Colorectal cancer screening by primary care physicians: recommendations and practices, 2006-2007

Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Regarding Colorectal Carcinoma Screening Among Healthcare Personnel

BACKGROUND

Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is a rising issue worldwide, with high morbidity and mortality rates. It is the third most common cause of death globally. Early diagnosis can lead to prevention and treatment, making it crucial for healthcare professionals to have proper knowledge about CRC screening.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the level of awareness, identify knowledge gaps, and update the knowledge of healthcare workers.

METHODS

 This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted from May to October 2023, in multiple tertiary care hospitals of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Responses were collected manually through a designed proforma of questionnaires.

RESULTS

A total of 164 participants (137 male and 27 female) took part in our study. Among the participants, 92.1% (n = 151) were aware that colonoscopy is used for CRC screening. Other screening methods known to them included a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) (65.9%, n = 108), flexible sigmoidoscopy (48.2%, n = 79), stool DNA test (31.1%, n = 51), and virtual colonoscopy (34.1%, n = 56). Only 6.1% (n = 10) routinely recommended CRC screening for all patients, 22.6% (n = 37) recommended it occasionally, and 71.3% (n = 117) rarely or never recommended it. Regarding factors influencing the recommendation of CRC screening, 83.5% (n = 137) cited family history of CRC as the major factor, followed by patient age (68.3%, n = 112), availability of screening facilities (46.3%, n = 76), patient's overall health status (37.2%, n = 61), and patient's preference (20.7%, n = 34).

CONCLUSION

This study concluded that only a small proportion of healthcare personnel regularly recommend CRC screening. In addition, a small proportion are familiar with CRC screening guidelines, although most are well-informed about the various investigations used for screening.

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.

Associations between sociodemographic factors and breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in the United States

PURPOSE

Cancer is the second leading cause of death globally and in the U.S., but screening can reduce cancer-related deaths. We analyzed data from a nationwide survey to compare how sociodemographic factors were associated with never or not timely screening for multiple types of cancer, and the use of different colorectal cancer screening procedures.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the 2019 U.S. National Health Interview Survey. To understand breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening participation among those recommended to screen, we respectively analyzed 8,110 women 45 to 74 years of age, 9,583 women 21 to 65 years of age, and 13,497 individuals 50 to 75 years of age at survey. Weighted Poisson regression was used to estimate the unadjusted and confounding-adjusted prevalence ratio and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

In our analysis populations, 6.9% never had a mammogram, 14.6% never screened for cervical cancer, and 26.8% never screened for colorectal cancer; the prevalence respectively increased to 24.7%, 23.8%, and 32.3% for not timely screening according to national guidelines. The prevalence of never screening was 81.9% for non-invasive colorectal cancer tests, compared with 32.5% for colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy. Individuals with lower education level, with no health insurance, or in poverty had higher prevalence of never screening for all three cancers. There was low sociodemographic disparity for the use of non-invasive colorectal cancer screening tests.

CONCLUSION

Socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals have higher prevalence of never or not timely screening. The utilization of non-invasive colorectal cancer screening procedures remains low across sociodemographic groups.

Changes in uptake of stool-based colorectal cancer screening during the Covid-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized and endoscopic colon screening includes a number of barriers that were exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. At-home stool-based screening (SBS) increased during the pandemic and potentially reached eligible adults hesitant to be screened by endoscopy. The purpose of this analysis was to examine the change in uptake of SBS during the pandemic among adults not screened within guidelines by endoscopy.

METHODS

We used data from the 2019 and 2021 National Health Interview Surveys to estimate uptake of SBS among adults aged 50-75 years, without a previous diagnosis of CRC and without guideline-concordant endoscopic screening. We also examined provider recommendations for screening tests. To examine if changes in uptake differed during the pandemic by demographic and health characteristics, we combined survey years and ran logistic regression models with an interaction term for each factor and survey year.

RESULTS

In our study population, SBS increased 74% overall from 2019 to 2021 (8.7% to 15.1%; p < 0.001), with the largest percent increase among those aged 50-52 years (3.5% to 9.9%; p < 0.001). Among those aged 50-52 years, the ratio of endoscopy to SBS changed from 83%/17% in 2019 to 55%/45% in 2021. Cologuard was the only screening test where recommendations by healthcare providers significantly increased from 2019 (10.6% to 16.1%; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Use and recommendations for SBS increased substantially during the pandemic. Increased awareness among patients could potentially improve future CRC screening rates if uptake of SBS occurs among those unable or unwilling to be screened by endoscopy.

Considerations for Colorectal Neoplasia Detection in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

High-quality colonoscopic surveillance can lead to earlier and increased detection of colorectal neoplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In IBD clinical trials, endoscopy is used to assess mucosal disease activity before and after treatment but also provides an opportunity to surveil for colorectal neoplasia during follow-up.

SUMMARY

Best practices for colorectal cancer identification in IBD clinical trials require engagement and collaboration between the clinical trial sponsor, site endoscopist and/or principal investigator, and central read team. Each team member has unique responsibilities for maximizing dysplasia detection in IBD trials.

KEY MESSAGES

Sponsors should work in accordance with scientific guidelines to standardize imaging procedures, design the protocol to ensure the trial population is safeguarded, and oversee trial conduct. The site endoscopist should remain updated on best practices to tailor sponsor protocol-required procedures to patient needs, examine the mucosa for disease activity and potential dysplasia during all procedures, and provide optimal procedure videos for central read analysis. Central readers may detect dysplasia or colorectal cancer and a framework to report these findings to trial sponsors is essential. Synergistic relationships between all team members in IBD clinical trials provide an important opportunity for extended endoscopic evaluation and colorectal neoplasia identification.

Enrollee characteristics and receipt of colorectal cancer testing in Pennsylvania after adoption of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the U.S. Despite increased CRC screening rates, they remain low among low-income non-older adults, including Medicaid enrollees who are more likely to be diagnosed at advanced stages.

OBJECTIVES

Given limited evidence regarding CRC screening service use among Medicaid enrollees, we examined multilevel factors associated with CRC testing among Medicaid enrollees in Pennsylvania after Medicaid expansion in 2015.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Using the 2014-2019 Medicaid administrative data, we performed multivariable logistic regression models to assess factors associated with CRC testing, adjusting for enrollment length and primary care services use.

SUBJECTS

We identified 15,439 adults aged 50-64 years newly enrolled through Medicaid expansion.

MEASURES

Outcome measures include receiving any CRC testing and by modality.

RESULTS

About 32% of our study population received any CRC testing. Significant predictors for any CRC testing include being male, being Hispanic, having any chronic conditions, using primary care services ≤4 times annually, and having a higher county-level median household income. Being 60-64 years at enrollment, using primary care services >4 times annually, and having higher county-level unemployment rates were significantly associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving any CRC tests.

CONCLUSIONS

CRC testing rates were low among adults newly enrolled in Medicaid under the Medicaid expansion in Pennsylvania relative to adults with high income. We observed different sets of significant factors associated with CRC testing by modality. Our findings underscore the urgency to tailor strategies by patients' racial, geographic, and clinical conditions for CRC screening.

Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Modalities Among the General Population in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) could be a leading explanation for cancer-related death. Numerous studies have shown the benefit of early screening for colorectal cancer in reducing mortality. Screening for colorectal cancer is a rational and cost-effective strategy for reducing the incidence of colorectal cancer and related mortality. Despite endorsement by academic and healthcare organizations, patient awareness and compliance with screening are low, partly due to patient-related barriers to screening.

