategies and Opportunities to Stop Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC) study. The provider survey link was sent electronically to primary care providers serving adult patients. Providers were sent reminders every 2 weeks via email to complete the survey, up to 3 reminders total. In this article, we describe learnings about provider attitudes, beliefs, and practices related to CRC screening after implementation of the STOP CRC program. Results: A total of 166 unique providers completed baseline and/or follow-up surveys, representing 228 responses. Main themes included (1) favorable shifts in attitude toward fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and direct-mail cancer screening programs, (2) changes in provider perception of key barriers, and (3) growing interest in centralized automated systems for identifying patients due for CRC screening and eligible for population-based outreach. Discussion: Providers are interested in improved information systems for identifying patients due for CRC screening and delivering population-based outreach (ie, to distribute FIT kits outside of the clinic visit) to help reduce health system- and patient-level barriers to screening. Trial Registration: National Clinical Trial (NCT) Identifier NCT01742065.

Nationwide Epidemiological Study of Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Study of Greek General Practitioners Related to Screening

Background:

We aimed to assess general practitioners’ (GPs) knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAPs) toward screening recommendation guidelines of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

Methods:

The survey was conducted during a 6-month period in a stratified random sample of GPs, drawn from a national database of GPs in Greece. Participants were queried about their knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported practice patterns regarding screening in a primary care setting. Sociodemographic characteristics associated with vague screening practicing were identified using multivariable logistic regression models.

Results:

A total of 299 participants agreed and underwent telephonic survey (response rate: 78.2%). GPs agreed on the key role of population-based screening in improving patient care, and nine out of ten reported that their performance would be improved with the adoption of computer-based support systems in clinical practice. GPs, older than 50 years of age, those who those practicing for more than 15 years and GPs working in private sector, were less likely to comply with screening recommendations. Latent class analysis revealed that male physicians and those working in public sector were more likely to comply with USPSTF recommendations.

Conclusions:

Our findings highlight the need of educational intervention programs for GPs in order to promote the implementation of national evidence-based screening recommendation statements in clinical practice.

Colonoscopy and Sigmoidoscopy Use among the Average-Risk Population for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Trend Analysis

Monitoring population-level colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy use is crucial to estimate the future burden of colorectal cancer and guide screening efforts. We conducted a systematic literature search on colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy use, published between November 2016 and December 2018 in the databases PubMed and Web of Science to update previous reviews and analyze time trends for various countries. In addition, we used data from the German and European Health Interview Surveys and the National Health Interview Survey to explore recent time trends for Germany and the US, respectively. The literature search yielded 23 new articles: fourteen from the US and nine from Australia, Canada, England, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea. Colonoscopy use within 10 years was highest and, apart from the youngest age groups eligible for colorectal cancer screening, kept increasing to levels close to 60% in the US and Germany. A recent steep increase was also observed for South Korea. Limited data were available on sigmoidoscopy use; regional studies from the US suggest that sigmoidoscopy has become rarely used. Despite high uptake and ongoing increase in the US, Germany, and South Korea, use of colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy has either remained low or essentially unknown for the majority of countries.

Medicare Cancer Screening in the Context of Clinical Guidelines: 2000 to 2012

OBJECTIVES

Cancer screening is a ubiquitous and controversial public health issue, particularly in the elderly population. Despite extensive evidence-based guidelines for screening, it is unclear how cancer screening has changed in the Medicare population over time. We characterize trends in cancer screening for the most common cancer types in the Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) program in the context of conflicting guidelines from 2000 to 2012.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a descriptive analysis of retrospective claims data from the Medicare FFS program based on billing codes. Our data include all claims for Medicare part B beneficiaries who received breast, colorectal (CRC), or prostate cancer screening from 2000 to 2012 based on billing codes. We utilize a Monte Carlo permutation method to detect changes in screening trends.

RESULTS

In total, 231,416,732 screening tests were analyzed from 2000 to 2012, representing an average of 436.8 tests per 1000 beneficiaries per year. Mammography rates declined 7.4%, with digital mammography extensively replacing film. CRC cancer screening rates declined overall. As a percentage of all CRC screening tests, colonoscopy grew from 32% to 71%. Prostate screening rates increased 16% from 2000 to 2007, and then declined to 7% less than its 2000 rate by 2012.

