Colorectal Cancer Screening Adherence in Selected Disabilities Over 10 Years

Disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer among patients with disabilities

BACKGROUND

Little is known about disparities in diagnosis and treatment among colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with and without disabilities.

AIM

To investigate the patterns of diagnosis, treatment, and survival for people with and without disabilities who had CRC.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, disability registration data, and Korean Central Cancer Registry data. The analysis included 21449 patients with disabilities who were diagnosed with CRC and 86492 control patients diagnosed with CRC.

RESULTS

The overall distribution of CRC stage was not affected by disability status. Subjects with disabilities were less likely than those without disabilities to undergo surgery [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.85; 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.82-0.88], chemotherapy (aOR: 0.84; 95%CI: 0.81-0.87), or radiotherapy (aOR: 0.90; 95%CI: 0.84-0.95). The rate of no treatment was higher in patients with disabilities than in those without disabilities (aOR: 1.48; 95%CI: 1.41-1.55). The overall mortality rate was higher in patients with disabilities [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.24; 95%CI: 1.22-1.28], particularly severe disabilities (aHR: 1.57; 95%CI: 1.51-1.63), than in those without disabilities.

CONCLUSION

Patients with severe disabilities tended to have a late or unknown diagnosis. Patients with CRC and disabilities had lower rates of treatment with almost all modalities compared with those without disabilities. During the follow-up period, the mortality rate was higher in patients with disabilities than in those without disabilities. The diagnosis and treatment of CRC need improvement in patients with disabilities.

Comparative analysis of genetic testing utilization rates among people with and without disabilities in South Korea from 2016 to 2019, focusing on malignant neoplasms: A national population-based study

INTRODUCTION

Oncogene testing is widely used to detect or direct cancer treatments. Compared to people without disabilities, people with disabilities in Korea have a lower cancer incidence rate but a fivefold higher cancer mortality rate, implying delayed detection.

METHODS

We used an administrative database combining disability status and care utilization to analyze every case of cancer-related genetic testing paid for by the National Health Insurance Services of Korea between 2016 and 2019. We first compared percentages of individuals who had taken a registered genetic test by their disability statuses. We then compared the most frequently utilized tests between individuals with and without disabilities.

RESULTS

Korean citizens, 175,000 in total, underwent at least one of the 192 registered cancer-related genetic tests between 2016 and 2019. People with disabilities utilized these genetic tests at higher rates than those without disabilities, regardless of sex or age. Among people aged ≥40 years, lung and colorectal cancer-related tests were most frequently utilized, regardless of disability status.

CONCLUSION

Although the cancer-related genetic test uptake rate is higher among people with disabilities than among those without disabilities, it is still possible that information on these tests is not as readily available to people with disabilities. Therefore, it is imperative for the government to actively devise strategies to enhance national cancer screening rates among people with disabilities.

Differences in Telemedicine Use Between People With and Without an Intellectual or Other Developmental Disability During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Telemedicine utilization of people with an Intellectual or Other Developmental Disability (IDD) during the COVID-19 Pandemic is not well known. This study compares telemedicine utilization of those with and without IDD prior to the pandemic to after it began. Using the Utah All Payers Claims Database from 2019 to 2021, the study identified telemedicine utilization of adults aged 18 to 62 years old in 2019. Propensity score matching was used to minimize observed confounders of subjects with and without IDD in 2019. Negative binomial regression was used to identify factors that were associated with telemedicine utilization. The final number of subjects in the analysis was 18 204 (IDD: n = 6068, non-IDD: n = 12 136 based on 1:2 propensity score matching). The average (SD) age of the subjects was 31 (11.3) years old in 2019. Forty percent of the subjects were female, about 70% of subjects were covered by Medicaid in 2019. Average (SD) number of telemedicine use in 2020 (IDD: 1.96 (5.97), non-IDD: 1.18 (4.90); P < .01) and 2021 (IDD: 2.24 (6.78) vs 1.37 (5.13); P < .01) were higher for the IDD group than the non-IDD group. The regression results showed that the subjects with IDD had 56% more telemedicine encounters than those in the non-IDD group (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) = 1.56, P < .01). The growth of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to reduce persistent healthcare disparities in individuals with IDD. However, quality of telemedicine should be considered when it is provided to improve health of subjects with IDD.