AIM

This study aimed to explore the preferred screening method for colorectal cancer in Saudi Arabia in general.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study conducted among the Saudi adult population from September 2021 through February 2022. A self-developed questionnaire was distributed among the population using an online platform. Data were tabulated in Google Forms, and all statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).

RESULTS

During this study, data from 10,781 participants were analyzed. Among them, the most preferred screening modality for colorectal cancer was the stool fecal immunochemical test (41.7%) and the most suitable (33.5%). The most commonly mentioned qualities that influenced choosing a particular screening test were "how the test was performed" (50.4%).

CONCLUSION

Because the stool fecal immunochemical test is the most preferred screening modality for colorectal cancer, this study could serve as a database to aid in the implementation of a colorectal cancer screening program that meets the preferences of the general population of Saudi Arabia.

A synthesis of evidence for cancer-specific screening interventions: A Preventive Medicine Golden Jubilee Review

The goal of cancer screening guidelines is to inform health practitioners to practice evidence-based cancer prevention. Cancer screening aims to detect treatable precancerous lesions or early-stage disease to enable actions aimed at decreasing morbidity and mortality. Continuous assessment of the available evidence for or against screening interventions by various organizations often results in conflicting recommendations and create challenges for providers and policymakers. Here we have summarized the current cancer screening recommendations by five leading organizations in North America and Europe: the National Cancer Institute's Physician Data Query (PDQ), the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and the UK National Screening Committee for the National Health Service (UK NSC). All organizations assess evidence based on strength, quality, and quantity, and recommendations are similar although with differences with respect to screening start and stop ages. Recommendations are consistent for colorectal cancer screening with fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test, cervical cancer screening with Pap-test, HPV-test, or co-testing, and breast cancer screening with mammography. However, guidelines vary with respect to age to start and end screening and testing frequency. Tests that have proven to be inefficient or whose use is capable of causing harm are routinely recommended against. Continuous review of screening guidelines is necessary to evaluate the many promising screening tests currently under investigation.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Knowledge and Practices Among Practicing Obstetrician-Gynecologists and Residents

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in the US, the third most diagnosed cancer in women, and the second leading cause of cancer death in women. The aims of our study are to (1) investigate knowledge of and adherence to CRC screening guidelines by obstetrician-gynecologists (Ob/Gyns) and (2) assess whether this knowledge/adherence vary by demographic and practice characteristics.

METHODS

An anonymous cross-sectional survey was distributed to a convenience sample of 142 practicing Obs/Gyns drawn from National Medical Association section members/conference attendees and hospital Ob/Gyn department members.

RESULTS

Most respondents (80.3%) viewed colorectal screening within the scope of Ob/Gyn practice, and 71.8% used the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines for screening. Most respondents were knowledgeable regarding CRC screening but not in all areas. On average they only identified half of the 10 risk factors listed and only one-quarter correctly identified the age when screening can stop. Residents were somewhat more knowledgeable about screening guidelines and risk factors than attendings. More than half of respondents (57.8%) reported always initiating CRC screening for the appropriate age and risk factors. Respondents identified education and awareness (56.3%) and patients' unwillingness to undergo an invasive procedure (75.4%) as barriers to screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge regarding CRC screening was less than optimal and differed by attending/resident status. Greater emphasis should be placed on CRC screening and guidelines training for primary care providers like Ob/Gyns. Some of this could be accomplished through maintenance of certification and continued integration into residency education.

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.

Examining the relationship between household wealth and colorectal cancer screening behaviors among U.S. men aged 45-75

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related death among men in the United States (U.S.), particularly among men aged 45 years and older. Early-detection screening remains a key method of decreasing CRC-related deaths, yet socioeconomic barriers exist to planning and completing CRC screening. While accumulating evidence shows income disparities in CRC screening prevalence, a dearth of research has investigated wealth disparities. This study aimed to determine whether household wealth was associated with CRC screening uptake and future screening intent. In February 2022, we sent an online survey to potential participants; U.S. men aged 45–75 years were eligible to participate. We examined four CRC screening behaviors as outcomes: ever completing a stool-based or exam-based screening test, current screening status, and future screening intent. Household net wealth, determined by self-reported household wealth and debt, was the primary predictor. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence interval (CI). Of the study participants (N = 499), most self-identified as Non-Hispanic White, were aged 50–64 years, and had previously completed a CRC screening test. Results revealed that, among men aged 45–49 years, higher net wealth decreased the odds of ever completing a stool- or exam-based test (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.33, 0.98; OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.94, respectively). By contrast, among men aged 50–75 years, higher net wealth increased the odds of being current with CRC screening (OR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.92). Net wealth was unassociated with CRC screening intent. These findings suggest that household net wealth, rather than income, is an important socioeconomic factor to consider in relation to uptake of CRC early-detection screening. The financial and social cognitive mechanisms linking household wealth to CRC screening behaviors merit future research and intervention.

•

Wealth was associated with U.S men's adherence to screening for colorectal cancer.

•

Age modified the association between wealth and colorectal cancer screening uptake.

•

Wealth reduced the odds of past colorectal screening completion for men 45–49 years.

Computer-Aided Detection Improves Adenomas per Colonoscopy for Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening is endoscopist dependent, and colonoscopy quality improvement programs aim to improve efficacy. This study evaluated the clinical benefit and safety of using a computer-aided detection (CADe) device in colonoscopy procedures.

METHODS

This randomized study prospectively evaluated the use of a CADe device at 5 academic and community centers by US board-certified gastroenterologists (n = 22). Participants aged ≥40 scheduled for screening or surveillance (≥3 years) colonoscopy were included; exclusion criteria included incomplete procedure, diagnostic indication, inflammatory bowel disease, and familial adenomatous polyposis. Patients were randomized by endoscopist to the standard or CADe colonoscopy arm using computer-generated, random-block method. The 2 primary endpoints were adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), the total number of adenomas resected divided by the total number of colonoscopies; and true histology rate (THR), the proportion of resections with clinically significant histology divided by the total number of polyp resections. The primary analysis used a modified intention-to-treat approach.

RESULTS

Between January and September 2021, 1440 participants were enrolled to be randomized. After exclusion of participants who did not meet the eligibility criteria, 677 in the standard arm and 682 in the CADe arm were included in a modified intention-to-treat analysis. APC increased significantly with use of the CADe device (standard vs CADe: 0.83 vs 1.05, P = .002; total number of adenomas, 562 vs 719). There was no decrease in THR with use of the CADe device (standard vs CADe: 71.7% vs 67.4%, P for noninferiority < .001; total number of non-neoplastic lesions, 284 vs 375). Adenoma detection rate was 43.9% and 47.8% in the standard and CADe arms, respectively (P = .065).

CONCLUSIONS

For experienced endoscopists performing screening and surveillance colonoscopies in the United States, the CADe device statistically improved overall adenoma detection (APC) without a concomitant increase in resection of non-neoplastic lesions (THR).

CLINICALTRIALS

gov registration: NCT04754347.

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.