DISCUSSION

Both the aggressiveness of screening guidelines and screening rates for the Medicare FFS population peaked and then declined from 2000 to 2012. However, guideline publications did not consistently precede utilization trend shifts. Technology adoption, practical and financial concerns, and patient preferences may have also contributed to the observed trends. Further research should be performed on the impact of multiple, conflicting guidelines in cancer screening.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Preferences, Past Behavior, and Future Intentions

BACKGROUND

Screening rates for colorectal cancer are below the Healthy People 2020 goal. There are several colorectal cancer screening tests that differ in terms of accuracy, recommended frequency, and administration. In this article, we compare how a set of personal characteristics correlates with preferences for colorectal cancer screening test attributes, past colorectal cancer screening behavior, and future colorectal cancer screening intentions.

METHODS

We conducted a discrete-choice experiment survey to assess relative preferences for attributes of colorectal cancer screening tests among adults aged 50-75 years in USA. We used a latent class logit model to identify classes of preferences and calculated willingness to pay for changes in test attributes. A set of personal characteristics were included in the latent class analysis and analyses of self-reported past screening behavior and self-assessed likelihood of future colorectal cancer screening.

RESULTS

Latent class analysis identified three types of respondents. Class 1 valued test accuracy, class 2 valued removing polyps and avoiding discomfort, and class 3 valued cost. Having had a prior colonoscopy and a higher income were predictors of the likelihood of future screening and membership in classes 1 and 2. Health insurance and a self-reported higher risk of developing colorectal cancer were associated with prior screening and higher future screening intentions, but not class membership.

CONCLUSION

We identified distinct classes of preferences focusing on different test features and personal characteristics associated with reported behavior and intentions. Healthcare providers should engage in a careful assessment of patient preferences when recommending colorectal cancer test options to encourage colorectal cancer screening uptake.

Guideline Adherence to Colonoscopic Surveillance Intervals after Polypectomy in Korea: Results from a Nationwide Survey

Background/Aims

People around the world are increasingly choosing to undergo colorectal cancer screening via colonoscopy. As a result, guideline adherence to postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance has drawn increasing attention. The present study was performed to assess recognition and adherence to guidelines among primary care physicians and gastroenterologists and to identify characteristics associated with compliance.

Methods

A nationwide sample of primary care physicians employed at cancer screening facilities and registered members of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy were recruited. Participants were asked to complete a survey of six hypothetical clinical scenarios designed to assess their potential course of action in response to screening or follow-up colonoscopy results. Frequencies and odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for guideline adherence were estimated.

Results

The proportions of doctors recommending shortened colonoscopy surveillance intervals for low- and high-risk adenomas were greater than 90% among primary physicians and were much lower among gastroenterologists. Guideline adherence was relatively good among groups of doctors who were young, had a specialty in gastroenterology, worked at tertiary hospitals, and cared for an appropriate number of patients.

Conclusions

The present study reveals a remaining discrepancy between practitioner recommendations and current guidelines for postpolypectomy surveillance. Several factors were shown to be related to guideline adherence, suggesting a need for appropriate control and continuing education or training programs among particular groups of practitioners.

Using the consolidated framework for implementation research to understand safety net health system efforts to increase colorectal cancer screening rates

Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), this study aimed to identify factors that influence implementation of evidence-based provider and client-oriented strategies to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in safety net health systems. Site visits and key informant interviews (n=33) were conducted with project leaders and staff in five health systems funded by an American Cancer Society grants program. Within- and cross-site analyses identified CFIR constructs that influenced implementation of provider and client-oriented strategies to promote CRC screening through colonoscopies and fecal immunochemical tests. Of the five CFIR domains, constructs within four CFIR domains (inner setting, outer setting, individual characteristics and process domains) were particularly salient in discussions of implementation while constructs within one CFIR domain (characteristics of the intervention) were not. This study provides a detailed description of how facilitating and inhibiting factors influenced the implementation of evidence-based practices related to CRC screening within safety net health systems. These findings can inform future efforts to promote evidence-based strategies to increase CRC screening rates in safety net health systems.

Multilevel Small-Area Estimation of Colorectal Cancer Screening in the United States

Background: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine screening for colorectal cancer for adults ages 50 to 75 years. We generated small-area estimates for being current with colorectal cancer screening to examine sociogeographic differences among states and counties. To our knowledge, nationwide county-level estimates for colorectal cancer screening are rarely presented.Methods: We used county data from the 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS; n = 251,360 adults), linked it to the American Community Survey poverty data, and fitted multilevel logistic regression models. We post-stratified the data with the U.S. Census population data to run Monte Carlo simulations. We generated county-level screening prevalence estimates nationally and by race/ethnicity, mapped the estimates, and aggregated them into state and national estimates. We evaluated internal consistency of our modeled state-specific estimates with BRFSS direct state estimates using Spearman correlation coefficients.Results: Correlation coefficients were ≥0.95, indicating high internal consistency. We observed substantial variations in current colorectal cancer screening estimates among the states and counties within states. State mean estimates ranged from 58.92% in Wyoming to 75.03% in Massachusetts. County mean estimates ranged from 40.11% in Alaska to 79.76% in Florida. Larger county variations were observed in various race/ethnicity groups.Conclusions: State estimates mask county variations. However, both state and county estimates indicate that the country is far behind the "80% by 2018" target.Impact: County-modeled estimates help identify variation in colorectal cancer screening prevalence in the United States and guide education and enhanced screening efforts in areas of need, including areas without BRFSS direct-estimates. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(3); 245-53. ©2018 AACR.