Caring for Adults With Significant Levels of Intellectual Disability in Outpatient Settings: Results of a National Survey of Physicians

Between 1% and 2% of the U.S. population has an intellectual disability (ID) and often experience disparities in health care. Communication patterns and sedation use for routine medical procedures are important aspects of care for this population. We explored physicians' communication patterns and sedation use in caring for patients with significant levels of ID through a mailed survey of 1,400 physicians among seven specialties in outpatient settings (response rate = 61.0%). Among physicians who saw at least one patient with significant levels of ID in an average month, 74.8% reported usually/always communicating primarily with someone other than the patient. Among specialists, 85.5% (95% CI: 80.5%-90.5%) reported doing so, compared to 69.9% (95% CI: 64.4%-75.4%) for primary care physicians (p < 0.001). Also, 11.4% reported sedating at least one patient with significant levels of ID for a routine procedure. Three quarters of physicians reported communicating primarily with persons other than the patient usually or always-an approach that, in some instances, may not align with best medical practice. The percentage of physicians who report sedating at least one individual is associated with significant ID and the physician's volume of patients with significant ID.

Disparities in All-Cause Mortality in Older Patients with Colorectal Cancer According to Disability Status: A Nationwide Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although investigating patterns of cancer mortality is important in understanding the effect of cancer on population health, knowledge regarding mortality in cancer patients with disability is scarce. This study examined the association between disability status and all-cause mortality in older patients with colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the 2008-2019 National Health Insurance Service claims data. The study population included patients with colorectal cancer aged 60 years or above. The outcome measure was all-cause 5-year and overall mortality. A survival analysis was performed using the Cox proportional hazards model to analyze the association between all-cause mortality and disability status. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on disability severity.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 6340 patients, and disability was reported in 15.8% of the included individuals. Participants with disability had a higher risk of both all-cause 5-year (hazard ratio (HR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.07-1.37) and overall mortality (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.03-1.28). These findings were particularly significant in individuals with severe rather than mild disability.

CONCLUSION

Older colorectal cancer patients with disabilities showed a higher risk of overall and 5-year all-cause mortality, which was evident in individuals with severe disabilities. The findings indicated disparities in mortality according to disability status. Further, we suggest that policies that can mediate such disparities must be strengthened.

The COMPASS study: A prospective, randomized, multi-center trial testing the impact of a clinic-based intervention informing patients of colorectal cancer screening options on screening completion

Background:

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized despite evidence that screening improves survival. Since healthcare provider recommendation is a strong predictor of CRC screening completion, providers are encouraged to engage eligible patients in collaborative decision-making that attends to patients’ values, needs, and preferences for guideline-concordant screening modalities.

Methods:

This three-arm randomized controlled trial is testing the effectiveness of an evidence-based video intervention informing patients of screening choices delivered in a clinic prior to a healthcare appointment. We hypothesize that participants randomized to watch a basic video describing CRC and screening in addition to an informed choice video showing the advantages and disadvantages of fecal immunochemical test (FIT), stool DNA FIT (s-DNA FIT), and colonoscopy (Arm 3) will exhibit a greater proportion of time adherent to CRC screening guidelines after 1, 3 and 6 years than those who only watch the basic video (Arm 2) or no video at all (Arm 1). Primary care and Obstetrician/Gynecology clinics across the United States are recruiting 5280 patients, half who have never been screened and half who previously screened but are currently not guideline adherent. Participants complete surveys prior to and following an index appointment to self-report personal, cognitive, and environmental factors potentially associated with screening. Proportion of time adherent to screening guidelines will be assessed using medical record data and supplemented with annual surveys self-reporting screening.

