Colorectal cancer screening completion: An examination of differences by screening modality

Current Quality of Videos on Colorectal Cancer Screening for General Public

BACKGROUND

One-third of American adults encompassed by current colorectal cancer screening guidelines fail to obtain recommended screening evaluations. Educational videos are a valuable medium through which to educate and encourage recommended health behaviors in patients.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study reviewing the quality of patient education videos addressing colorectal cancer screening. Video quality was assessed in 3 domains: accountability, content, and production.

RESULTS

Forty-four videos met inclusion criteria. Out of 33 possible points, videos scored a median of 15.0 (interquartile range 12.9-16.6). Videos scored 1.0 (interquartile range .8-1.0) out of 4.0 for accountability, 6.0 (interquartile range 4.4-8.0) out of 20 for content, and 8.0 (interquartile range 7.4-8.0) out of 9.0 for production. Colonoscopy was the most frequently discussed method of screening (38, 86%). While 13 (34%) videos discussed the risk of colorectal cancer in the general population and 15 (32%) discussed the risk in those with a family history, few videos addressed those with other risk factors. Most (31, 70%) videos discussed the medical consequences of not receiving screening, but only 1 (2%) video discussed the social consequences. Similarly, medical benefits were discussed in 34 (77%) videos while other benefits were not discussed by any video. Only one-fifth of the videos address three or more barriers to screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Videos on colorectal cancer screening have excellent production quality but need improvement in the domains of accountability and content. The videos included in this analysis did not adequately address the concerns of viewers nor the benefits of colorectal cancer screening.

Patterns of initial colorectal cancer screenings after turning 50 years old and follow-up rates of colonoscopy after positive stool-based testing among the average-risk population

OBJECTIVES

Effective colorectal cancer (CRC) screening requires proper adherence beginning at the recommended screening age. For those with positive results on stool-based tests (SBTs), a follow-up colonoscopy is warranted. The objectives of this study were to 1) examine initial screening rates after turning 50 years old; and 2) assess rates of follow-up colonoscopy after a positive SBT.

METHODS

This retrospective study used de-identified administrative claims data from 01/01/2006 to 06/30/2020 for commercially insured and Medicare Advantage enrollees. For objective 1, the index year was the year enrollees turned 50. Rates of CRC screening during and after the index year were captured. For objective 2, the index date was the claim date of a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or multitarget stool DNA test (mt-sDNA) where linked lab data indicated a positive test result. Rates and time to follow-up colonoscopy after a positive SBT were assessed.

RESULTS

Approximately 53% of enrollees initiated CRC screening within five years after turning 50 (50+ cohort N = 718,562). Among enrollees with an available lab result indicating a positive SBT (N = 7329; 2110 FIT and 5219 mt-sDNA), overall follow-up colonoscopy within 6 months of the positive result was less than optimal (65%) and varied by modality; 72% vs 46% (p < .001) among enrollees with a positive mt-sDNA test compared to FIT test, respectively.

CONCLUSION

There is potential for improving CRC screening among the eligible average-risk population, both to start screening once they reach the screening-eligible age, and to complete the CRC screening paradigm after a positive stool-based screen.

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in patients with signs or symptoms of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC): a joint guideline from the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) has a high sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC). In a symptomatic population FIT may identify those patients who require colorectal investigation with the highest priority. FIT offers considerable advantages over the use of symptoms alone, as an objective measure of risk with a vastly superior positive predictive value for CRC, while conversely identifying a truly low risk cohort of patients. The aim of this guideline was to provide a clear strategy for the use of FIT in the diagnostic pathway of people with signs or symptoms of a suspected diagnosis of CRC. The guideline was jointly developed by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/British Society of Gastroenterology, specifically by a 21-member multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG). A systematic review of 13 535 publications was undertaken to develop 23 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the triage of people with symptoms of a suspected CRC diagnosis in primary care. In order to achieve consensus among a broad group of key stakeholders, we completed an extended Delphi of the GDG, and also 61 other individuals across the UK and Ireland, including by members of the public, charities and primary and secondary care. Seventeen research recommendations were also prioritised to inform clinical management.

Noninvasive fecal testing for colorectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy worldwide, with the second highest mortality rate among all malignancies. In this review, we describe the current utility of stool diagnostic biomarkers for CRC.

METHODS

We reviewed stool-related tests and biomarker candidates for the diagnosis of CRC. The guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and multitarget stool DNA test (MT-sDNA) have been used as clinical CRC screening tools. Although microRNAs, protein biomarkers, and microbiota have not yet been used in clinical CRC screening, there is growing evidence that they have the potential to function as CRC screening tools.

RESULTS

According to the literature, the sensitivity of MT-sDNA for detecting CRC was 87.0-100%, 32.7-82.0% for advanced adenomas, and the specificity was 86.1-95.2%. The sensitivity of individual biomarkers of fecal microRNAs for detecting CRC was 34.2-88.2%, 73.0% for advanced adenomas, and the specificity was 68-100%. The sensitivity of fecal protein markers for detecting CRC was 63.6-93.0%, 47.7-69.4% for advanced adenomas, and the specificity was 38.3-97.5%. The sensitivity of fecal microbiota for detecting CRC was 54.0-100.0%, 32.0-48.3% for advanced adenomas, and the specificity was 61.3-90.0%.

CONCLUSION

MT-sDNA is the most sensitive CRC screening test, and its sensitivity is the highest for advanced adenomas; however, its detection cost is high. MT-sDNA was more sensitive to CRC and advanced precancerous lesions than FIT, but compared to three years of MT-sDNA, annual FIT as the first non-invasive screening test for CRC seemed to be more effective.

