Racial/ethnic differences in patient experiences with and preferences for computed tomography colonography and optical colonoscopy

Acceptance and Preference of Computed Tomographic Colonography and Colonoscopy: Results of a Nationwide Multicenter Comparative Questionnaire Survey in Japan

Objectives

To investigate patient acceptance and preference for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) over colonoscopy.

Methods

Participants were recruited from a nationwide multicenter trial in Japan to assess the accuracy of CTC detection. They were scheduled to undergo colonoscopy after CTC with common bowel preparation on the same day. Some were administered sedative drugs during colonoscopy, depending on the referring clinician and participant's preferences. The participants were requested to complete a questionnaire to evaluate the acceptability of bowel preparation, examinations, and preference for future examinations.

Results

Of the 1,257 enrolled participants, 1,180 (mean age: 60.6 years; women: 43.3%) completed the questionnaire. Sedative drugs were not administered in 687 participants (unsedated colonoscopy group) and were administered intravenously during colonoscopy in 493 participants (sedated colonoscopy group). Before propensity score matching, the mean participants' age, percentages of asymptomatic participants, insufflation of gas during colonoscopy, and number of participants with a history of abdominal/pelvic operation significantly differed between the groups. After propensity score matching, 912 participants from each group were included in the analysis. In the unsedated colonoscopy group, CTC was answered as significantly easier than colonoscopy (p<0.001). Conversely, CTC was significantly more difficult than colonoscopy in the sedated colonoscopy group (p<0.001). In the unsedated colonoscopy group, 48% preferred CTC and 22% preferred colonoscopy for future examinations, whereas in the sedated colonoscopy group, 26% preferred CTC and 38% preferred colonoscopy (p<0.001).

Conclusions

CTC has superior participant acceptability compared with unsedated colonoscopy. However, our study did not observe the advantages of CTC acceptance over sedative colonoscopy.

Return to bowel screening after a false-positive faecal immunochemical test in BowelScreen (the National Bowel Screening Programme in Ireland)

Objective

Little research exists on what predicts individual return to screening after a false-positive faecal immunochemical test in a population bowel screening programme. We aimed to quantify the impact of false-positive faecal immunochemical test in the first round of screening on re-attendance in BowelScreen, the National Bowel Screening Programme in Ireland.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted. False-positivity was defined as a positive faecal immunochemical test with subsequent colonoscopy showing no evidence of malignancy or surveillance requirement. In those with a false-positive faecal immunochemical test, logistic regression was used to predict repeat participation in the second round.

Results

Of 196,149 individuals who attended the first screening round, 108,075 were eligible and re-invited in the second round, and 93,971 accepted the invitation (86.9%). Second round uptake was higher in faecal immunochemical test-negative individuals compared with those having false-positive results (87.5% vs. 73.1%; p < 0.001). Older age (odds ratio (OR) 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60–0.94), computed tomography colonography (unsuitability/failed colonoscopy) (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.21–0.73), and longer duration from screening invitation to faecal immunochemical test result (OR 0.991; 95% CI 0.9872–0.995) were predictors of non-re-attendance in the next screening round.

Conclusion

There is a significant reduction in re-attendance rates for individuals with false-positive faecal immunochemical test results. The letter sent following a negative colonoscopy is being reviewed to ensure that it provides adequate encouragement to re-attend. There are roles for screening promotion and for Gastroenterologists and Advanced Nurse Practitioners to emphasize the importance of regular faecal immunochemical tests after a negative colonoscopy.

Eliciting vulnerable patients' preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient preferences are important to consider in the decision-making process for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Vulnerable populations, such as racial/ethnic minorities and low-income, veteran, and rural populations, exhibit lower screening uptake. This systematic review summarizes the existing literature on vulnerable patient populations' preferences regarding CRC screening.

METHODS

We searched the CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for articles published between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 2017. We screened studies for eligibility and systematically abstracted and compared study designs and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 43 articles met the inclusion criteria, out of 2,106 articles found in our search. These 43 articles were organized by the primary sub-population(s) whose preferences were reported: 27 report on preferences among racial/ethnic minorities, eight among low-income groups, six among veterans, and two among rural populations. The majority of studies (n=34) focused on preferences related to test modality. No single test modality was overwhelmingly supported by all sub-populations, although veterans seemed to prefer colonoscopy. Test attributes such as accuracy, sensitivity, cost, and convenience were also noted as important features. Furthermore, a preference for shared decision-making between vulnerable patients and providers was found.