Conclusion:

Results will provide evidence on the effectiveness of informational and motivational videos to encourage CRC screening that can be easily integrated into clinical practice.

Earlier diagnosis of lung cancer

The purpose of this article is to review options for more rapid diagnosis of lung cancer at an earlier stage, thereby improving survival. These options include screening, allowing general practitioners to refer patients directly to low-dose computed tomography scan instead of a chest X-ray and the abolition of the "visitation filter", i.e. hospital doctors' ability to reject referrals from general practitioners without prior discussion with the referring doctor.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part because of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, and increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

METHODS

Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, and key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses were performed when enough evidence was available. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in seven graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can impact this balance.

A scoping review documenting cancer outcomes and inequities for adults living with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities

INTRODUCTION

Emerging evidence suggests adults with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (IDD) may be at risk of inequities in cancer experiences and outcomes. Individuals with IDD may experience multiple barriers that could worsen outcomes and experience. These barriers may be connected to features of IDD or the healthcare system overall. Future research and program planning to support adults with IDD and cancer must be informed by evidence that acknowledges potential disparities, underlying determinants, and knowledge deficits.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a scoping review to systematically map the evidence describing and comparing cancer-related outcomes along the cancer continuum from risk to mortality for adults with IDD. We identified specific factors observed to influence those outcomes.

METHODS

We followed the expanded Arksey & O'Malley framework for conducting the scoping review. We searched for literature in PubMed and Embase databases. We abstracted cancer-related data, IDD-related data, and data related to physical and social determinants of health.

RESULTS

Of the 2796 studies retrieved, 38 were included for review. Most studies focused on screening outcomes and experiences. Studies reported that adults with IDD experienced inequities at various points along the cancer continuum. Numerous social and physical determinants of health influenced the experiences and outcomes of adults with IDD.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review identified significant gaps in the literature. Of note was the focus on cancer screening and lack of attention to larger systems of oppression that may influence poor cancer experiences and outcomes for adults with IDD. There is strong need to improve both quality and quantity of research in this area.

Disparities in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Gastric Cancer in Relation to Disabilities

We investigated potential disparities in the diagnosis, treatment, and survival of gastric cancer (GC) patients with and without disabilities.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report - Executive Summary

BACKGROUND

Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part due to the results of the National Lung Screening Trial. Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, as well as increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

METHODS

Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, as well as key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the GRADE approach. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and un-graded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in 7 graded recommendations and 9 ungraded consensus statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions, can impact this balance.

Comparison of colorectal cancer screening between people with and without disability: a nationwide matched cohort study

Background

The World Health Organization has recognized that people with disability are among the most marginalized in the world. This study’s objective was to investigate the differences in the probability of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) between people with disability and without disability in Taiwan.

Methods

The study participants included people with and without disability from the Disability Registration Database (2012) and the National Health Insurance Research Database (2009–2012). The study included 50- to 69-year-olds with and without disability who were screened from 2011 to 2012 and were alive in 2012. There were 16 categories of disability. After propensity score matching (PSM) between the two groups, conditional logistic regression analysis with control variables was used to investigate the odds ratio (OR) that people with or without disability would undergo CRC screening.

Results

The percentage of people with disability receiving CRC screening was 21.84%, and the highest rate of those receiving CRC screening (38.72%) was found in people with intractable epilepsy, whose OR was 1.47 times that of people with moving functional limitation (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.17–1.85). The results showed that the probability of CRC screening in people with disability was lower than that in people without disability (OR = 0.88, 95%CI = 0.87–0.89). The probability of receiving CRC screening differed between people with different categories of disability.

Conclusions

Although the probability of CRC screening in the four categories of disability was higher than that in the general population, overall, people with disability were less likely than people without disability to undergo CRC screening. Health inequalities still exist under National Health Insurance in Taiwan.