Perceptions of colorectal cancer screening and recommendation behaviors among physicians in Korea

Background

Physician recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have consistently been shown to be a strong predictor of screening. The aim of this study was to investigate perceptions of CRC screening modalities and recommendation behaviors among physicians in Korea.

Methods

A cross-sectional, nationally representative survey conducted between November 2013 and February 2014. In total, 379 physicians (241 primary care physicians and 138 physicians affiliated with the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases responded to this survey (overall response rate of 31.4%).

Results

About 29% of all respondents “always” recommended and about 67% “sometimes” recommended CRC screening. Colonoscopy was perceived as an effective primary screening tool for CRC, and 80% of the physicians recommended colonoscopy for CRC screening. Only 7% recommended FOBT. In multivariate analysis, recommending FOBT was associated with stronger belief in the screening efficacy of FOBT (aOR 3.70, 95% CI 2.09, 6.57), weaker belief in the screening efficacy of colonoscopy (aOR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12, 0.69), and negative decisional balance for colonoscopy screening (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71, 0.95).

Conclusions

Although FOBT is provided free-of-charge through a nationwide CRC screening program, colonoscopy was more commonly recommended and preferred by physicians.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-017-3881-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy use among older adults in different countries: A systematic review

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) by colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing CRC incidence and mortality, and they are increasingly employed as screening tests and for diagnostic purposes in many countries. We conducted a systematic review to provide up-to-date estimates on the utilization of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy) in the general average-risk population in different countries. PubMed and Web of Science were searched for relevant articles published between 1 September 2008 and 31 October 2016. A total of 23 studies from the US and 20 studies from other countries were included in this review. Estimates from the US were highest, continued to increase over the past decade and reached 62% for colonoscopy use within 10years in people aged 50-75years in 2012. Endoscopy use in other countries was substantially lower (12-44% for lifetime colonoscopy use and 13-30% for recent colonoscopy use), except for Germany, where 55% of the screening-eligible population reported colonoscopy utilization within the previous 10years in 2008-2011. Both lifetime and recent endoscopy use increased with age and peaked at approximately 70-75years. Although several European and Asian countries have started to collect endoscopy utilization data through periodic national health surveys, more data are still much needed from non-US countries. With the implementation of CRC screening programs in an increasing number of countries, especially European countries, an increase in endoscopy use and subsequent reduction in CRC incidence and mortality in the years to come might be expected in those countries.

Insurance Coverage for CT Colonography Screening: Impact on Overall Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates

RSNA, 2017.

The relationship between ethnicity, social deprivation and late presentation of colorectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Tumour staging at time of presentation is an important factor in determining survival in colorectal cancer. The aim of this paper is to investigate the relationship between ethnicity and deprivation in late (Stage IV) presentation of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Data from the Thames Cancer Registry comprising 77,057 colorectal cancer patients between the years 2000 and 2012 were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 17,348 patients were identified with complete data, of which 53.9% were male. Patients from a Black Afro/Caribbean background were diagnosed with CRC at a much younger age than the White British group (median age 67 compared with 72, p<0.001). In multiple regression, ethnicity, deprivation and age were positive predictors of presenting with advanced tumour stage at time of diagnosis. Black patients were more likely to present with Stage IV tumours than white patients (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.18-1.59, p<0.001). Social deprivation was also a predictor of Stage IV cancer presentation, with the most deprived group (Quintile 5) 1.26 times more likely to be diagnosed with Stage IV cancer compared with the most affluent group (CI 1.13-1.40, p<0.001). Sub-group analyses demonstrated that Black & Affluent patients were still at greater risk of Stage IV CRC than their White & Affluent counterparts (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.11-1.45, p=0.023). Patients with rectal cancer were less likely to present with Stage IV CRC (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.61-0.71, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Racial and age related disparities exist in tumour presentation in the United Kingdom. Patients from black and socially deprived backgrounds as well as the elderly are more likely to present with advanced tumours at time of diagnosis.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Stool DNA and Other Noninvasive Modalities