The Development and Validation of the Colonoscopy Joking Scale

Joking is an important communication behavior that helps people cope with colorectal cancer and colonoscopy screening. However, whether joking serves a beneficial or maladaptive function in the context of colorectal cancer screening remains unknown. The lack of a valid scale impedes our understanding of how joking influences colonoscopy uptake. This study aims to develop and validate the Colonoscopy Joking Scale, a scale of joking behaviors in colonoscopy screening. A sample of Mturk participants aged 50-75 (N = 105) who were not compliant with colonoscopy screening recommendations was recruited to rate items for three joking factors and a measure of colonoscopy screening intentions. Two joking factors (i.e., screening-related and sexual connotation) related to colonoscopy screening and one related to general health were identified in the analysis. The psychometric analysis demonstrated strong convergent, predictive, and discriminant validity. The Colonoscopy Joking Scale will be helpful to understand what joking factor is associated with specific barriers to colonoscopy for different patients so that effective educational and interventional programs can be implemented.

Colorectal cancer screening preferences among physicians and individuals at average risk: A discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Guidelines include several options for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening that vary in aspects such as invasiveness, recommended frequency, and precision. Thus, patient and provider preferences can help identify an appropriate screening strategy. This study elicited CRC screening preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for CRC (IAR).

METHODS

IAR aged 45-75 years and licensed physicians (primary care or gastroenterology) completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE). Participants were recruited from representative access panels in the US. Within the DCE, participants traded off preferences between screening type, screening frequency, true-positive, true-negative, and adenoma true positive (physicians only). A mixed logit model was used to obtain predicted choice probabilities for colonoscopy, multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and methylated septin 9 (mSEPT9) blood test.

RESULTS

Preferences of IAR and physicians were affected by screening precision and screening type. IAR also valued more regular screening. Physicians preferred colonoscopy (96.8%) over mt-sDNA (2.8%; p < 0.001), FIT (0.3%; p < 0.001) and mSEPT9 blood test (0.1%; p < 0.01). IAR preferred mt-sDNA (38.8%) over colonoscopy (32.5%; p < 0.001), FIT (19.2%; p < 0.001), and mSEPT9 blood test (9.4%; p < 0.001). IAR naïve to screening preferred non-invasive screening (p < 0.001), while the opposite was found for those who previously underwent colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

While physicians overwhelmingly preferred colonoscopy, preferences of IAR were heterogenous, with mt-sDNA being most frequently preferred on average. Offering choices in addition to colonoscopy could improve CRC screening uptake among IAR. This study used a discrete choice experiment in the US to elicit preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer screening modalities and their characteristics.

Provider-perceived barriers to patient adherence to colorectal cancer screening

Background

Average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underutilized in the US. Provider recommendation is strongly associated with CRC screening completion. To inform interventions aimed at improving screening uptake, we examined providers’ perspectives on patient and health system barriers to CRC screening adherence, along with associated system-level interventions to improve uptake.

Methods

We conducted an online survey between November and December 2019 with a sample of primary care clinicians (PCCs) and gastroenterologists (GIs) from a validated panel of US clinicians (814 PCCs, 159 GIs; completion rates: 25.3% for PCCs, 29.6% for GIs). Clinicians rated the extent to which each patient and health system factor interferes with patient adherence with CRC screening recommendations and the availability of practice interventions to improve screening rates.

Results

Provider-reported top barriers to CRC screening included patient discomfort with offered screening method (66%), cost (62–64%), and perceived low importance of screening (62%). Additional barriers included providers prioritizing urgent health concerns over screening (45–48%), not offering a choice of screening options (42–48%), lacking time to educate patients about screening (38–45%), and lacking education about available screening options (37–40%). Most frequently reported system-level interventions to improve CRC screening rates included patient education materials (57–62%) and point of care prompts (56–61%). Other interventions were less frequently reported, although variations existed by clinical specialty regarding barriers and interventions.

Conclusions

Addressing barriers to CRC screening requires system-level interventions, including provider training on shared decision-making, automated scheduling and reminder processes, and policies to increase clinician time for preventive screening consultations.

Centralized colorectal cancer screening outreach and patient navigation for vulnerable populations in North Carolina: study protocol for the SCORE randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective in reducing CRC mortality, screening rates in vulnerable populations served by community health centers (CHCs) remain below national targets. CHCs in North Carolina are challenged to reach CRC screening targets as they tend to be under-resourced, have limited capacity to implement and sustain population health interventions, and typically operate independently from one another and from regional colonoscopy providers. The Scaling Colorectal Cancer Screening Through Outreach, Referral, and Engagement (SCORE) project is designed to address barriers to CRC screening in partnership with CHCs by implementing a multilevel intervention that includes centralized support infrastructure for mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and patient navigation to follow-up colonoscopy. This paper describes protocols for the SCORE implementation trial.

METHODS

We will conduct a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial that will assess effectiveness at increasing CRC screening and follow-up rates while also assessing implementation outcomes. The planned trial sample will include 4000 CHC patients who are at average CRC risk and due for screening. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive either usual care or a multilevel intervention that includes mailed FIT outreach and patient navigation support to follow-up colonoscopy for those with abnormal FIT. The primary effectiveness outcome is completion of any CRC screening test at six months after randomization. We will also conduct a multilevel assessment of implementation outcomes and determinants.

DISCUSSION

This hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial will evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of an intervention that provides centralized infrastructure for mailed FIT screening and patient navigation for CHCs that operate independently of other healthcare facilities. Findings from this research will enhance understanding of the effectiveness of a centralized approach and factors that determine successful implementation in vulnerable patient populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered on May 28, 2020, at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04406714).

Colorectal Cancer Screening Prevalence and Adherence for the Cancer Prevention Project of Philadelphia (CAP3) Participants Who Self-Identify as Black

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths among Black men and women. While colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) reduces mortality, research assessing within race CRCS differences is lacking. This study assessed CRCS prevalence and adherence to national screening recommendations and the association of region of birth with CRCS adherence, within a diverse Black population.

METHODS

Data from age-eligible adults, 50-75 years, (N = 357) participating in an ongoing, cross-sectional study, was used to measure CRCS prevalence and adherence and region of birth (e.g., Caribbean-, African-, US-born). Prevalence and adherence were based on contemporaneous US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines. Descriptive statistics were calculated and adjusted prevalence and adherence proportions were calculated by region of birth. Adjusted logistic regression models were performed to assess the association between region of birth and overall CRCS and modality-specific adherence.

RESULTS

Respondents were 69.5% female, 43.3% married/living with partner, and 38.4% had <$25,000 annual income. Overall, 78.2% reported past CRCS; however, stool test had the lowest prevalence overall (34.6%). Caribbean (95.0%) and African immigrants (90.2%) had higher prevalence of overall CRCS compared to US-born Blacks (59.2%) (p-value <0.001). African immigrants were five times more likely to be adherent to overall CRCS compared to US-born Blacks (OR = 5.25, 95% CI 1.34-20.6). Immigrants had higher odds of being adherent to colonoscopy (Caribbean OR = 6.84, 95% CI 1.49-31.5; African OR = 7.14, 95% CI 1.27-40.3) compared to US-born Blacks.

CONCLUSIONS

While Caribbean and African immigrants have higher prevalence and adherence of CRCS when compared US-born Blacks, CRCS is still sub-optimal in the Black population. Efforts to increase CRCS, specifically stool testing, within the Black population are warranted, with targeted interventions geared towards US-born Blacks.