Disparities in prostate cancer diagnosis, treatment, and survival among men with disabilities: Retrospective cohort study in South Korea

BACKGROUND

Disparities in cancer care have not been well documented for individuals with disability.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate potential disparities in the diagnosis, treatment, and survival of prostate cancer (PC) patients according to disability status.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using disability registration data linked to Korean National Health Insurance and national cancer registry data. Totals of 7924 prostate cancer cases among patients with disabilities (diagnosed between 2005 and 2013) and 34,188 PC patients without disability were included.

RESULTS

While overall PC stage distribution at diagnosis was similar, unknown stage was more common in patients with severe disabilities compared to those without disabilities (18.1% vs. 16.2%, respectively). People with disabilities were less likely to undergo surgery (33.1% vs. 38.6%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.84), and more likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (57.9% vs. 55%, respectively; aOR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04-1.16) compared to those without disabilities. This was more evident for people with severe brain/mental impairment (aORs 0.29 for surgery; 1.52 for ADT). Patients with disabilities had higher overall mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.20; 95% CI, 1.15-1.25), but only slightly higher PC-specific mortality after adjustment for patient factors and treatment (aHR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04-1.18) than people without disability.

CONCLUSIONS

PC patients with disabilities underwent less staging work-up and were more likely to receive ADT than surgical treatment. Overall mortality of PC patients with disabilities was greater than those of PC patients without disability, but PC-specific mortality was only slightly worse.

Association of Vision Impairment With Preventive Care Use Among Older Adults in the United States

Importance

Preventive care is associated with decreased morbidity and mortality among older adults. Vision impairment may be a barrier to accessing care and health promotion information and therefore may contribute to decreased preventive care uptake.

Objective

To examine the association between self-reported vision impairment and uptake of preventive care services (ie, breast and colon cancer screenings and influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations).

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cross-sectional study using the 2015 and 2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and 2016 and 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data, national surveys of US residents conducted through in-person household interviews in NHIS, and state-based telephone interviews in BRFSS. Participants included respondents 50 years and older based on eligibility for each preventive care service examined.

Exposures

Vision impairment, defined as self-reported trouble seeing, in NHIS, and self-reported blindness/serious difficulty seeing in BRFSS.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Self-reported uptake of breast cancer screening (women aged 50-74 years), colon cancer screening (aged 50-74 years), influenza vaccination (50 years and older), and pneumococcal vaccination (65 years and older). Multivariable regression models adjusted for relevant confounders, including age, were used to examine the uptake of each preventive care service by vision impairment status.

Results

Among NHIS participants, older US individuals with vision impairment (prevalence between 14.3% and 16.3% in the different age groups; n = 12 120-29 654) were less likely to report breast cancer screening (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96) and colon cancer screening (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.79-0.99) but not influenza (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.97-1.15) and pneumococcal vaccination (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.91-1.16), as compared with their counterparts without vision impairment. In BRFSS (n = 228 649-530 027), those with vision impairment (5.9%-6.8%) were less likely than those without vision impairment to report breast cancer screening (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.59-0.75), colon cancer screening (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.65-0.76), and pneumococcal vaccination (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.99) but not influenza vaccination (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.00).

Conclusions and Relevance

Older Americans with vision impairment may be less likely to use cancer-related preventive services as compared with their counterparts without vision impairments. These findings suggest that interventions to improve access to health information and health care services for individuals with vision impairment may be needed to improve cancer screening among this population.

Barriers to colorectal cancer screening for people with spinal cord injuries and/or disorders: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Limited research has shown people with spinal cord injuries and/or disorders (SCID) are less likely to be up to date with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and therefore more likely to be diagnosed with advanced stage CRC compared to people without SCID.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to assess knowledge about CRC, CRC screening, and self-reported barriers to CRC screening for people with SCID.

METHODS

Interviews with 30 individuals with SCID were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide, audio recorded, and transcribed. Coding was performed using a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive analysis. Thematic analysis was used to identify, review, and modify themes and sub-themes.