Colorectal cancer screening dates to the discovery of pre-cancerous adenomatous tissue. Screening modalities and guidelines directed at prevention and early detection have evolved and resulted in a significant decrease in the prevalence and mortality of colorectal cancer via direct visualization or using specific markers. Despite continued efforts and an overall reduction in deaths attributed to colorectal cancer over the last 25 years, colorectal cancer remains one of the most common causes of malignancy-associated deaths. In attempt to further reduce the prevalence of colorectal cancer and associated deaths, continued improvement in screening quality and adherence remains key. Noninvasive screening modalities are actively being explored. Identification of specific genetic alterations in the adenoma-cancer sequence allow for the study and development of noninvasive screening modalities beyond guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing which target specific alterations or a panel of alterations. The stool DNA test is the first noninvasive screening tool that targets both human hemoglobin and specific genetic alterations. In this review we discuss stool DNA and other commercially available noninvasive colorectal cancer screening modalities in addition to other targets which previously have been or are currently under study.

Colorectal Cancer Screening in US Seniors Ages 76-84 Years

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends patient-physician discussions about the appropriateness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults ages 76-84 years who have never been screened. In this study, we used data from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey to examine patterns of CRC screening and provider recommendation among seniors ages 76-84 years, and made some comparisons to younger adults. Nationally-representative samples of 1379 adults ages 76-84 years and 8797 adults ages 50-75 years responded to questions about CRC screening status, receipt of provider recommendation, and discussion of test options; 22.7% (95% CI 20.1-25.3) of seniors ages 76-84 had never been tested for CRC and therefore were not up-to-date with guidelines; 3.9% (95% CI 2.0-7.6) of these individuals reported a recent provider recommendation for screening. In multivariate analyses, the likelihood of never having been tested was significantly greater for seniors of other/multiple race or Hispanic ethnicity; with high school or less education; without private health insurance coverage; who had ≤ 1 doctor visit in the past year; without recent screening for breast, cervical, or prostate cancer; with no or unknown CRC family history; or with ≤ 1 chronic disease. Among the minority of respondents ages 50-75 and 76-84 reporting a provider recommendation, 73.2% indicated that the provider recommended particular tests, which was overwhelmingly colonoscopy (≥ 89 %). Nearly one-quarter of adults 76-84 have never been screened for CRC, and rates of provider recommendation in this group are very low. Greater attention to informed CRC screening discussions with screening-eligible seniors is needed.

Stated Preference for Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review of the Literature, 1990-2013

Introduction

Stated-preference methods provide a systematic approach to quantitatively assess the relative preferences for features of cancer screening tests. We reviewed stated-preference studies for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening to identify the types of attributes included, the use of questions to assess uptake, and whether gaps exist in these areas. The goal of our review is to inform research on the design and promotion of public health programs to increase cancer screening.

Methods

Using the PubMed and EconLit databases, we identified studies published in English from January 1990 through July 2013 that measured preferences for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening test attributes using conjoint analysis or a discrete-choice experiment. We extracted data on study characteristics and results. We categorized studies by whether attributes evaluated included screening test, health care delivery characteristics, or both.

Results

Twenty-two studies met the search criteria. Colorectal cancer was the most commonly studied cancer of the 3. Fifteen studies examined only screening test attributes (efficacy, process, test characteristics, and cost). Two studies included only health care delivery attributes (information provided, staff characteristics, waiting time, and distance to facility). Five studies examined both screening test and health care delivery attributes. Overall, cancer screening test attributes had a significant effect on a patient’s selection of a cancer screening test, and health care delivery attributes had mixed effects on choice.

Conclusion

A growing number of studies examine preferences for cancer screening tests. These studies consistently find that screening test attributes, such as efficacy, process, and cost, are significant determinants of choice. Fewer studies have examined the effect of health care delivery attributes on choice, and the results from these studies are mixed. There is a need for additional studies on the barriers to cancer screening uptake, including health care delivery attributes, and the effect of education materials on preferences.

Predicting Incongruence between Self-reported and Documented Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Sample of African American Medicare Recipients

Assessments of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates typically rely on self-reported screening data, which are often incongruent with medical records. We used multilevel models to examine health-related, socio-demographic and psychological predictors of incongruent self-reports for CRC screening among Medicare-insured African Americans (N = 3,740). Results indicated that living alone decreased, and income increased, the odds of congruently self-reporting endoscopic CRC screening. Being male and having greater number of comorbidities decreased, and having less than a high school education increased, the odds of congruently self-reported fecal occult blood tests. Living alone, age and income had the most robust effects across classifications into one of four mutually exclusive categories defined by screening status (screened/unscreened) and congruence of self-reports. The results underscore the clinical importance of gathering socio-demographic data via patient interviews, and the relevance of these data for judging the veracity of self-reported CRC screenings behaviors.