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

National Survey of Patient Factors Associated with Colorectal Cancer Screening Preferences

Recommended colorectal cancer screening modalities vary with respect to safety, efficacy, and cost. Better understanding of the factors that influence patient preference is, therefore, critical for improving population adherence to colorectal cancer screening. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a panel survey focused on three commonly utilized colorectal cancer screening options [fecal immunochemical test or guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FIT/gFOBT), multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, and colonoscopy] with a national sample of U.S. adults, ages 40-75 years and at average risk of colorectal cancer, in November 2019. Of 5,097 panelists invited to participate, 1,595 completed the survey (completion rate, 31.3%). Our results showed that when presented a choice between two colorectal cancer screening modalities, more respondents preferred mt-sDNA (65.4%) over colonoscopy, FIT/gFOBT (61%) over colonoscopy, and mt-sDNA (66.9%) over FIT/gFOBT. Certain demographic characteristics and awareness of and/or experience with various screening modalities influenced preferences. For example, uninsured people were more likely to prefer stool-based tests over colonoscopy [OR, 2.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.22-5.65 and OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.13-7.47]. People who had heard of stool-based screening were more likely to prefer mt-sDNA over FIT/gFOBT (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.26-3.40). People who previously had a stool-based test were more likely to prefer FIT/gFOBT over colonoscopy (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.74-4.41), while people who previously had a colonoscopy were less likely to prefer mt-sDNA or FIT/gFOBT over colonoscopy (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.63 and OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.26-0.62). Our survey demonstrated broad patient preference for stool-based tests over colonoscopy, contrasting the heavy reliance on colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in clinical practice and highlighting the importance of considering patient preference in colorectal cancer screening recommendations. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Our national survey demonstrated broad patient preference for stool-based tests over colonoscopy, contrasting the heavy reliance on colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in clinical practice and highlighting the importance of considering patient preference in colorectal screening recommendations.

Emergency surgery for complicated colorectal cancer in central Brazil

Objective to report clinical and pathological features of patients with colorectal cancer diagnosed during emergency abdominal surgery.

Methods records of 107 patients operated between 2006 and 2010 were reviewed.

Results there were 58 women and 49 men with mean age of 59.8 years. The most frequent symptoms were: abdominal pain (97.2%), no bowel movements (81.3%), vomiting (76.6%), and anorexia (40.2%). Patients were divided into five groups: obstructive acute abdomen (n = 68), obstructive acute perforation (n = 21), obstructive acute inflammation (n = 13), abdominal sepsis (n = 3), and severe gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 2). Tumors were located in the rectosigmoid (51.4%), transverse colon (19.6%), ascendent colon (12.1%), descendent colon (11.2%), and 5.6% of the cases presented association of two colon tumors (synchronic tumors). The surgical treatment was: tumor resection with colostomy (85%), tumor resection with primary anastomosis (10.3%), and colostomy without tumor resection (4.7%). Immediate mortality occurred in 33.4% of the patients. Bivariate analysis of sex, tumor location and stage showed no relation to death (p > 0.05%).

Conclusions colorectal cancer may be the cause of colon obstruction or perfuration in patients with nonspecific colonic complaints. Despite the high mortality rate, resection of tumor is feasible in most patients.

Predictors of Colorectal Cancer Screening Modality Among Newly Age-Eligible Medicaid Enrollees

INTRODUCTION

This study examines individual- and practice-level predictors of screening modality among 1,484 Medicaid enrollees who initiated colorectal cancer screening (fecal immunochemical test/fecal occult blood tests or colonoscopy) within a year of turning age 50 years. Understanding screening modality patterns for patients and health systems can help optimize colorectal cancer screening initiatives that will lead to high screening completion rates.

METHODS

Multivariable logistic regression was conducted in 2019 to analyze Medicaid claims data (January 2013-June 2015) to explore predictors of colonoscopy screening (versus fecal testing).

RESULTS

Overall, 64% of enrollees received a colonoscopy and 36% received a fecal immunochemical test/fecal occult blood test. Male (OR=1.21, 95% CI=1.08, 1.37) compared with female enrollees and those with 4-6 (OR=1.57, 95% CI=1.15, 2.15), 7-10 (OR=2.23, 95% CI=1.64, 3.03), and ≥11 (OR=1.79, 95% CI=1.22, 2.65) primary care visits compared with 0-3 visits had higher odds of colonoscopy screening. Non-White, non-Hispanic enrollees (OR=0.71, 95% CI=0.58, 0.87) compared with White, non-Hispanics Whites had lower odds of colonoscopy screening. Practices with an endoscopy facility within their ZIP code (OR=1.50, 95% CI=1.08, 2.08) compared with practices without a nearby endoscopy facility had higher odds of colonoscopy screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Among newly age-eligible Medicaid enrollees who received colorectal cancer screening, non-White, non-Hispanic individuals were less likely and male enrollees and those with ≥4 primary care visits were more likely to undergo colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical test/fecal occult blood test. Colonoscopy also was the more common modality among adults whose primary care clinic had an endoscopy facility in the same ZIP code. Future research is needed to fully understand patient, provider, and practice preferences regarding screening modality.

The future of cancer screening after COVID-19 may be at home

LAY SUMMARY

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, cancer screening decreased precipitously; home screening for colorectal cancer diminished less than that for colonoscopy and breast and cervical cancer screening. The authors have highlighted approaches for home cancer screening in addition to telemedicine.

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.

Variations in Screening Quality in a Federal Colorectal Cancer Screening Program for the Uninsured

Introduction

Screening can decrease colorectal cancer incidence and mortality and is recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Poor quality of colorectal cancer screening can negate the benefit of screening. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of screening services provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Colorectal Cancer Control Program from July 2009 through June 2015.

Methods

We collected data from the program’s 29 grantees, funded to provide colorectal cancer screening and diagnostic services to asymptomatic, low-income, and underinsured or uninsured adults aged 50 to 64. We collected data on the dates and results of all screening and diagnostic tests and, for colonoscopies, on whether the cecum was reached, whether bowel preparation was adequate, and endoscopists’ recommendations for the next test.

Results

Overall, 82.9% (range among grantees, 50.0%–97.2%) of positive FOBTs/FITs were followed up by colonoscopy; 95.2% of colonoscopies occurred within 180 days of the positive stool test. Cecal intubation rates ranged among grantees from 94.2% to 100%. Adenoma detection rates met recommended threshold levels for almost all grantees. Recommendations for rescreening and surveillance intervals deviated from guidelines in both directions. Of clients with normal colonoscopies, 85.3% (range, 37.7%–99.7%) were told to return in 10 years, as recommended in national guidelines. Of clients with advanced adenomas, 55.2% (range, 20.0%–84.6%) were told to return in 3 years as recommended, 25.4% (range, 3.8%–56.6%) in 5 or more years, and 18.6% (range, 0%–47.2%) in less than 3 years.

Conclusion

Although overall screening quality was good, it varied considerably. Ongoing monitoring to identify performance problems is essential for all colorectal cancer screening activities, so that efforts designed to improve performance can be targeted to individual clinicians.

Knowledge and practice of colorectal cancer screening in an urban setting: cross-sectional survey of primary care physicians in government clinics in Malaysia

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) was the third most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide in 2008 (1.23 million cases, 9.7%). CRC screening was shown to be effective in reducing 70% of CRC mortality. However, the screening rate for CRC remains poor.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among primary care physicians (PCPs) in public primary care clinics in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. A 30-item self-administered questionnaire was used to assess the knowledge and practice of CRC screening.