CONCLUSION

The heterogeneity in study design, populations, and outcomes of the selected studies revealed a wide spectrum of CRC screening preferences within vulnerable populations. More decision aids and discrete choice experiments that focus on vulnerable populations are needed to gain a more nuanced understanding of how vulnerable populations weigh particular features of screening methods. Improved CRC screening rates may be achieved through the alignment of vulnerable populations' preferences with screening program design and provider practices. Collaborative decision-making between providers and vulnerable patients in preventive care decisions may also be important.

Computed tomography colonography: ready for prime time for colon cancer screening?

In 2008, results from the landmark American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) trial provided evidence supporting the use computed tomography colonography (CTC) as a comparable alternative to colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Subsequently, however, the United States Preventive Task Force decided against a recommendation in support of CTC for CRC screening. Following soon after, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) made noncoverage decision for the use of CTC in CRC screening. Since that decision, there have been a number of publications on CTC and CRC screening with a strong push from the radiology community to reassess CTC as a viable option. The purpose of this review was to address focused questions concerning the use of CTC in CRC screening, through an analysis of the available scientific evidence in an effort to provide recommendations for clinicians, patients, and payors who may evaluate the role of CTC for CRC screening.

Predictors of CT colonography utilization among asymptomatic medicare beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Although the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) denied coverage for screening computed tomography colonography (CTC) in March 2009, little is understood about whether CTC was targeted to the appropriate patient population prior to this decision.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate patient characteristics and known relative clinical indications for screening CTC among patients who received CTC compared to optical colonoscopy (OC).

DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS

Cross-sectional study of all 10,538 asymptomatic Medicare beneficiaries who underwent CTC between January 2007 and December 2008, compared to a cohort of 160,113 asymptomatic beneficiaries who underwent OC, matched on county of residence and year of examination.

MAIN MEASURES

Patient characteristics and known relative appropriate and inappropriate clinical indications for screening CTC.

KEY RESULTS

CTC utilization was higher among women, patients > 65 years of age, white patients, and those with household income > 75 % (p = 0.001). Patients with relatively appropriate clinical indications for screening CTC were more likely to undergo CTC than OC including presumed incomplete OC (OR 80.7, 95 % CI 76.01-85.63); sedation risk (OR 1.11, 95 % CI 1.05-1.17); and chronic anticoagulation risk (OR 1.46, 95 % CI 1.38-1.54), after adjusting for patient characteristics and known clinical indications. Conversely, patients undergoing high-risk screening, an inappropriate indication, were less likely to receive CTC (OR 0.4, 95 % CI 0.37-0.42). Overall, 83 % of asymptomatic patients referred to CTC had at least one clinical indication relatively appropriate for CTC (8,772/10,538).

CONCLUSION

During the 2 years preceding CMS denial for screening, CTC was targeted to asymptomatic patients with relatively appropriate clinical indications for CTC/not receiving OC. However, CTC utilization was lower among certain demographic groups, including minority patients. These findings raise the possibility that future coverage of screening CTC might exacerbate disparities in colorectal cancer screening while increasing overall screening rates.

Preference for colonoscopy versus computerized tomographic colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

In recent years, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) has attracted considerable attention. In order to better understand patient preferences for CTC versus colonoscopy, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature. Data sources included published studies, abstracts and book chapters, in any language, with publication dates from 1995 through February 2012, and with prospective or retrospective enrollment of diagnostic or screening patients who had undergone both procedures and explicit assessment of their preference for colonoscopy versus CTC. A predefined algorithm identified eligible studies using computer and hand searches performed by two independent investigators. We used a mixed effects model to pool preference differences (defined as the proportion of subjects who preferred CTC minus the proportion who preferred colonoscopy for each study). Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria, totaling 5616 subjects. In 16 of these studies, patients preferred CTC over colonoscopy, while colonoscopy was preferred in three studies. Due to the high degree of heterogeneity, an overall pooled preference difference was not calculated. Stratified analysis revealed that studies published in radiology journals (preference difference 0.590 [95 % CI 0.485, 0.694]) seemed more likely than studies in gastroenterology (0.218 [-0.015-0.451]) or general medicine journals (-0.158 [-0.389-0.072]) to report preference for CTC (p<0.001). Studies by radiology authors showed a trend towards stronger preference for CTC compared with studies by gastroenterology authors. Symptomatic patients expressed no preference, but screening patients preferred CTC. There was no difference in preferences between studies using "masked" and "unmasked" preference ascertainment methods. Three studies featuring limited bowel preparations for CTC reported marked preference for CTC. There was no evidence of publication bias, while cumulative and exclusion analysis did not show any temporal trend or dominant study. Limitations included data heterogeneity and preference ascertainment limitations. In conclusion, most included studies reported preference for CTC. On stratified analysis, screening patients preferred CTC while diagnostic patients showed no preference. Studies published in radiology journals showed significantly stronger preference for CTC compared with studies in gastroenterology or general medicine journals.