Beyond Adherence: Health Care Disparities and the Struggle to Get Screened for Colon Cancer

Dominant health care professional discourses on cancer take for granted high levels of individual responsibility in cancer prevention, especially in expectations about preventive screening. At the same time, adhering to screening guidelines can be difficult for lower income and under-insured individuals. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a prime example. Since the advent of CRC screening, disparities in CRC mortality have widened along lines of income, insurance, and race in the United States. We used a community-engaged research method, Photovoice, to examine how people from medically under-served areas experienced and gave meaning to CRC screening. In our analysis, we first discuss ways in which participants recounted screening as a struggle. Second, we highlight a category that participants suggested was key to successful screening: social connections. Finally, we identify screening as an emotionally laden process that is underpinned by feelings of uncertainty, guilt, fear, and relief. We discuss the importance of these findings to research and practice.

Determinants of variations in self-reported barriers to colonoscopy among uninsured patients in a primary care setting

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common type of cancer among both males and females in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Although largely preventable through screening, early detection and removal of polyps, screening rates are considered sub-optimal. Perceived barriers to screening have been reported to influence screening rates. This paper examines variations in the extent to which uninsured patients identified barriers to CRC screening using colonoscopy based on race/ethnicity, educational attainment, age, gender, marital status and prior colonoscopy. Multivariate analyses showed that compared to Caucasians, African Americans had an increased likelihood of identifying lack of transportation as a barrier [odds ratio (OR) 2.68; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.35-5.32] while Hispanics were more likely to identify fear of finding cancer as a barrier (OR 2.09; 95 % CI 1.19-3.66). Compared to those with more than a high school education, there was increased likelihood of identifying lack of knowledge as a barrier among individuals with high school education (OR 3.51; 95 % CI 1.94-6.36) or less than a high school education (OR 2.16; 95 % CI 1.04-4.50). Our findings suggest that strategies aimed at increasing colonoscopy screening rates among underserved populations should take into consideration race/ethnicity, educational attainment, age, and prior colonoscopy experience when developing education and outreach plans to reduce barriers to colonoscopy.

The Effectiveness of a Physician-Only and Physician-Patient Intervention on Colorectal Cancer Screening Discussions Between Providers and African American and Latino Patients

BACKGROUND

Physician recommendation of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is a critical facilitator of screening completion. Providing patients a choice of screening options may increase CRC screening completion, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to assess the effectiveness of physician-only and physician-patient interventions on increasing rates of CRC screening discussions as compared to usual care.

DESIGN

This study was quasi-experimental. Clinics were allocated to intervention or usual care; patients in intervention clinics were randomized to receipt of patient intervention.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 50 to 75 years, due for CRC screening, receiving care at either a federally qualified health care center or an academic health center participated in the study.

INTERVENTION

Intervention physicians received continuous quality improvement and communication skills training. Intervention patients watched an educational video immediately before their appointment.

MAIN MEASURES

Rates of patient-reported 1) CRC screening discussions, and 2) discussions of more than one screening test.

KEY RESULTS

The physician-patient intervention (n = 167) resulted in higher rates of CRC screening discussions compared to both physician-only intervention (n = 183; 61.1 % vs.50.3 %, p = 0.008) and usual care (n = 153; 61.1 % vs. 34.0 % p = 0.03). More discussions of specific CRC screening tests and discussions of more than one test occurred in the intervention arms than in usual care (44.6 % vs. 22.9 %,p = 0.03) and (5.1 % vs. 2.0 %, p = 0.036), respectively, but discussion of more than one test was uncommon. Across all arms, 143 patients (28.4 %) reported discussion of colonoscopy only; 21 (4.2 %) reported discussion of both colonoscopy and stool tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care and a physician-only intervention, a physician-patient intervention increased rates of CRC screening discussions, yet discussions overwhelmingly focused solely on colonoscopy. In underserved patient populations where access to colonoscopy may be limited, interventions encouraging discussions of both stool tests and colonoscopy may be needed.