RESULTS

The response rate was 86.4% (n = 197/228). Less than half (39.1%) of the respondents answered correctly for all risk stratification scenarios. Mean knowledge score on CRC screening modalities was 48.7% ± 17.7%. The knowledge score was positively associated with having postgraduate educational qualification and usage of screening guidelines. Overall, 69.9% of PCPs reported that they practised screening. However, of these, only 25.9% of PCPs screened over 50% of all eligible patients. PCPs who agreed that screening was cost-effective (odds ratio [OR] 3.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.69‒6.59) and those who agreed that they had adequate resources in their locality (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.01‒3.68) were more likely to practise screening. Knowledge score was not associated with the practice of screening (p = 0.185).

CONCLUSION

Knowledge and practice of CRC screening was inadequate among PCPs. Knowledge of screening did not translate into its practice. PCPs' perceptions about cost-effectiveness of screening and adequate resources were important determinants of the practice of screening.

Screening initiation with FIT or colonoscopy: Post-hoc analysis of a pragmatic, randomized trial

Screening with FIT or colonoscopy can reduce CRC mortality. In our pragmatic, randomized trial of screening outreach over three years, patients annually received mailed FITs or colonoscopy invitations. We examined screening initiation after each mailing and crossover from the invited to other modality. Eligible patients (50-64 years, ≥1 primary-care visit before randomization, and no history of CRC) received mailed FIT kits (n = 2400) or colonoscopy invitations (n = 2400) from March 2013 through July 2016. Among those invited for colonoscopy, we used multinomial logistic regression to identify factors associated with screening initiation with colonoscopy vs. FIT vs. no screening after the first mailing. Most patients were female (61.8%) and Hispanic (48.9%) or non-Hispanic black (24.0%). Among those invited for FIT, 56.6% (n = 1359) initiated with FIT, whereas 3.3% (n = 78) crossed over to colonoscopy; 151 (15.7%) and 61 (7.7%) initiated with FIT after second and third mailings. Among those invited for colonoscopy, 25.5% (n = 613) initiated with colonoscopy whereas 18.8% (n = 452) crossed over to FIT; 112 (8.4%) and 48 (4.2%) initiated with colonoscopy after second and third mailings. Three or more primary-care visits prior to randomization were associated with initiating with colonoscopy (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.17-1.91) and crossing over to FIT (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.19-2.23). Although nearly half of patients initiated screening after the first mailing, few non-responders in either outreach group initiated after a second or third mailing. More patients invited to colonoscopy crossed over to FIT than those assigned to FIT crossed over to colonoscopy.

Reasons For Lack of Follow-up Colonoscopy Among Persons With A Positive Fecal Occult Blood Test Result: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVES

Follow-up colonoscopy rates among persons with positive fecal occult blood test results (FOBT + ) remain suboptimal in many jurisdictions. In Ontario, Canada, primary care providers (PCPs) are responsible for arranging follow-up colonoscopies. The objectives were to understand the reasons for a lack of follow-up colonoscopy and any action plans to address follow-up.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 FOBT+ persons and 30 PCPs in Ontario. Eligible FOBT+ persons were identified through administrative databases and included those aged 50-74, with a 6-12 month old FOBT+, no follow-up colonoscopy, and no prior colorectal cancer diagnosis or colectomy. Eligible PCPs had ≥1 rostered FOBT+ person without follow-up colonoscopy. Transcripts were analyzed inductively using Nvivo 11 (QSR International Pty Ltd., 2015).

RESULTS

Reasons for lack of follow-up colonoscopy were: person and/or provider believed the FOBT + was a false positive; person was afraid of colonoscopy; person had other health issues; and breakdown in communication of FOBT+ results or colonoscopy appointments. PCPs who initially recommended follow-up colonoscopy did not change the minds of the persons who dismissed the FOBT+ as a false positive and/or who were afraid of the procedure. These FOBT+ persons negotiated an alternative follow-up action plan including repeating the FOBT or not following-up.

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs may not adequately counsel FOBT+ persons who believe the FOBT+ is a false positive and/or fear colonoscopy. PCPs may lack fail-safe systems to communicate FOBT+ results and colonoscopy appointments. Using navigators may help address these barriers and increase follow-up rates.

The Effect of Educational Intervention Based on Health Belief Model and Social Support on the Rate of Participation of Individuals in Performing Fecal Occult Blood Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Background and Aim:

Among the screening tests for colorectal cancer, fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is important in comparison other methods due to its ease of use and low cost.The aim of this study is to survey the effect of educational intervention based on health belief model and social support on the rate of participation of individuals in performing fecal occult blood test for colorectal cancer screening among men who referred to the health centers in FasaCity, Fars province, Iran.

Materials and Methods:

In this quasi-experimental study, 200 men (100 in experimental group and 100 in control group) in FasaCity, Fars province, Iranwere selected in 2017. A questionnaire consisting of demographic information, knowledge, HBM constructs (perceived susceptibility, severity, benefits, barriers, self- efficacy and cues to action) and social support was used to measure the rate of participation of individuals in performing Fecal Occult Blood Test for colorectal cancer screening before and three months after the intervention. Data were analyzed using SPSS22 viadescriptive and inferential statistics, paired t-test, Mann-Whitney, Chi-square, and independent t-test at a significance level of 0.5.

Results:

The mean age of the men was 63.18 ± 8.25 years in the experimental group and 65.11 ± 7.66 years in the control group. Three months after the intervention, the experimental group showed a significant increase in the knowledge, perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefits, Self-efficacy, cues to action, social support and the level of referrals (participation) of subjects for FOBTcompared to the control group.

Conclusion:

This study showed the effectiveness of HBM constructs and social support in adoption of the level of participation of subjects for FOBTin men. Hence, these models can act as a framework for designing and implementing educational interventions for undergoing FOBT.

Decision Support and Navigation to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Hispanic Patients

BACKGROUND

Effective strategies are needed to raise colorectal cancer screening rates among Hispanics.

METHODS

We surveyed and randomized 400 Hispanic primary care patients either to a Decision Support and Navigation Intervention (DSNI) Group (n = 197) or a Standard Intervention (SI) Group (n = 203). Both groups received a colorectal cancer screening kit [bilingual informational booklet, fecal immunochemical stool blood test (SBT), and colonoscopy screening instructions]. The DSNI Group received a telephone contact from a patient navigator. The navigator clarified screening test preference and likelihood of test performance, helped to develop a screening plan, and provided guidance through test performance. An endpoint telephone survey and medical chart review were completed. Multivariable analyses were conducted to assess 12-month screening adherence, change in decision stage, and knowledge and perceptions.

RESULTS

Screening adherence was significantly higher in the DSNI Group than the SI Group [OR, 4.8; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.1-7.6]. The DSNI Group, compared with the SI Group, also displayed higher SBT screening [OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.6-6.7), higher colonoscopy screening (OR, 8.8; 95% CI, 4.1-18.7), and greater forward change in screening decision stage (OR, 4.9; 95% CI, 2.6-9.5). At endpoint, study groups did not differ in screening knowledge or perceptions.

CONCLUSIONS

The DSNI had a greater positive impact on colorectal cancer screening outcomes than the SI.