Gender and ethnic differences in colorectal cancer screening embarrassment and physician gender preferences

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To examine colorectal cancer (CRC) screening embarrassment among men and women from three ethnic groups and the associated physician gender preference by patient gender and ethnicity.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, purposive sampling.

SETTING

Urban community in Brooklyn, NY.

SAMPLE

A purpose-derived, convenience sample of 245 European American, African American, and immigrant Jamaican men and women (aged 45-70 years) living in Brooklyn, NY.

METHODS

Participants provided demographics and completed a comprehensive measure of CRC screening embarrassment.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

Participant gender and ethnicity, physician gender, and CRC screening embarrassment regarding feces or the rectum and unwanted physical intimacy.

FINDINGS

As predicted, men and women both reported reduced fecal and rectal embarrassment and intimacy concern regarding same-gender physicians. As expected, Jamaicans reported greater embarrassment regarding feces or the rectum compared to European Americans and African Americans; however, in contrast to expectations, women reported less embarrassment than men. Interactions indicated that rectal and fecal embarrassment was particularly high among Jamaican men.

CONCLUSIONS

Men and women have a preference for same-gender physicians, and embarrassment regarding feces and the rectum shows the most consistent ethnic and gender variation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Discussing embarrassment and its causes, as well as providing an opportunity to choose a same-gender physician, may be promising strategies to reduce or manage embarrassment and increase CRC screening attendance.

Comparative economic evaluation of data from the ACRIN National CT Colonography Trial with three cancer intervention and surveillance modeling network microsimulations

PURPOSE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic (CT) colonography for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk asymptomatic subjects in the United States aged 50 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Enrollees in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network National CT Colonography Trial provided informed consent, and approval was obtained from the institutional review board at each site. CT colonography performance estimates from the trial were incorporated into three Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network CRC microsimulations. Simulated survival and lifetime costs for screening 50-year-old subjects in the United States with CT colonography every 5 or 10 years were compared with those for guideline-concordant screening with colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy plus either sensitive unrehydrated fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and no screening. Perfect and reduced screening adherence scenarios were considered. Incremental cost-effectiveness and net health benefits were estimated from the U.S. health care sector perspective, assuming a 3% discount rate.

RESULTS

CT colonography at 5- and 10-year screening intervals was more costly and less effective than FOBT plus flexible sigmoidoscopy in all three models in both 100% and 50% adherence scenarios. Colonoscopy also was more costly and less effective than FOBT plus flexible sigmoidoscopy, except in the CRC-SPIN model assuming 100% adherence (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $26,300 per life-year gained). CT colonography at 5- and 10-year screening intervals and colonoscopy were net beneficial compared with no screening in all model scenarios. The 5-year screening interval was net beneficial over the 10-year interval except in the MISCAN model when assuming 100% adherence and willingness to pay $50,000 per life-year gained.

CONCLUSION

All three models predict CT colonography to be more costly and less effective than non-CT colonographic screening but net beneficial compared with no screening given model assumptions.

The many faeces of colorectal cancer screening embarrassment: preliminary psychometric development and links to screening outcome

OBJECTIVES

Although embarrassment may be among the most easily modified discrete emotional barriers to patients seeking health care or testing, work in the area of colorectal cancer (CRC) has been restricted by the absence of suitable instrumentation. The current report describes the development and validation of a self-report instrument assessing two specific aspects of CRC screening embarrassment and their links to screening outcomes.

DESIGN

Convenience sampling was used to recruit 245 European American, African-American, and immigrant Caribbean community-dwelling men and women (aged 45-75 years) living in Brooklyn, New York.