Using segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series data to assess colonoscopy quality outcomes of a web-enhanced implementation toolkit to support evidence-based practices for bowel preparation: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

While there is convincing evidence on interventions to improve bowel preparation for patients, the evidence on how to implement these evidence-based practices (EBPs) in outpatient colonoscopy settings is less certain. The Strategies to Improve Colonoscopy (STIC) study compares the effect of two implementation strategies, physician education alone versus physician education plus an implementation toolkit for staff, on adoption of three EBPs (split-dosing of bowel preparation, low-literacy education, teach-back) to improve pre-procedure and intra-procedure quality measures. The implementation toolkit contains a staff education module, website containing tools to support staff in delivering EBPs, tailored patient education materials, and brief consultation with staff to determine how the EBPs can be integrated into the existing workflow. Given adaptations to the implementation plan and intentional flexibility in the delivery of the EBPs, we utilize a pragmatic study to balance external validity with demonstrating effectiveness of the implementation strategies.

METHODS/DESIGN

Participants will include all outpatient colonoscopy physicians, staff, and patients from a convenience sample of six endoscopy settings. Aim #1 will explore the relative effect of two strategies to implement patient-level EBPs on adoption and clinical quality outcomes. We will assess the change in level and trends of clinical quality outcomes (i.e., adequacy of bowel preparation, adenoma detection) using segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series data with two groups (intervention and delayed start). Aim #2 will examine the influence of organizational readiness to change on EBP implementation. We use a PRECIS diagram to reflect the extent to which each indicator of the study was pragmatic versus explanatory, revealing a largely pragmatic study.

DISCUSSION

Implementation challenges have already motivated several adaptations to the original plan, reflecting the nature of implementation in real-world healthcare settings. The pragmatic study responds to the evolving needs of its healthcare partners and allows for flexibility in intervention delivery, thereby informing clinical decision-making in real-world settings. The current study will provide information about what works (intervention effectiveness), for whom it works (influence of Medicaid versus other insurance), in which contexts it works (setting characteristics that influence implementation), and how it works best (comparison of implementation strategies).

Physician perspectives on colorectal cancer surveillance care in a changing environment

The purpose of this formative qualitatively driven mixed-methods study was to refine a measurement tool for use in interventions to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance care. We employed key informant interviews to explore the attitudes, practices, and preferences of four physician specialties. A national survey, literature review, and expert consultation also informed survey development. Cognitive pretesting obtained participant feedback to improve the survey's face and content validity and reliability. Results showed that additional domains were needed to reflect contemporary interdisciplinary trends in survivorship care, evolving practice changes and current health policy. Observed dissonance in specialists' perspectives poses challenges for the development of interventions and psychometrically sound measurement. Implications for future research include need for a flexible care model with enhanced communication and role definitions among clinical specialists, improvements in surveillance at multilevels (patients, providers, and systems), and measurement tools that focus on multispecialty involvement and the changing practice and policy environment.

Intention to undergo colonoscopy screening among relatives of colorectal cancer cases: a theory-based model

BACKGROUND

It is recommended that persons having familial risk of colorectal cancer begin regular colonoscopy screening at an earlier age than those in the general population. However, many individuals at increased risk do not adhere to these screening recommendations.

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to examine cognitive, affective, social, and behavioral motivators of colonoscopy intention among individuals at increased risk of familial colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Relatives of colorectal cancer cases (N = 481) eligible for colonoscopy screening completed a survey assessing constructs from several theoretical frameworks including fear appeal theories.

RESULTS

Structural equation modeling indicated that perceived colorectal cancer risk, past colonoscopy, fear of colorectal cancer, support from family and friends, and health-care provider recommendation were determinants of colonoscopy intention.

CONCLUSIONS

Future interventions to promote colonoscopy in this increased risk population should target the factors we identified as motivators. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01274143).

Health Policy to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening: Improving Access and Aligning Federal and State Incentives

Since implementation of the Affordable Care Act, 7 million+ individuals are newly covered on state-managed Medicaid programs and millions more on subsidized commercial insurance plans. We describe Oregon's experience in including colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as a measure for the state's new pay-for-performance Medicaid program. Using Oregon Health Authority data, we present 1) frequencies of Medicaid enrollees age-eligible for CRC screening, before and after Medicaid expansion; 2) CRC screening rates for 2011 and 2013; and 3) stakeholder perceptions about incentivizing CRC screening. Between December 2013 and June 2014, the size of the Medicaid-enrolled population age-eligible for CRC screening increased by 55% (104,920 to 163,078). Between 2011 and 2013, CRC screening rates improved by more than three percent for 6/15 (40%) CCOs; the majority of stakeholders surveyed (70%) supported the CRC screening metric. Inclusion of CRC screening as a Medicaid quality metric may present a unique opportunity to raise rates among historically underserved populations.