IMPACT

Health system implementation of DSNI strategies may help to reduce Hispanic colorectal cancer screening disparities in primary care.

Adherence to colorectal cancer screening measured as the proportion of time covered

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can reduce CRC incidence and mortality, but measuring screening adherence over time is challenging. We examined adherence using a novel measure characterizing the proportion of time covered (PTC) by screening tests.

METHODS

Eligible patients were age 50 to 60 years and followed at a large, safety-net health care system between January 2010 and September 2014. We estimated PTC as the number of days up to date with screening divided by the number of days from cohort entry until study end, CRC diagnosis, or death. We estimated mean and median PTC and used least-significant difference tests to assess differences in adherence by patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 18,257 patients, most were non-Hispanic black (40.5%) or Hispanic (34.9%) and/or female (62.4%). Approximately 40% (n = 7559) were never screened during the study period; the remaining 10,698 patients completed 19,105 screening examinations (14,481 fecal immunochemical tests [FITs], 4393 colonoscopies, 94 sigmoidoscopies, and 137 barium enemas). Overall, the mean PTC was 29.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.6%-29.5%). Among those who completed at least one screening test (n = 10,698), the mean PTC was 49.0% (95% CI, 48.5%-49.5%). The most common reasons for non-adherence were lack of repeat FIT and no diagnostic colonoscopy after abnormal results for the FIT. The mean PTC increased with the number of primary care visits (0 visits, 21%; 1 visit, 29%; 2-3 visits, 35%; ≥4 visits, 37%; all P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

PTC provides a reliable estimate of screening adherence, capturing breakdowns in the CRC screening process amenable to intervention. Repeat FIT and diagnostic colonoscopy are important intervention targets that may increase adherence in underserved populations.

Effect of a Digital Health Intervention on Receipt of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) reduces mortality, yet more than one third of age-eligible Americans are unscreened.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of a digital health intervention, Mobile Patient Technology for Health-CRC (mPATH-CRC), on rates of CRC screening.

DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02088333).

SETTING

6 community-based primary care practices.

PARTICIPANTS

450 patients (223 in the mPATH-CRC group and 227 in usual care) scheduled for a primary care visit and due for routine CRC screening.

INTERVENTION

An iPad application that displays a CRC screening decision aid, lets patients order their own screening tests, and sends automated follow-up electronic messages to support patients.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was chart-verified completion of CRC screening within 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were ability to state a screening preference, intention to receive screening, screening discussions, and orders for screening tests. All outcome assessors were blinded to randomization.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; 37% of participants had limited health literacy, and 53% had annual incomes less than $20 000. Screening was completed by 30% of mPATH-CRC participants and 15% of those receiving usual care (logistic regression odds ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.6 to 4.0]). Compared with usual care, more mPATH-CRC participants could state a screening preference, planned to be screened within 6 months, discussed screening with their provider, and had a screening test ordered. Half of mPATH-CRC participants (53%; 118 of 223) "self-ordered" a test via the program.

LIMITATION

Participants were English speakers in a single health care system.

CONCLUSION

A digital health intervention that allows patients to self-order tests can increase CRC screening. Future research should identify methods for implementing similar interventions in clinical care.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Primary Care Setting in Turkey

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common form of cancer in men worldwide and the second most common in women. The purpose of this study was to determine both barriers established by primary health care providers (PHCPs) and barriers perceived by them and to produce solutions for achieving the desired results. A four-part questionnaire was administered to family physicians (FPs) and family health personnels (FHPs) in Samsun, Turkey on 01-15 May, 2016. Sixty-six percent of PHCPs were contacted. Data were evaluated as numbers and percentages, and statistical significance was analyzed using the Chi square and t tests. 478 PHCPs participated; 49.4 % were FPs and 50.6 % FHPs. Of the participants, 86.6 % stated that they performed CRC screening on patients. The level of participants knowing that screening should start at age 50 and conclude at age 70 was 49.7 %. The level of subjects requesting the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) at the correct intervals was 29.7 %, but only 6.9 % recommended colonoscopy at the correct intervals. Additionally, 18.2 % of subjects knew that the test used is immunochemical FOBT, and 60.5 % reported not using reminders. PHCPs' low levels of knowledge, awareness and advice compatible with guidelines concerning CRC screening may represent an obstacle to such screening. Barriers perceived by PHCPs include patients' inability to access definite medical information, deficiencies in the reminder system and patients' lack of interest in CRC screening. Additions to the screening program will be useful in overcoming barriers.

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.

HIV primary care by the infectious disease physician in the United States - extending the continuum of care

Models of care for people living with HIV (PLWH) have varied over time due to long term survival, development of HIV-associated non-AIDS conditions, and HIV specific primary care guidelines that differ from those of the general population. The objectives of this study are to assess how often infectious disease (ID) physicians provide primary care for PLWH, assess their practice patterns and barriers in the provision of primary care. We used a 6-item survey electronically distributed to ID physician members of Emerging Infections Network (EIN). Of the 1248 active EIN members, 644 (52%) responded to the survey. Among the 644 respondents, 431 (67%) treated PLWH. Of these 431 responders, 326 (75%) acted as their primary care physicians. Responders who reported always/mostly performing a screening assessment as recommended per guidelines were: (1) Screening specific to HIV (tuberculosis 95%, genital chlamydia/gonorrhoea 77%, hepatitis C 67%, extra genital chlamydia/gonorrhoea 47%, baseline anal PAP smear for women 36% and men 34%); (2) Primary care related screening (fasting lipids 95%, colonoscopy 95%, mammogram 90%, cervical PAP smears 88%, depression 57%, osteoporosis in postmenopausal women 55% and men >50 yrs 33%). Respondents who worked in university hospitals, had <5 years of ID experience, and those who cared for more PLWH were most likely to provide primary care to all or most of their patients. Common barriers reported include: refusal by patient (72%), non-adherence to HIV medications (43%), other health priorities (44%), time constraints during clinic visit (43%) and financial/insurance limitations (40%). Most ID physicians act as primary care providers for their HIV infected patients especially if they are recent ID graduates and work in university hospitals. Current screening rates are suboptimal. Interventions to increase screening practices and to decrease barriers are urgently needed to address the needs of the aging HIV population in the United States.

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.

Patient Navigation for Colonoscopy Completion: Results of an RCT

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death in the U.S. Although screening reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, screening rates among U.S. adults remain less than optimal, especially among disadvantaged populations. This study examined the efficacy of patient navigation to increase colonoscopy screening.

STUDY DESIGN

RCT.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

A total of 843 low-income adults, primarily Hispanic and non-Hispanic blacks, aged 50-75 years referred for colonoscopy at Boston Medical Center were randomized into the intervention (n=429) or control (n=427) groups. Participants were enrolled between September 2012 and December 2014, with analysis following through 2015.

INTERVENTION

Two bilingual lay navigators provided individualized education and support to reduce patient barriers and facilitate colonoscopy completion. The intervention was delivered largely by telephone.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Colonoscopy completion within 6 months of study enrollment.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy completion was significantly higher for navigated patients (61.1%) than control group patients receiving usual care (53.2%, p=0.021). Based on regression analysis, the odds of completing a colonoscopy for navigated patients was one and a half times greater than for controls (95% CI=1.12, 2.03, p=0.007). There were no differences between navigated and control groups in regard to adequacy of bowel preparation (95.3% vs 97.3%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Navigation significantly improved colonoscopy screening completion among a racially diverse, low-income population. Results contribute to mounting evidence demonstrating the efficacy of patient navigation in increasing colorectal cancer screening. Screening can be further enhanced when navigation is combined with other evidence-based practices implemented in healthcare systems and the community.