METHODS

Participants completed the measure of CRC screening embarrassment, an array of convergent and divergent validity measures including dispositional embarrassment, general medical embarrassment, neuroticism, trait emotion, social desirability, previous treatment avoidance because of embarrassment, relevant health characteristics, and a brief CRC screening history.

RESULTS

As expected, CRC screening embarrassment was not unidimensional and had two reliable and distinct components, one concentrated on faecal/rectal embarrassment and the other on embarrassment arising from unwanted intimacy during examinations. In addition to demonstrating patterns of convergent and divergent validity consistent with their separation, multivariate analyses indicated that faecal/rectal embarrassment (but not intimacy concerns) predicted CRC screening frequency.

CONCLUSIONS

The current report extends current understanding by identifying the specific sources of embarrassment that may contribute to patients' avoidance of CRC screening. Directions for future study and implications for clinical practice and interventions are discussed.

Race differences in cardiac catheterization: the role of social contextual variables

BACKGROUND

Race differences in the receipt of invasive cardiac procedures are well-documented but the etiology remains poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

We examined how social contextual variables were related to race differences in the likelihood of receiving cardiac catheterization in a sample of veterans who were recommended to undergo the procedure by a physician.

DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

A subsample from a study examining race disparities in cardiac catheterization of 48 Black/African American and 189 White veterans who were recommended by a physician to undergo cardiac catheterization.

MEASURES

We assessed social contextual variables (e.g., knowing somebody who had the procedure, being encouraged by family or friends), clinical variables (e.g., hypertension, maximal medical therapy), and if participants received cardiac catheterization at any point during the study.

KEY RESULTS

Blacks/African Americans were less likely to undergo cardiac catheterization compared to Whites even after controlling for age, education, and clinical variables (OR = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13, 0.75). After controlling for demographic and clinical variables, three social contextual variables were significantly related to increased likelihood of receiving catheterization: knowing someone who had undergone the procedure (OR = 3.14; 95% CI, 1.70, 8.74), social support (OR = 2.05; 95% CI, 1.17, 2.78), and being encouraged by family to have procedure (OR = 1.45; 95% CI, 1.08, 1.90). After adding the social contextual variables, race was no longer significantly related to the likelihood of receiving catheterization, thus suggesting that social context plays an important role in the relationship between race and cardiac catheterization.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that social contextual factors are related to the likelihood of receiving recommended care. In addition, accounting for these relationships attenuated the observed race disparities between Whites and Blacks/African Americans who were recommended to undergo cardiac catheterization by their physicians.

Performance of CT colonography in clinical trials

The amount of data accumulated in trials of CT colonography (CTC) has greatly increased in the past decade. The information from these studies is shaping clinical practice and public health policy regarding screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). This article examines the performance of CTC in clinical trials for individuals at average risk and increased risk for CRC. It also addresses the efficacy of CTC after incomplete colonoscopy, when colon preparations are reduced or eliminated, and in academic versus nonacademic environments. The data suggest that CTC is effective especially for the detection of larger lesions and when more advanced imaging technology is used.

Disparities in colorectal cancer in African-Americans vs Whites: Before and after diagnosis

There are differences between African-American and white patients with colorectal cancer, concerning their characteristics before and after diagnosis. Whites are more likely to adhere to screening guidelines. This is also the case among people with positive family history. Colorectal cancer is more frequent in Blacks. Studies have shown that that since 1985, colon cancer rates have dipped 20% to 25% for Whites, while rates have gone up for African-American men and stayed the same for African-American women. Overall, African-Americans are 38% to 43% more likely to die from colon cancer than are Whites. Furthermore, it seems that there is an African-American predominance in right-sited tumors. African Americans tend to be diagnosed at a later stage, to suffer from better differentiated tumors, and to have worse prognosis when compared with Whites. Moreover, less black patients receive adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable colorectal cancer or radiation therapy for rectal cancer. Caucasians seem to respond better to standard chemotherapy regimens than African-Americans. Concerning toxicity, it appears that patients of African-American descent are more likely to develop 5-FU toxicity than Whites, possibly because of their different dihydropyridine dehydrogenase status. Last but not least, screening surveillance seems to be higher among white than among black long-term colorectal cancer survivors. Socioeconomic and educational status account for most of these differences whereas little evidence exists for a genetic contribution in racial disparity. Understanding the nature of racial differences in colorectal cancer allows tailoring of screening and treatment interventions.