Predictors of Colorectal Cancer Screening: Does Rurality Play a Role?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to explore the associations between sociodemographic factors such as residence, health care access, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among residents of Texas.

METHODS

Using the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, we performed logistic regression analyses to determine predictors of CRC screening among Texas residents, including rural versus urban differences. Our outcomes of interest were previous (1) CRC screening using any CRC test, (2) fecal occult blood test (FOBT), or (3) endoscopy, as well as up-to-date screening using (4) any CRC test, (5) FOBT, or (6) endoscopy. The independent variable of interest was rural versus urban residence; we controlled for other sociodemographic and health care access variables such as lack of health insurance.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis showed that individuals who were residents of a rural/non-Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) location (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.51-0.97) or a suburban county (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.39-0.95) were less likely to report ever having any CRC screening compared to residents of a center city of an MSA. Residents of a rural/non-MSA location were less likely (OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.28-0.87) than residents of a center city of an MSA to be up-to-date using FOBT. There was decreased likelihood of ever being screened for CRC among the uninsured (OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.31-0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Effective development and implementation of strategies to improve screening rates should aim at improving access to health care, taking into account demographic characteristics such as rural versus urban residence.

Colonoscopy procedural skills and training for new beginners

The incidence of colorectal cancer has been increasing in the developed world including South Korea and China. Colonoscopy allows for greater diagnostic specificity and sensitivity compared with other types of examinations, such as the stool occult blood test, barium enema, and computed tomography colonography. Therefore, in recent years, the demand for colonoscopies has grown rapidly. New beginners including primary care physicians may help meet the increasing demand by performing colonoscopies. However, it is a challenge to learn the procedure due to the long learning-curve and the high rate of complications, such as perforation and bleeding, as compared to gastroscopy. Thus, considerable training and experience are required for optimal performance of colonoscopies. In order to perform a complete colonoscopic examination, there were a few important things to learn and remember, such as the position of examinee (e.g., left and right decubitus, supine, and prone) and examiner (two-man method vs one-man standing method vs one-man sitting method), basic skills (e.g., tip deflection , push forward and pull back, torque, air suction and insufflation), advanced skills (e.g., jiggling and shaking, right and left turn shortening, hooking, and slide-by technique), assisting skills (e.g., position change of examinee, abdominal compression, breathing-holding, and liquid-infusion technique), and intubation techniques along the lower gastrointestinal tract. In this article, we attempt to describe the methods of insertion and advancement of the colonoscope to the new beginners including primary care physician. We believe that this article may be helpful to the new beginners who wish to learn the procedure.

Colorectal cancer screening: tests, strategies, and perspectives

Screening has a central role in colorectal cancer (CRC) control. Different screening tests are effective in reducing CRC-specific mortality. Influence on cancer incidence depends on test sensitivity for pre-malignant lesions, ranging from almost no influence for guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) to an estimated reduction of 66–90% for colonoscopy. Screening tests detect lesions indirectly in the stool [gFOBT, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and fecal DNA] or directly by colonic inspection [flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, CT colonography (CTC), and capsule endoscopy]. CRC screening is cost-effective compared to no screening but no screening strategy is clearly better than the others. Stool tests are the most widely used in worldwide screening interventions. FIT will soon replace gFOBT. The use of colonoscopy as a screening test is increasing and this strategy has superseded all alternatives in the US and Germany. Despite its undisputed importance, CRC screening is under-used and participation rarely reaches 70% of target population. Strategies to increase participation include ensuring recommendation by physicians, introducing organized screening and developing new, more acceptable tests. Available evidence for DNA fecal testing, CTC, and capsule endoscopy is reviewed.

A conceptual model of the multiple stages of communication necessary to support patient-centered care

Patient-centered care requires that both healthcare providers and patients have access to comparative effectiveness research (CER), which provides direct comparisons of the risks and benefits of available clinical options. However, insufficient attention has been paid to developing the comprehensive communication systems necessary to ensure that CER reaches patients and healthcare providers. In this review, we propose a model of the multiple stages of CER communication necessary for patient-centered care and review the existing research and gaps in knowledge relevant to each stage. These stages include: promotion of the underlying concepts and value of CER; translation of CER results; dissemination of CER results; and utilization of the results of CER in shared decision-making between patients and providers. A comprehensive approach to CER communication is necessary to ensure that the growing interest in and availability of CER is able to support a more patient-centered model of healthcare.