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

RSNA, 2017.

The incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer: a retrospective long-term cohort study using a colonoscopy database

PURPOSE

The cumulative incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer remains unclear. Our aims were to estimate the incidence of and identify risk factors associated with post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the colonoscopy database of the Department of Gastroenterology, the University of Tokyo Hospital Records from1995-2012. A cohort of 2544 patients, who received multiple colonoscopies without colorectal cancer findings at first colonoscopy, was selected. The primary outcome was post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer; data were censored at the date of final colonoscopy. We assessed patients' background characteristics, colonoscopy findings, and cancer characteristics, including location and size. The cumulative incidence of colorectal cancer was evaluated, and a Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs).

RESULTS

Colorectal cancer was identified in seven (0.77/1000 person-years) patients during the mean follow-up period of 3.6 years (maximum, 17 years). The cumulative incidence of colorectal cancer was 0, 0.47, 0.62, and 0.62% at 1, 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. Cancer was identified in the rectum in five of seven patients. Polyp size >10 mm (HR 5.7, p = 0.023) and intubation time >30 min (HR 11.6, p = 0.003) at first colonoscopy were associated significantly with an increased incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Although several factors were associated with an increased risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer, the incidence of this disease might be low in patients who received at least twice colonoscopy. High proportion of rectal cancer in post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer should be noted.

Effectiveness of Screening Modalities in Colorectal Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

The aim of the study was to evaluate on the effectiveness of screening modalities in the prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC) occurrence and deaths. General meta-analysis was performed to produce pooled estimates of the effect of CRC incidence and mortality using a search of PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for eligible studies from January 1992 to March 2016. A network meta-analysis was performed to synthetically compare the effectiveness of 5 frequently used screening modalities. A total of 44 studies with a focus on mortality from CRC using different screening methods were included. General meta-analysis showed that fecal immunohistochemical testing (FIT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), colonoscopy, combination of fecal occult blood testing and FS screening respectively reduced CRC mortality by 59% (relative risk [RR], 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.59), 33% (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.58-0.78), 61% (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.31-0.50), 38% (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.91) compared with no screening, whereas guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) reduced CRC-related mortality by 14% (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.90). Subgroup analysis showed that summary estimates of reduction in distal CRC mortality and proximal CRC mortality were 26% (95% CI, 62%-89%) and 10% (95% CI, 83%-98%). A network meta-analysis revealed rank probability analysis in which the colonoscopy had a 94.6% probability of being the most effective examination to reduce CRC mortality. In addition, the network meta-analysis estimated odds ratio, which was a 79% reduction (95% CI, 0.09-0.60) in CRC mortality when screening with FIT was compared with annual or biennial gFOBT and colonoscopy was approximately 80% more effective than gFOBT for reducing CRC mortality (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.54). Analysis of the effects of different screening methods showed that there was a significant reduction in the incidence of colon cancer, excluding gFOBT. This meta-analysis confirmed that gFOBT, FIT, FS, and colonoscopy were all effective in preventing CRC deaths and a major reduction in distal but not proximal CRC mortality was found. In addition, they were more effective in preventing CRC incidence in addition to gFOBT. The network meta-analysis suggests that colonoscopy is the most effective screening for preventing CRC deaths.

Screening for colorectal cancer: the role of the primary care physician

In recent years, the role of primary care physicians (PCPs) in the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal disorders, including screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), has been recognized as very important. The available data indicate that PCPs are not adequately following CRC screening guidelines because a number of factors have been identified as significant barriers to the proper application of CRC screening guidelines. These factors include lack of time, patient reluctance, and challenges related to scheduling colonoscopy. Further positive engagement of PCPs with CRC screening is required to overcome these barriers and reach acceptable levels in screening rates. To meet the expectations of modern medicine, PCPs should not only be able to recommend occult blood testing or colonoscopy but also, under certain conditions, able to perform colonoscopy. In this review, the authors aim to provide the current knowledge of the role of PCPs in increasing the rate and successfully implementing a screening program for CRC by applying the relevant international guidelines.

The Relationship between the Methylated Septin-9 DNA Blood Test and Stool Occult Blood Test for Diagnosing Colorectal Cancer in Taiwanese People

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common and lethal disease in the world. There is an increasing number of cases in Taiwan and a higher rate at advanced stages. The immune fecal occult blood test (iFOBT) has been used as a screening method in Taiwan for years. A new novel diagnostic tool, the Methylated Septin-9 (MS-9) DNA blood test, had been reported to have high sensitivity and specificity for CRC detection. There are no available data in Taiwan, so we conducted this prospective randomized trial to investigate the relationship among the MS-9 DNA blood test, iFOBT, and a combination of the two tests for diagnosing CRC in Taiwanese people.

METHODS

From July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013, we prospectively selected 60 plasma samples from patients who were diagnosed with CRC and otherwise, the healthy group by colonoscopy in our hospital. Patients were divided into the CRC group and healthy group. CRC stages 0, I, II and stages III and IV were separately analyzed. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of each group to determine the relationship among the MS-9 DNA blood test, iFOBT, and a combination of the two tests for diagnosing CRC in Taiwanese people.

RESULTS

The results of the MS-9 DNA blood test for the 60 samples were divided into three groups, and the sensitivity as well as the specificity of the MS-9 DNA blood test to detect CRC were 47% and 89%, respectively. The results of iFOBT were also divided into three groups, and had higher sensitivity (84%) but lower specificity (55%) using iFOBT to detect CRC. Higher rates could be predicted to detect CRC if both the tests were positive.

CONCLUSIONS

A combined MS-9 DNA blood test and iFOBT may help in a higher detection rate of CRC. It could be offered to individuals who are unwilling or unable to undergo colonoscopy. Further large prospective, randomized studies are needed in the future.

Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: Promoting Informed and Shared Decisions

INTRODUCTION

Low-income, low-literacy, limited English-proficient populations have low colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates and experience poor patient-provider communication and decision-making processes around screening. The purpose of this study was to test the effect of a CRC screening decision aid on screening-related communication and decision making in primary care visits.

STUDY DESIGN

RCT with data collected from patients at baseline and immediately after the provider encounter.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 50-75 years, due for CRC screening, were recruited from two safety net clinics in North Carolina and New Mexico (data collection, January 2014-September 2015; analysis, 2015).

INTERVENTION

Participants viewed a CRC screening decision aid or a food safety (control) video immediately before their provider encounter.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

CRC screening-related knowledge, discussion, intent, test preferences, and test ordering.

RESULTS

The study population (N=262) had a mean age of 58.3 years and was 66% female, 61% Latino, 17% non-Latino black, and 16% non-Latino white. Among Latino participants, 71% preferred Spanish. Compared with controls, intervention participants had greater screening-related knowledge (on average 4.6 vs 2.8 of six knowledge items correct, adjusted difference [AD]=1.8, 95% CI=1.5, 2.1) and were more likely to report screening discussion (71.0% vs 45.0%, AD=26.1%, 95% CI=14.3%, 38.0%) and high screening intent (93.1% vs 84.7%, AD=9.0%, 95% CI=2.0%, 16.0%). Intervention participants were more likely to indicate a specific screening test preference (93.1% vs 68.0%, AD=26.5%, 95% CI=17.2%, 35.8%) and to report having a test ordered (56.5% vs 32.1%, AD=25.8%, 95% CI=14.4%, 37.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Viewing a CRC screening decision aid before a primary care encounter improves knowledge and shared decision making around screening in a racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse safety net clinic population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02054598.