RESULTS

Themes identified included barriers to CRC screening, such as socioeconomic, health system, transportation, psychological, and environmental or accessibility barriers. While most respondents were able to describe one CRC screening method (usually colonoscopy), knowledge of other screening modalities was limited. Low CRC literacy and misinformation about CRC screening appeared to increase respondent association between CRC screening and colonoscopy. While most respondents associated CRC screening with colonoscopy, almost half reported the colonoscopy preparation was the most substantial barrier to screening.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to addressing identified barriers such as accessibility and transportation, communication, and prevention interventions should be specifically targeted to ensure all people with SCID are informed about appropriate and various modalities and the benefits of screening. Specific, evidence-based guidelines on the use of stool specimens first with follow up direct visualization, if needed, should be developed for this population.

Screening Adherence in the Veterans Administration Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project

BACKGROUND

Adherence to annual low-dose CT was 95% in the National Lung Screening Trial and must be replicated to achieve mortality benefit from screening.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How do we determine adherence rates within the Veterans Affairs Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project and identify factors predictive of adherence?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A secondary data analysis of the Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project that was conducted at eight Veterans Affairs medical centers was performed to determine adherence to follow up imaging and to determine factors predictive of adherence.

RESULTS

A total of 2,103 patients were screened. The adherence to screening from baseline scan (T0) to first follow-up scan (T1) was 82.2% and 65.2% from T1 to second follow-up scan (T2). Logistic regression modeling showed that presence of a nodule and the site of lung cancer screening were predictive of adherence. After three rounds of screening, 1,343 patients (64%) who underwent baseline screening underwent both subsequent annual low-dose CT scans; 225 patients (11%) had only one subsequent low-dose CT; 0.4% did not have a T1 scan but did have a T2 scan; 70 patients (3%) died, and 36 patients (1.7%) were diagnosed with lung cancer. There was significant variation in screening adherence across the eight sites, which ranged from 63% to 94% at T1 and 52% to 82% at T2 (P < .05).

INTERPRETATION

Despite a centralized program design with dedicated navigator and registry to assist with adherence to annual lung cancer screening, variations between sites suggest that active follow-up strategies are needed to optimize adherence. For the mortality benefit from lung cancer screening to be recognized, adherence to annual screening must achieve higher rates.

How spatial accessibility to colonoscopy affects diagnostic adherences and adverse intestinal outcomes among the patients with positive preliminary screening findings

Background

Colonoscopy is an important procedure for early colorectal cancer (CRC) detection, however, patients with positive preliminary screening results in China may not seek for colonoscopy to confirm the diagnosis. We evaluated the spatial accessibility of colonoscopy among the residents with positive preliminary screening results in Guangzhou, China, and investigated how colonoscopy accessibility was associated with the population adherence and adverse intestinal outcomes.

Methods

This study was based on the Guangzhou community‐based CRC screening program. Spatial accessibility was measured using three metrics including travel time from home to nearest colonoscopy hospital, physician‐to‐population ratio (PPR) and accessibility indicator estimated with enhanced two‐step floating catchment area method (E2SFCA). We used Cox regression and logistic regression to assess the association of colonoscopy accessibility with population adherence and adverse intestinal outcomes, respectively.

Results

A total of 34 606 people were identified with positive preliminary screening findings. Central areas were reported with higher E2SFCA scores, higher PPR and less travel time. The model adjusting for potential individual level confounders found that PPR > 50 (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 1.88, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.79‐1.97) and higher scores of E2SFCA (HR = 3.78, 95% CI: 2.07‐6.92) were associated with increased adherence, although estimates were not significant in the model adjusting for both individual and district‐level confounders. For adverse intestinal outcomes, the final multilevel logistic model suggested a lower risk of intestinal lesions among the residents in areas with PPR > 50 (Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.24‐0.99) and higher scores of E2SFCA (OR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05‐0.82).