Impact of Patient Adherence to Stool-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening and Colonoscopy Following a Positive Test on Clinical Outcomes

Colorectal cancer-screening models commonly assume 100% adherence, which is inconsistent with real-world experience. The influence of adherence to initial stool-based screening [fecal immunochemical test (FIT), multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA)] and follow-up colonoscopy (after a positive stool test) on colorectal cancer outcomes was modeled using the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality Microsimulation Model. Average-risk individuals without diagnosed colorectal cancer at age 40 undergoing annual FIT or triennial mt-sDNA screening from ages 50 to 75 were simulated. Primary analyses incorporated published mt-sDNA (71%) or FIT (43%) screening adherence, with follow-up colonoscopy adherence ranging from 40% to 100%. Secondary analyses simulated 100% adherence for stool-based screening and colonoscopy follow-up (S1), published adherence for stool-based screening with 100% adherence to colonoscopy follow-up (S2), and published adherence for both stool-based screening and colonoscopy follow-up after positive mt-sDNA (73%) or FIT (47%; S3). Outcomes were life-years gained (LYG) and colorectal cancer incidence and mortality reductions (per 1,000 individuals) versus no screening. Adherence to colonoscopy follow-up after FIT had to be 4%-13% higher than mt-sDNA to reach equivalent LYG. The theoretical S1 favored FIT versus mt-sDNA (LYG 316 vs. 297; colorectal cancer incidence reduction 68% vs. 64%; colorectal cancer mortality reduction 76% vs. 72%). The more realistic S2 and S3 favored mt-sDNA versus FIT (S2: LYG 284 vs. 245, colorectal cancer incidence reduction 61% vs. 50%, colorectal cancer mortality reduction 69% vs. 59%; S3: LYG 203 vs. 113, colorectal cancer incidence reduction 43% vs. 23%, colorectal cancer mortality reduction 49% vs. 27%, respectively). Incorporating realistic adherence rates for colorectal cancer screening influences modeled outcomes and should be considered when assessing comparative effectiveness. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Adherence rates for initial colorectal cancer screening by FIT or mt-sDNA and for colonoscopy follow-up of a positive initial test influence the comparative effectiveness of these screening strategies. Using adherence rates based on published data for stool-based testing and colonoscopy follow-up yielded superior outcomes with an mt-sDNA versus FIT-screening strategy.

Cross-sectional adherence with the multi-target stool DNA test for colorectal cancer screening in a large, nationally insured cohort

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most deadly cancer in the USA. Early detection can improve CRC outcomes, but recent national screening rates (62%) remain below the 80% goal set by the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Multiple options are endorsed for average-risk CRC screening, including the multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test. We evaluated cross-sectional mt-sDNA test completion in a population of commercially and Medicare-insured patients.

METHODS

Participants included individuals ages 50 years and older with commercial insurance or Medicare, with a valid mt-sDNA test shipped by Exact Sciences Laboratories LLC between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018 (n = 1,420,460). In 2020, we analyzed cross-sectional adherence, as the percent of successfully completed tests within 365 days of shipment date.

RESULTS

Overall cross-sectional adherence was 66.8%. Adherence was 72.1% in participants with Traditional Medicare, 69.1% in participants with Medicare Advantage, and 61.9% in participants with commercial insurance. Adherence increased with age: 60.8% for ages 50-64, 71.3% for ages 65-75, and 74.7% for ages 76 + years. Participants with mt-sDNA tests ordered by gastroenterologists had a higher adherence rate (78.3%) than those with orders by primary care clinicians (67.2%). Geographically, adherence rates were highest among highly rural patients (70.8%) and ordering providers in the Pacific region (71.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Data from this large, national sample of insured patients demonstrate high cross-sectional adherence with the mt-sDNA test, supporting its role as an accepted, noninvasive option for average-risk CRC screening. Attributes of mt-sDNA screening, including home-based convenience and accompanying navigation support, likely contributed to high completion rates.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer screening in a Medicare population

AIM

Multiple screening strategies are guideline-endorsed for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC). The impact of real-world adherence rates on the cost-effectiveness of non-invasive stool-based CRC screening strategies remains undefined.

METHODS

This cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of Medicare as a primary payer used the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality Microsimulation Model (CRC-AIM) to estimate cost and clinical outcomes for triennial multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and annual fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening strategies in a simulated cohort of US adults aged 65 years, who were assumed to either be previously unscreened or initiating screening upon entry to Medicare. Reported real-world adherence rates for initial stool-based screening and colonoscopy follow up (after a positive stool test result) were defined as 71.1% and 73.0% for mt-sDNA, 42.6% and 47.0% for FIT, and 33.4% and 47.0% for FOBT, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using quality-adjusted life years (QALY) was defined as the primary outcome of interest; other cost and clinical outcomes were also reported in secondary analyses. Multiple sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

When reported real-world adherence rates were included only for initial stool-based screening, mt-sDNA was cost-effective versus FIT ($62,814/QALY) and FOBT ($39,171/QALY); mt-sDNA also yielded improved clinical outcomes. When reported real-world adherence rates were included for both initial stool-based screening and follow-up colonoscopy (when indicated), mt-sDNA was increasingly cost-effective compared to FIT and FOBT ($31,725/QALY and $28,465/QALY, respectively), with further improved clinical outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

Results are based on real-world cross-sectional adherence rates and may vary in the context of other types of settings. Only guideline-recommended stool-based strategies were considered in this analysis.

CONCLUSION

Comparisons of the effectiveness and benefits of specific CRC screening strategies should include both test-specific performance characteristics and real-world adherence to screening tests and, when indicated, follow-up colonoscopy.