Masculinity Beliefs and Colorectal Cancer Screening in Male Veterans

As the third most common cause of cancer death among United States men, colorectal cancer (CRC) represents a significant threat to men's health. Although adherence to CRC screening has the potential to reduce CRC mortality by approximately half, men's current rates of adherence fall below national screening objectives. In qualitative studies, men have reported forgoing screenings involving the rectum (e.g., colonoscopy) due to concern about breaching masculinity norms. However, the extent to which masculinity beliefs predict men's CRC screening adherence has yet to be examined. The current study tested the hypothesis that greater endorsement of masculinity beliefs (i.e., self-reliance, risk-taking, heterosexual self-presentation, and primacy of work) would be associated with a lower likelihood of adherence to CRC screening with any test and with colonoscopy specifically. Participants were 327 men aged 51-75 at average risk for CRC who were accessing primary care services at a Midwestern Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Contrary to hypotheses, masculinity beliefs did not predict CRC screening outcomes in hierarchical regression analyses that controlled for demographic predictors of screening. Although results are largely inconsistent with masculinity theory and prior qualitative findings, further research is needed to determine the degree to which findings generalize to other populations and settings.

Risk Stratification and Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Eliciting patient preferences within the context of shared decision making has been advocated for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet providers often fail to comply with patient preferences that differ from their own.

PURPOSE

To determine whether risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) influences provider willingness to comply with patient preferences when selecting a desired CRC screening option.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Asymptomatic, average-risk patients due for CRC screening in an urban safety net health care setting.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized 1:1 to a decision aid alone (n= 168) or decision aid plus risk assessment (n= 173) arm between September 2012 and September 2014.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was concordance between patient preference and test ordered; secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, test completion rates, and provider satisfaction.

RESULTS

Although providers perceived risk stratification to be useful in selecting an appropriate screening test for their average-risk patients, no significant differences in concordance were observed between the decision aid alone and decision aid plus risk assessment groups (88.1% v. 85.0%,P= 0.40) or high- and low-risk groups (84.5% v. 87.1%,P= 0.51). Concordance was highest for colonoscopy and relatively low for tests other than colonoscopy, regardless of study arm or risk group. Failure to comply with patient preferences was negatively associated with satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, and test completion rates.

LIMITATIONS

Single-institution setting; lack of provider education about the utility of risk stratification into their decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers perceived risk stratification to be useful in their decision making but often failed to comply with patient preferences for tests other than colonoscopy, even among those deemed to be at low risk of ACN.

The cost-effectiveness of training US primary care physicians to conduct colorectal cancer screening in family medicine residency programs

BACKGROUND

Demand for a wide array of colorectal cancer screening strategies continues to outpace supply. One strategy to reduce this deficit is to dramatically increase the number of primary care physicians who are trained and supportive of performing office-based colonoscopies or flexible sigmoidoscopies. This study evaluates the clinical and economic implications of training primary care physicians via family medicine residency programs to offer colorectal cancer screening services as an in-office procedure.

METHODS

Using previously established clinical and economic assumptions from existing literature and budget data from a local grant (2013), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are calculated that incorporate the costs of a proposed national training program and subsequent improvements in patient compliance. Sensitivity analyses are also conducted.

RESULTS

Baseline assumptions suggest that the intervention would produce 2394 newly trained residents who could perform 71,820 additional colonoscopies or 119,700 additional flexible sigmoidoscopies after ten years. Despite high costs associated with the national training program, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios remain well below standard willingness-to-pay thresholds under base case assumptions. Interestingly, the status quo hierarchy of preferred screening strategies is disrupted by the proposed intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

A national overhaul of family medicine residency programs offering training for colorectal cancer screening yields satisfactory incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. However, the model places high expectations on primary care physicians to improve current compliance levels in the US.

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.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Age and Gender: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

We evaluated whether age- and gender-based colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective.Recent studies in the United States identified age and gender as 2 important variables predicting advanced proximal neoplasia, and that women aged <60 to 70 years were more suited for sigmoidoscopy screening due to their low risk of proximal neoplasia. Yet, quantitative assessment of the incremental benefits, risks, and cost remains to be performed.Primary care screening practice (2008-2015).A Markov modeling was constructed using data from a screening cohort. The following strategies were compared according to the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for 1 life-year saved: flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) 5 yearly; colonoscopy 10 yearly; FS for each woman at 50- and 55-year old followed by colonoscopy at 60- and 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, and 65-year old followed by colonoscopy at 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, 65-, and 70-year old. All male subjects received colonoscopy at 50-, 60-, and 70-year old under strategies 3 to 5.From a hypothetical population of 100,000 asymptomatic subjects, strategy 2 could save the largest number of life-years (4226 vs 2268 to 3841 by other strategies). When compared with no screening, strategy 5 had the lowest ICER (US$42,515), followed by strategy 3 (US$43,517), strategy 2 (US$43,739), strategy 4 (US$47,710), and strategy 1 (US$56,510). Strategy 2 leads to the highest number of bleeding and perforations, and required a prohibitive number of colonoscopy procedures. Strategy 5 remains the most cost-effective when assessed with a wide range of deterministic sensitivity analyses around the base case.From the cost effectiveness analysis, FS for women and colonoscopy for men represent an economically favorable screening strategy. These findings could inform physicians and policy-makers in triaging eligible subjects for risk-based screening, especially in countries with limited colonoscopic resources. Future research should study the acceptability, feasibility, and feasibility of this risk-based strategy in different populations.

Contrasts in Practices and Perceived Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening by Nurses and Physicians Working in Primary Care Settings in Oman

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common type of cancer worldwide and it is responsible for 610,000 deaths annually, despite availability of screening tests that ensure early detection. Predictions specific to the Middle East show that this region will experience a significant increase in cancer mortality over the next 15 years. This study explored the practices and perceived barriers to CRC screening from the perspective of health care providers (HCPs) working in primary care settings in Muscat, Oman. A cross-sectional design and self-administered questionnaires were used to collect data from 142 HCPs. The HCPs were nurses (57.7 %) and physicians (42.3 %) with average age and clinical experience of 32.5 and 9.5 years, respectively. The majority of the HCPs (64.8 %) rarely ordered, referred, health educated, or recommended CRC screening to eligible patients. The only major patient-related barrier to CRC screening reported by HCPs was lack of awareness about CRC tests (63.7 %). There were significant differences between nurses' and physicians' rating of patient-related barriers such as fear of cancer diagnosis (p = 0.037), belief that screening is not effective (p = 0.036), embarrassment or anxiety about screening tests (p = 0.022), and culture (p = 0.001). The major system barriers to CRC screening were lack of hospital policy or protocols, lack of trained HCPs, lack of CRC screening services, and timely appointments to get CRC screening. The findings indicate a need for interventions to enhance patient awareness, HCPs CRC screening practices, and strategies to ameliorate patient and system barriers to CRC screening.