Challenges and possible solutions to colorectal cancer screening for the underserved

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. CRC incidence and mortality can be reduced through screening. However, in the United States, screening participation remains suboptimal, particularly among underserved populations such as the uninsured, recent immigrants, and racial/ethnic minority groups. Increasing screening rates among underserved populations will reduce the US burden of CRC. In this commentary focusing on underserved populations, we highlight the public health impact of CRC screening, list key challenges to screening the underserved, and review promising approaches to boost screening rates. We identify four key policy and research priorities to increase screening among underserved populations: 1) actively promote the message, "the best test is the one that gets done"; 2) develop and implement methods to identify unscreened individuals within underserved population groups for screening interventions; 3) develop and implement approaches for organized screening delivery; and 4) fund and enhance programs and policies that provide access to screening, diagnostic follow-up, and CRC treatment for underserved populations. This commentary represents the consensus of a diverse group of experts in cancer control and prevention, epidemiology, gastroenterology, and primary care from across the country who formed the Coalition to Boost Screening among the Underserved in the United States. The group was organized and held its first annual working group meeting in conjunction with the World Endoscopy Organization's annual Colorectal Cancer Screening Committee meeting during Digestive Disease Week 2012 in San Diego, California.

Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening test use--United States, 2012

BACKGROUND

Strong evidence exists that screening with fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy reduces the number of deaths from colorectal cancer (CRC). The percentage of the population up-to-date with recommended CRC screening increased from 54% in 2002 to 65% in 2010, primarily through increased use of colonoscopy.

METHODS

Data from the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey were analyzed to estimate percentages of adults aged 50-75 years who reported CRC screening participation consistent with United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendations.

RESULTS

In 2012, 65.1% of U.S. adults were up-to-date with CRC screening, and 27.7% had never been screened. The proportion of respondents who had never been screened was greater among those without insurance (55.0%) and without a regular care provider (61.0%) than among those with health insurance (24.0%) and a regular care provider (23.5%). Colonoscopy was the most commonly used screening test (61.7%), followed by FOBT (10.4%). Colonoscopy was used by more than 53% of the population in every state. The percentages of blacks and whites up-to-date with CRC screening were equivalent. Compared with whites, a higher percentage of blacks across all income and education levels used FOBT.

CONCLUSIONS

Many age-eligible adults did not use any type of CRC screening test as recommended. Organized, population-based approaches might increase CRC screening among those who have never been screened. Promoting both FOBT and colonoscopy as viable screening test options might increase CRC screening rates and reduce health disparities.

Comparison of colorectal cancer screening in veterans based on the location of primary care clinic

OBJECTIVES

To compare colorectal cancer screening rates in veterans receiving primary care (PC) in Veterans Administration (VA) community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) and VA medical centers (VAMCs).

METHODS

The VA Outpatient Care Files were used to identify 2 837 770 patients ≥ 50 years with ≥ 2 PC visits in 2010. Veterans undergoing screening/surveillance colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, fecal-occult-blood testing (FOBT), and double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) were identified from ICD-9-CM/CPT codes. Patients were categorized as VAMC (n = 1 403 273; 49.5%) or CBOC (1 434 497; 50.5%) based on where majority of PC encounters occurred and as high risk (n = 284 090) or average risk (n = 2 553 680) based on colorectal cancer risk factors and validated ICD-9-CM-based algorithms.

RESULTS

CBOC patients were older than VAMC (mean ages 69.3 vs 67.4 years; P < .001), more likely (P < .001) to be male (96.5% vs 95.1%), and white (67.8% vs 64.2%), but less likely to be high-risk (9.4% vs 10.5%; P < .001). Rates of colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and DCBE were all lower in CBOC (P < .001). Among high-risk veterans, rates in CBOC and VAMC, respectively, were 27.4% versus 36.8% for colonoscopy, 1.3% versus 0.8% for sigmoidoscopy, and 0.8% versus 0.5% for DCBE. Among average-risk veterans, these rates were 1.3% versus 1.9%, 0.2% versus 0.1%, and 0.2% versus 0.1%, respectively. The differences remained after adjusting for age/comorbidity. The adjusted odds of colonoscopy for CBOC were 0.73 (95% confidence interval = 0.64-0.82) for average risk and 0.76 (95% confidence interval = 0.67-0.87) for high risk. In contrast, the use of FOBT was relatively similar in CBOCs and VAMCs among both high risk (11.1% vs 11.2%) and average risk (14.3% vs 14.1%). Screening rates were similar between those younger than 65 years and older than 65 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Veterans receiving PC in CBOCs are less likely to receive screening colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and DCBE than VAMC according to VA records. The lower use in CBOC was not offset by higher use of FOBT, including the degree to which CBOC patients may be more reliant to use non-VA services. The clinical appropriateness of these differences merits further examination.