Conclusion

Significant inequality of colonoscopy accessibility was observed across Guangzhou. The increased incidence of intestinal lesions was associated with spatial inequalities of medical resources. Policies against the spatial inequality in medical resources should be developed.

Disparities in the Participation Rate of Colorectal Cancer Screening by Fecal Occult Blood Test among People with Disabilities: A National Database Study in South Korea

PURPOSE

Implementation of screening program may lead to increased health disparity within the population if participation differs by socioeconomic status. In Korea, colorectal cancer screening is provided at no or minimal cost to all people over 50 by National Cancer Screening Program. We investigated colorectal cancer screening participation rate and its trend over the last 10 years in relation to disabilities.

Materials and Methods

We linked national disability registration data with National Cancer Screening Program data. Age, sex-standardized participation rates were analyzed by type and severity of disability for each year, and factors associated with colorectal cancer screening participation were examined by multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Age, sex-standardized participation rate in people without disability increased from 16.2 to 33.9% (change, +17.7), but it increased from 12.7% to 27.2% (change, +14.5) among people with severe disability. People with severe disabilities showed a markedly lower colorectal cancer screening participation rate than people without disability (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.714; 95% confidence interval, 0.713 to 0.720). People with autism (aOR, 0.468), renal failure (aOR, 0.498), brain injury (aOR, 0.581), ostomy (aOR, 0.602), and intellectual disability (aOR, 0.610) showed the lowest participation rates.

CONCLUSION

Despite the availability of a National Cancer Screening Program and overall increase of its usage in the Korean population, a significant disparity was found in colorectal cancer screening participation, especially in people with severe disabilities and or several specific types of disabilities. Greater effort is needed to identify the barriers faced by these particularly vulnerable groups and develop targeted interventions to reduce inequality.

The Efficacy of Direct Mail, Patient Navigation, and Incentives for Increasing Mammography and Colonoscopy in the Medicaid Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Despite lower cancer screening rates and survival rates in the Medicaid population compared with those with private insurance, there is a dearth of population-based, evidence-based interventions targeting Medicaid clients to address this problem.Methods: This study reports results of a population-based randomized controlled trial (RCT) among all individuals enrolled in Minnesota's Medicaid program who were overdue for breast cancer (n = 22,113) and/or colorectal cancer (n = 94,294) screening. Individuals were randomized to intervention or control groups. The intervention group received persuasive and innovative direct mail materials coupled with a $20 incentive for using their Medicaid benefit to get screened. Direct mail materials provided a phone number to a call center staffed by patient navigators who addressed barriers and scheduled appointments via three-way calls. The control group received the intervention 15 months later. Primary outcomes were completion of mammography or colonoscopy within 12 weeks of the intervention. Billing claims served as evidence of screening.Results: Multivariate logistic regression showed significant differences for both breast cancer (P < 0.001) and colorectal cancer (P < 0.01). The odds of receiving a mammogram for the treatment group were significantly higher than the control group [OR = 1.30; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.16-1.46], and the treatment group was more likely to receive a colonoscopy than the control group (OR = 1.12; 95% CI = 1.04-1.21).Conclusions: This population-based intervention increased breast cancer and colorectal cancer screening in a Medicaid population overdue for screening.Impact: These findings may have broad application for reaching individuals who generally remain outside the health care system despite having public health insurance. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(9); 1047-56. ©2018 AACR.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States in the past few years, in large part due to the results of the National Lung Screening Trial. The benefit and harms of low-dose chest CT screening differ in both frequency and magnitude. The translation of a favorable balance of benefit and harms into practice can be difficult. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low radiation dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

METHODS

Approved panelists developed key questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, as well as key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted by using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review identified 59 studies that informed the response to the 12 PICO questions that were developed. Key clinical questions were addressed resulting in six graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus based statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer results in a favorable but tenuous balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible patients, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can affect this balance. Additional research is needed to optimize the approach to low-dose CT screening.